Prisons in an Objectivist government

[Peripeteia]

The ideal Objectivist government, as far as I understand, grants a government the authority to provide for protecting individual rights, police, national defence, and courts and a legal system. Am I correct in assuming that the courts and a legal system provided for would include prisons?

[Grames]

Yes.

[The Individual]

In an Objectivist society, is national defence, police, firefighting department, etc to be funded voluntarily and privately as well and to be controlled by government?

Or is there going to be a firefighting company who charges a fee to extinguish fire?

[DavidOdden]

In an Objectivist society, is national defence, police, firefighting department, etc to be funded voluntarily and privately as well and to be controlled by government?

National defense, courts and police are government functions funded voluntarily. Firefighting, telephones, groceries and water are entirely private businesses.

[The Individual]

Would there be different political parties running for government in an Objectivist society?

In a laissez-faire capitalistic society, Government doesn't have much to do.

Edited September 27, 2009 by The Individual

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Even back in the time of the Founders, there were political parties in America, much to the chagrin of those like George Washington who thought parties were a bad development. The government wasn't expected to do much back then. Too much by Objectivist standards, to be sure--the post office and roads are two obvious concrete examples, regulating interstate commerce less concrete (and far more insidious)--and yet we had parties, Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist then Democrat-Republican. Based on this one might think parties are inevitable.

However, I think it just barely possible that a government truly restricted to rights protection may have so little "wiggle" room in the policies it should pursue that there's little to argue over and there may not be parties then. The cores of parties are people with similar political philosophies, but under an Objectivist government a specific political philosophy would be built into the very structure of government. There would be plenty to argue over though--where to put the new police station or military base--but it would be purely questions of *how* to do it, not what to do. I imagine there would be short-term alliances of people who want the police station on the West Side rather than the East Side with NIMBY types on the other side of town, but such alliances would not endure past the settling of the issue by the actual building of the police station.

If there are political parties, there would probably be one that is reasonably happy with the limited government we would enjoy, and another more "activist" party that would be spending its time trying to get government to do more, somehow, either by amending or or (favorite method today) ignoring the constitution.

[DavidOdden]

Would there be different political parties running for government in an Objectivist society?

If it would be possible for men to disagree on what acts constitute "protection of rights", then yes. How long should copyright be?

[SapereAude]

If it would be possible for men to disagree on what acts constitute "protection of rights", then yes. How long should copyright be?

Good question.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Such disagreements would exist, to be sure.

The only way though that parties would form is if the same groups of people routinely found themselves allied on different issues. For example, if there were a group of people that wanted long copyrights and another that wanted short copyrights, there wouldn't be a Long and Short party, at least not for a good length of time, unless (for some reason) the overwhelming majority of Longs found themselves agreeing about other issues as well (due, perhaps to a common philosophical underpinning), and the Shorts found themselves agreeing about other issues--in a way incompatible with Longs. Like say the Shorts for some reason wanted more and smaller prisons, while the Longs wanted fewer and big prisons.

(An interesting book in this regard is Thomas Sowell's "Conflict of Visions", where he claims there is an underlying philisophical reason why the same groups of people tend to end up on opposite sides of apparently completely unrelated issues like welfare, the war in Iraq, economic regulation, and gun control. I should probably re-read this soon in the light of my better current knowledge of Objectivism. Certainly his two categories of "visions" don't seem to mesh well with the Objectivist worldview.)

Long-lived parties don't typically arise over a single issue, and if they do, it's because they start taking on other issues as well once the first issue becomes "dead".

[Steve D'Ippolito]

By the way, suggestion to the moderators: the OP himself changed the topic of this thread in the third post; perhaps it should be split there into a new topic about whether under O-ism there would be political parties.

[SapereAude]

'Steve D'Ippolito'

One thing I've found... re-reading anything by Thomas Sowell is never a waste of time.

Now that is a stand up man.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Yes, there would be a need for prisons in a capitalist government, because there will always be people who violate individual rights and need to be kept out of society. There wouldn't be as many prisons as there are now, and not as many "criminals" since it would only be force and fraud that are discouraged (not following regulations wouldn't be a jail term because there wouldn't be such regulations).

Regarding political parties, there will always be honest disagreements over how best to protect individual rights, and whether individual rights ought to be enumerated or more specifically how to limit the government. I think there can also be legitimate disagreements over what is and is not a violation of individual rights -- we've had such disagreements on this forum. So, because the issue of individual rights in the particulars can be very involved -- it is not self-evident -- I think there will always be political parties.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

The government wasn't expected to do much back then. Too much by Objectivist standards, to be sure--the post office and roads are two obvious concrete examples, regulating interstate commerce less concrete (and far more insidious)--and yet we had parties

Actually, the commerce clause was very concrete: Congress has the power to keep regular the commerce between the states. It does not refer to "regulating" as the term is known today.

[DavidOdden]

Actually, the commerce clause was very concrete: Congress has the power to keep regular the commerce between the states. It does not refer to "regulating" as the term is known today.

Do you have any concrete evidence to support that claim? What, for example, would it mean to "keep commerce regular"? Does that mean to cause commercial acts between states to happen at a specific frequency?

The definitions of "regulate" in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary are:

1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary defined "regulate" as "To adjust by rule or method; to direct".

I don't see any reason to believe that "regulate" doesn't mean exactly what it means now.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Do you have any concrete evidence to support that claim? What, for example, would it mean to "keep commerce regular"? Does that mean to cause commercial acts between states to happen at a specific frequency?

The definitions of "regulate" in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary are:

1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary defined "regulate" as "To adjust by rule or method; to direct".

I don't see any reason to believe that "regulate" doesn't mean exactly what it means now.

Actually, there was a pretty insightful article about this recently in the Wall Street Journal, relating to Obama's health care proposal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3406386548.html

Also, this is a really good paper written on the commerce clause... http://www.constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm

[DavidOdden]

Actually, there was a pretty insightful article about this recently in the Wall Street Journal, relating to Obama's health care proposal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3406386548.html

Also, this is a really good paper written on the commerce clause... http://www.constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm

However, neither of these gives any evidence -- naturally, since it's untrue -- that the meaning of "regulate" used to be "keep regular". Indeed, Bork & Troy essentially grant the fact about the meaning of "regulate" that I made, and only make a bizarre argument that regulating cannot include prohibition (via lame expressio unius reasoning). The arguments are based on assumptions about intent, not what was actually said. I don't know what the actual original "intent" was, if that idea even makes any sense. If you want to argue "When The Framers wrote the Commerce Clause, they screwed up seriously by saying something that just simply did not express what they intended", then that would be a whole different argument. It seems perfectly plausible that the supposed purpose was to ban state-determined tarrifs, but that is not what the damn clause actually says.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

However, neither of these gives any evidence -- naturally, since it's untrue -- that the meaning of "regulate" used to be "keep regular".

Dude, did you even read the article?

James Madison, who argued that to regulate meant to keep regular, would have shuddered at such circular reasoning. Madison's understanding was the commonly held one in 1789, since the principle reason for the Constitutional Convention was to establish a central government that would prevent ruinous state-imposed tariffs that favored in-state businesses. It would do so by assuring that commerce between the states was kept "regular."

[DavidOdden]

Dude, did you even read the article?

Yes, I did, in fact when I read it, I learned where you got the mistaken idea that the meaning of "regulate" at the time was something that it actually wasn't. I was assuming that you were intelligent enough to understand that one author's unsupported conclusion about what a third author said about the meaning of a word does not in fact constitute any kind of credible evidence to support he claim.

You're trying to evade the fact that the Commerce Clause is the worst-written and most disasterous-in-effect clause of the entire Constitution. I don't understand why.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Yes, I did, in fact when I read it, I learned where you got the mistaken idea that the meaning of "regulate" at the time was something that it actually wasn't. I was assuming that you were intelligent enough to understand that one author's unsupported conclusion about what a third author said about the meaning of a word does not in fact constitute any kind of credible evidence to support he claim.

This isn't an unsupported claim. Madison was very vocal about the Commerce Clause in his writings, and the majority of revolution-era citizens understood this meaning as well.

From the Federalist Blog:

The term “to regulate commerce” had a very definite and well-understood meaning before and after the American Revolution. The phrase had become popularized by disputes between the Colonies and England, as well with the Colonies themselves. It was never understood to embrace any of the offices between ship and shore, such as pilotage, wharfage, quarantine, etc., all of which were regulated by colonial law and not by the laws of England. It was also not understood to embrace the right to levy duties for revenue, upon either persons or articles, which explains why there are separate provisions in the Constitution for revenue.

Just because the commerce clause is a horrible passage does not mean that its meaning is irrelevant or should be subjected to whims. The Commerce Clause, regardless of its meaning, was not effective. At the same time, Constitutional scholars have pretty unanimously agreed that the Commerce Clause had a historically-relevant meaning that has been completely bastardized over time. History shows the relevance and need that the founders felt justified the Commerce Clause.

You're trying to evade the fact that the Commerce Clause is the worst-written and most disasterous-in-effect clause of the entire Constitution. I don't understand why.

I would absolutely not evade that fact. The Commerce Clause is a horribly-written passage and was completely inept in accomplishing what the founders wanted it to accomplish. Hell, this fact is easily defended by the fact that the Commerce Clause was hardly even utilized until a few landmark cases in the 19th and 20th centuries. To deny the fact that the Commerce Clause should be banished from the Constitution would be to deny the American people a capitalist economy. But please, stick to the point. My point was that the Commerce Clause does not mean what you wrongly believe it means.

[DavidOdden]

This isn't an unsupported claim.

Why then will you not provide the evidence that I requested? Show me the proof about your claim about the meaning of the word "regulate".

Before you dig yourself too deep a hole, I also suggest that you read this article by Antonin Scalia and this article by Tara Smith (in that order). They have to do with the question of "meaning" in the context of Constitutional interpretation. The main point that you should learn from that is that the meaning of a word is an objective fact, and is not whimsically determined by the purposive wishes of an author or by post-hoc argument about what instances a framer had in mind at the time. Even the worst living-constitutionalists base their argumentson the actual words of the framers, not centuries-later bloggers. In this instance, you've confused the word "regulate" and the word "commerce" -- the dispute is not whether controlling ships is regulating commerce, it is whether it is regulating commerce.