How do I answer this argument?

[cliveandrews]

When I say that nothing that has to be provided by (taken from) someone else can be a right, my adversary often points out that law enforcement and the judicial system must be paid for by others if the protection of one's rights is a right in itself. How do I answer this?

[D'kian]

When I say that nothing that has to be provided by (taken from) someone else can be a right, my adversary often points out that law enforcement and the judicial system must be paid for by others if the protection of one's rights is a right in itself. How do I answer this?

The protection of your rights by the government is the reason for governemnt to exist in the first palce. People delegate to the government the prerogative to use force in retaliation against those who initiate the use of force or who violate other people's rights.

But it isn't paid by "others." It's paid by the citizens of a particular nation.

[Eiuol]

It would be safe to say he would also include himself as one of the others. If you want something, *someone* has to pay for it, whether it is yourself or someone else. Of course, you can't violate another person's rights in order to protect rights. So really, I think the issue is whether or not the other person considers taxation to be force. He'd probably make some argument that taxation is the only way to pay for government. If the person can't recognize that people *like* having their rights protected, and that people pay for things that they *like*, they will never understand rights protection can be paid for voluntarily.

Is it really accurate to say "rights protection" is a "right", though? I'm not sure how best to explain it, but it would also mean your rights of rights protection need to be protected with rights protection. It just wouldn't make too much sense.

[AdamantLaw]

It is inaccurate to say that "rights protection" is a right. No right can impose a positive obligation on another human being. "Rights protection" is simply a very important privilege one must pay for in order to attain.

[Randroid]

Ideally, law enforcement would be voluntarily paid for by you and others who also want their rights protected and are willing to voluntarily pay for that service. That means that law enforcement itself is not a right. If, however, there is law enforcement, you have the right to have law enforcement protect your rights, because that's what they are there for.

[DavidOdden]

It is inaccurate to say that "rights protection" is a right. No right can impose a positive obligation on another human being. "Rights protection" is simply a very important privilege one must pay for in order to attain.

While it's true that you cannot impose an obligation on another human being, it is also not the case that you must pay for the protection of your rights. That would imply that the government can withhold its protection of your rights if you do not pay, and that isn't so. The function of government is to protect the rights of individuals, period, not "protect the rights of paid-up customers". A rational man would then recognize that that means that they should contribute to paying for this protection; but protection may not be denied because of non-payment.

[DiverDad]

but protection may not be denied because of non-payment.

I am very new to this forum, but not new to the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

You lost me with your last statement above. If Government is delegated the leagalized use of force by it's citizens, then in theory at least the goverment always has the ability to force payment for services rendered. If enough citizens decide for whatever reason not to pay (although I agre that the "rational man" would realize he has to pay for his protection if he is not providing it himself), how will you compel someone to provide the service of protection to them?

[DavidOdden]

If Government is delegated the leagalized use of force by it's citizens, then in theory at least the goverment always has the ability to force payment for services rendered.

See "Government Financing in a Free Society", specifically p. 135:

In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary.

If enough citizens decide for whatever reason not to pay (although I agre that the "rational man" would realize he has to pay for his protection if he is not providing it himself), how will you compel someone to provide the service of protection to them?

You would not. The government may never properly compel payment.

There are two common sub-questions related to paying for police. One is the so-called "free rider problem", the fact that it's possible for some person to simply not pay, and they can live off of the productivity of others. That's a fact, and not a problem. It's also possibility that every man except one is a virtuous hard worker, and that the one man reaps trickle-down benefits from the productivity of other members of society. That's not a matter for the government to worry about.

The second question is, "what if everybody decides to avoid contributing to their own defense?" Put more bluntly, "what happens in a rational society if everyone is irrational?". I think the answer is obvious. So if we achieve this rational society, it will always be necessary to educate citizens so that they understand the nature of a rational society -- meaning, that they have to act rationally. The question of voluntary financing of government presumes a rational society. It is not the method of creating a rational society.

[Black Wolf]

Law enforcement is necessary because, in order for a government to demand laws be put into place, the government itself must provide the means to execute them.

[Grames]

Law enforcement is necessary because, in order for a government to demand laws be put into place, the government itself must provide the means to execute them.

This is not even a coherent thought. Please don't spread confusion.