What is the rational justification for limited govt over no govt?

[John McVey]

I would actually like to here a direct response to Eioul's question: What precisely does it mean to have a monopoly on the use of retributive force?

Legislatively, that one body has exclusive authority to formulate law for a given jurisdiction, which law specifies when and how pro-active retaliatory force may be used against someone.

Executively, that one body has exclusive authority to conduct the pro-active use of retaliatory force for the purpose of seeing justice done, both before (policing, detection, prosecution) and after (prisons etc) judgement.

Judicially, that one body has exclusive authority to judge the facts of whether or not someone has broken the laws of a given jurisdiction.

The authority is granted to the respective bodies (which together constitute the three powers of government) by the property-owners and citizen-residents of that jurisdiction, because it is their rights that are being protected by those bodies' actions. These people exercise oversight of that government by electing the top-most legislative and executive people, and who in turn appoint others.

If there are multple tiers of government then each tier deals with bodies of law having focusses that are mutually exclusive, thus preserving monopoly in their respective purviews. Also, the higher tiers are also often responsible for broad oversight of the lower tiers, such as how federal courts hear appeals about cases held in state courts, but this only operates under certain circumstances (eg how one cannot appeal every judgement in a state court just because one doesn't like the verdict).

JJM

[Tyco]

quite simply:

Courts, military, and police are the only 3 services that require force.

Lately I have been having trouble defending one of Ayn Rand's positions.

For the longest time I have taken for granted that the only "service" the federal government should provide is the protection of individual rights. That is, courts, police, and military. This is Rand's stance, and it always seemed so obvious to me that I never even thought to question it. But in arguing with leftists (I dread using the world liberal as the mainstream media does, since most "liberals" are anything but) against universal health care, it was pointed out to me that it is arbitrary for the govt to provide these 3 services (courts, police, military) and not more or less. And after thinking about it a little bit, I cannot figure out a reason why this is not true.

In any of Rand's works does she talk about why exactly it is proper for the govt to provide these 3 services and not less? I know that I would never want the govt to do more than this, but is it possible that in an ideal society there would be no government at all? I feel like Rand must have thought this through and written about it somewhere, but I cannot find anything on it. There must be a specific rational justification for it, even though it seems so obvious.

I also have read some works by Murray Rothbard of the Austrian school of economics (whose opinion I greatly respect), and he advocates going a step further than Rand to anarchy. This is only adding to my confusion.

Anarchy does not seem like a good social system to me at all. I assume that I am simply missing a piece of Rand's argument, and that once I find it everything will click. If anyone can shed some light on this it would be greatly appreciated.

[whYNOT]

Why on Earth would you want to turn Objectivism from a great philosophy into a Libertarian fraction based in silly on liners?

Ahh, lighten up a little. You know, it's amazing, I have to post something facetious to get any response here - and then get a patronising put down.

If you're going to answer at all, then be consistent and reply to those posts where I do have something sensible to add (and it happens); instead of ignoring them like the majority of fine individuals here.

And, like it or not, you must admit O'Rourke put it in a nutshell. And he's bloody funny.

Geez, you guys are going to make a commie out of me ! (Now, who said that...?)

[TLD]

It is all about protection of individual rights.

Govt. must be the protector of those rights, else you have anarchy. E.g. post 7: what do you think would happen if everyone did not delegate their rights to govt?

The fundamental rights are those necessary for our survival and achieving goals. They don't involve the use of force on anyone.

Post 8: how would they be protected without taxation?

Now, try to add a "right": does it meet the criteria of life requirement and of the lack of use of force?

[nanite1018]

Secession is something entirely different. That is where an area entirely withdraws from an existing political unit. The monopoly still exists. For example, in Indonesia, people on part of the Island of Timor went through a process (voting) of withdrawing from Indonesia to form a new country. Quebec has also toyed with the idea of leaving Canada. There was a lot of country breaking-up after the downfall of communism. Generally, secession is motivated by irrational considerations (99% of the time, tribalism). Fortunately, irrationality is the exception and not the rule.

Well, I meant secession when I was talking about "me and everyone near me decide to split off and form our own government." I simply thought that it was obvious, since that is what secession is. So your response is that secession is perfectly fine, and there can't be any laws against it, is that correct? I can't really see a way that you could prevent it, since it would not be a problem for residents of the original government anymore (provided that some aren't stranded in the new state's borders, and then it would probably be just a bu-out of their property, reparations, and transport out, I would imagine).

Because there has to be a definitive higher authority, a principle that dictates which law will be enforced...So it is not possible for two different governments to perform the function of government in an area. Men must know what laws they are subject to, and competing government means that a man cannot know what law will be enforced.

Well, this addresses David Friedman's spontaneous law from like insurance agreement's and tort/common law idea (and I'll drop it for now, I've got to think about it). But Murray Rothbard argued that you would have a body of law agreed upon by everyone (no murder, theft, etc.) and then courts and police services would compete in carrying out the law, which was set up before. Now, this I do not see an issue with, given your above argument. Couldn't you have, for example, some "Congress" which produces the laws, and then have courts and police be entirely separate functions being provided by an open market? Saying "you need to know what law will be enforced" is merely an argument for having a monopoly on legislation. Police and courts need not be included in the monopoly, as they do not affect the law as written, merely enforce it. And if they're all abiding by the same rules, would there be an issue?

I'm not saying I am certain there isn't, I just want to work through where the issue is, if it exists.

[DavidOdden]

I simply thought that it was obvious, since that is what secession is. So your response is that secession is perfectly fine, and there can't be any laws against it, is that correct?

Your question ignores a burden of proof issue -- do there need to be laws against it? Secession can be prohibited if it cannot legally be done. An individual is free to do what he wants if it is allowed by law, but you are going beyond that, you are talking about establishing a government. Government action must be permitted, not simply "not forbidden". So in the US, there is no legal mechanism for a state to leave the US and become part of Mexico, or a separate country. But there are legal mechanisms for analogous actions within a state -- a city could split into two cities.

I don't know Michigan law, but it's entirely possible that there is a mechanism whereby the voters of Detroit could decide to split the city into "North Detroit" and "South Detroit", each with its own government. If that is allowed by law, then of course it could happen.

But Murray Rothbard argued that you would have a body of law agreed upon by everyone (no murder, theft, etc.) and then courts and police services would compete in carrying out the law, which was set up before.

Law do not have to be agreed on by everyone: they simply have to be. Suppose a dozen people object to having a ban on murder, and 24 dozen people object to having a law against theft? That would not make it impossible to have laws against murder and theft. So "agreement" is really irrelevant.

As far as physical enforcement of the law -- a single, monopolistic law -- is concerned, there is room for private contracting. There is nothing improper about bounty hunters, security guards, and in general any privately-hired agent of the government as long as they are acting under exclusive government orders, under government control. The point is that force must be controlled by the governemt, but not necessarily executed by the government.

Enforcement is, in fact, the job of the courts. The court must decide whether a certain act contravenes a statute written by the legislature. There cannot be contradictions, where one court decides "That act violates the law" and a competing court decides "That act is consistent with the law". This would lead to the chaos that anarcho-"justice" always leads to. Competing courts would be as bad as competing legislatures -- it would be effectively the same thing.

[Eiuol]

So it is not possible for two different governments to perform the function of government in an area. Men must know what laws they are subject to, and competing government means that a man cannot know what law will be enforced.

I don't understand how it is necessarily true that a man cannot know what laws they are subject to with competing governments. Just as I could be subject to Iran's laws by the Ayatollah's arbitrary reasoning, I can't always know whose laws I may be subject to. But I can be sure of the laws I willingly subject myself to based on the government I am a part of (at least if that law is objective in nature). I do not see how any possible problems of "competing governments" do not already apply to the world as it is today. If a foreign government (or any similar entity whatsoever) tried to perform its functions on my property, either 1) my rights are being violated and it is an act of war, 2) a mistake was made and will be resolved peacefully, or 3) I violated someone's rights and retribution is being attempted.

[Grames]

I don't understand how it is necessarily true that a man cannot know what laws they are subject to with competing governments.

The issue is not entirely subjective, you are not the only one who needs to know what law you are subject to. The clarity in your own mind is not relevant when a foreign force is battering down your door. Ironically, the phrase 'subject to' is actually objectively determined by which government is able and willing and successful at using force.

Short of war, the laws you are subject to are objectively determined by the location of the physical ground you occupy, not your subjective willful submission to the law or leader of your choosing. What goes on inside a person's head is not objective. Police officers and courts cannot know your loyalties, only your actions and addresses. If a competing government tries to perform its functions on your property, under your scheme there is no way to know objectively to which law you are subject. Especially for police officers, there has to be an obvious standard and not some piece of paper that can be disputed and itself can require a court to make a finding of fact in a particular case simply to establish jurisdiction.

If a foreign government (or any similar entity whatsoever) tried to perform its functions on my property, either 1) my rights are being violated and it is an act of war, 2) a mistake was made and will be resolved peacefully, or 3) I violated someone's rights and retribution is being attempted.

No, it is not the 'or' conjunction you should be using here. It is 1 and (either 2 or 3). But if 1 is true then 2 is impossible, and if 3 is true then 1 is not violating your rights.

[Eiuol]

If a competing government tries to perform its functions on your property, under your scheme there is no way to know objectively to which law you are subject.

I still don't know if I'm "subject" to Iran's laws based upon some Fatwah, but I don't care if I'm breaking Iran's laws. You wouldn't know what law you are subject to, but you would would know whose laws you should be subject to; the ones you agreed upon.

If you are being forcibly subjected to laws you never agreed to, it probably is a violation of rights. If you violated someone else's rights and another country attacks you in response, there would be no moral issue with the attack. Fortunately if laws are objective, anything your government would respond to are violation of that government's laws anyway and there never would be a moral issue with retaliation.

Especially for police officers, there has to be an obvious standard and not some piece of paper that can be disputed and itself can require a court to make a finding of fact in a particular case simply to establish jurisdiction.

Of course, I never questioned anything about the importance of objective law.

No, it is not the 'or' conjunction you should be using here. It is 1 and (either 2 or 3). But if 1 is true then 2 is impossible, and if 3 is true then 1 is not violating your rights.

3 was simply to make a distinction between attacks as self-defense, and initiation of force. 2 still be a violation of rights but not lead to warfare as in guns and bombs. In any case it would not be possible to be simultaneously subject to both governments without some immediate consequence. It would be quite obvious whose laws you are being subject to. Unless there is a "World Government" and only one "World Government", these situations could still occur. Or does that mean anything less than a world government implies competing government?

[Grames]

I still don't know if I'm "subject" to Iran's laws based upon some Fatwah, but I don't care if I'm breaking Iran's laws. You wouldn't know what law you are subject to, but you would would know whose laws you should be subject to; the ones you agreed upon.

If you are being forcibly subjected to laws you never agreed to, it probably is a violation of rights. If you violated someone else's rights and another country attacks you in response, there would be no moral issue with the attack. Fortunately if laws are objective, anything your government would respond to are violation of that government's laws anyway and there never would be a moral issue with retaliation.

Why don't you know? You live in New Jersey not Iran, therefore you are not subject to the laws of Iran. If you were a shiite muslim you might think you should be subject to the laws of Iran while in New Jersey, but you would be wrong, objectively wrong.

Laws are (or should be) objective. Rights are objective. Violations of rights are objective. Agreement never enters into it. Probability never enters into it.

Agreements can define what particular concretes are your property, but the principle of property rights does not derive from such agreements. It is the opposite, the principle of property rights justifies your ability to enter into agreements concerning using and disposing property.

The moral justification for retaliation does not create automatically a legal right to retaliate. A government that disregards another governments claims of jurisdiction by attacking instead of making an extradition request is engaging in an act of war, and that does create a moral issue.

Of course, I never questioned anything about the importance of objective law.

Objectivity applied to law and law enforcement is precisely the issue here. Conceding its importance is an empty gesture if you don't apply it.

Unless there is a "World Government" and only one "World Government", these situations could still occur. Or does that mean anything less than a world government implies competing government?

Yes. Competing governments exist already. Even drug gangs have their territories. The competition of governments and gangs is competition over territory, not loyalty.

[DavidOdden]

You wouldn't know what law you are subject to, but you would would know whose laws you should be subject to; the ones you agreed upon.

If it turns out that you agree to all and only the laws that are objectively necessary to protect man's rights, then fine. But what is the point of distinguishing between the laws that you should be subject to and the ones that you are subject to? Are you claiming that you are morally omniscient? What if you violate a law that I agree with: don't I have a right to have the law enforced, to have my rights protected? Should you be punished for your violation of my rights, even if you don't understand that you violated by rights?

Tell me, for how many years should you respect the rights to my intellectual property?

[Dr. Dave]

Re: "If you wish to live in a society where each person can "CLAIM" self defense and use force at their whim, then what you are wishing for is anarchy. What Rand is describing is not delegating the actual right of your own self-defense so much as you are allowing for an OBJECTIVE measure to be established for when there is a conflict."

What's missing in the Rand/Binswanger discussion of "competing governments" is an understanding of the role of custom, or convention, in regulating the behavior of people who interact. We all know how to construct grammatically correct English sentences, and can spot an incorrect sentence, for example. The rules of grammar are OBJECTIVE, not a matter of whim. But nobody forces us to obey them. There is no regulating power. In a free society, people will need to protect themselves against force and fraud. Thus, there would need to be some unified, common understanding of what you do when you feel you're a victim, how the issue is to be decided, what will happen to people who refuse to obey reasonable requests to testify so issues can be resolved, or to pay restitution, and so on, in accordance with the conventions of a given society. That does not mean there needs to be a government, in the sense of an organization that has the right to prevent other people from entering into peaceful and voluntary contracts. A government, in the sense of an organization with an enforceable monopoly on the defense of rights in a given geographic area, does by definition have the authority to prevent other people from entering into peaceful and voluntary contracts, and so it is unjust. An organization that had a natural, or de facto, monopoly would not be unjust however, and one can call that a government if one wants, but it stretches the meaning pretty far.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Dr. Dave

[DavidOdden]

That does not mean there needs to be a government, in the sense of an organization that has the right to prevent other people from entering into peaceful and voluntary contracts.

Indeed not; in fact that is not what a government is. A government is an organization whose purpose is to control the use of force, i.e. to prevent other people preventing people from entering into peaceful and voluntary contracts.

A government...

does by definition have the authority to prevent other people from entering into peaceful and voluntary contracts, and so it is unjust.

An improper government may have the power to prevent other people from entering into contracts, but that does not mean that it has the proper authority to do so. The thing that the government has the right to do is prevent others from using force.

[Grames]

That does not mean there needs to be a government, in the sense of an organization that has the right to prevent other people from entering into peaceful and voluntary contracts. A government, in the sense of an organization with an enforceable monopoly on the defense of rights in a given geographic area, does by definition have the authority to prevent other people from entering into peaceful and voluntary contracts, and so it is unjust.

What is the definition that leads without non sequitor to this "by definition" assertion about interfering in contracts?

[Dr. Dave]

What is the definition that leads without non sequitor to this "by definition" assertion about interfering in contracts?

The definition of "monopoly."

Suppose the people in a town are purchasing protection and arbitration services from United Protection Services. But Sally, a peaceful, non-invasive individual, simply doesn't like the way they do business. She wishes instead to purchase protection and arbitration services from the Acme Protection Group. People shop around for services from different companies all the time in a free market. Now there are going to be 2 protection providers in the same geographical area. Either (A) there are now "competing governments" (although that term is not the right one, but it's the one Ayn Rand used for this situation), or ( we prevent this by prohibiting Sally from entering into this contract. Is there an option ©? Of (A) and (, which one necessarily violates the rights of a non-invasive individual?

United Protection Services and the Acme Protection Group can operate in the same or overlapping geographical areas based on a set of mutual understandings between themselves; possibly written -- like treaties between governments -- but also possibly unwritten customs and traditions. It is in the self-interest of both parties to reach and adhere to such understandings. What is called "common law" is not "laws" passed by government legislatures, but the accumulated wisdom of decisions on disputes, originally made by Anglo Saxon tribal elders and councils, over many hundreds of years, that provide objective standard operating procedures for resolving new disputes.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Dr. Dave

[freestyle]

United Protection Services and the Acme Protection Group can operate in the same or overlapping geographical areas based on a set of mutual understandings between themselves; possibly written -- like treaties between governments -- but also possibly unwritten customs and traditions. It is in the self-interest of both parties to reach and adhere to such understandings.

I don't believe you can support that crucial claim (in red).

Let me introduce to you BSE (Big Stick Enforcers). This company operates under the premise that 1.) compared to themselves, other protection companies are sub-standard, and 2.) sub standard protection companies operating in overlapping areas with them invite danger and risk to THEIR customers.

The have found that the prosperity of their company and the safety of their clients is enhanced by their maintaing total control over their domain. They reject treaties of these smaller or "inferior" start up protection companies. The submit to no "arbitration" from or recognize any "higher authority". In fact, the will ENFORCE their "safe town" policies (i.e. certain, no-fire arm zones) against other protection company employees (even at the risk of possible conflict, which their strength and dominance has so far deemed necessary only on very few, but notable, occasions). BSE's record of protection is outstanding, and for this protection, their services remain in high demand.

BSE says "no". Our rules. Now, what about Sally?

Edited December 4, 2009 by freestyle

[DavidOdden]

Suppose the people in a town are purchasing protection and arbitration services from United Protection Services. But Sally, a peaceful, non-invasive individual, simply doesn't like the way they do business.

You have an invalid presupposition: "force" is not a market service, so people in a town will not purchase "force services" from anyone. The use of force is not something that can be contracted.

What is called "common law" is not "laws" passed by government legislatures, but the accumulated wisdom of decisions on disputes, originally made by Anglo Saxon tribal elders and councils, over many hundreds of years, that provide objective standard operating procedures for resolving new disputes.

As a matter of fact that is not true. "Common law" was created by the Normans. The foundation of common law (judicial decisions, court reports, the practice of royal officials announcing "the common law" and having a single system of law) were not part of Anglo-Saxon tribal law.

[Grames]

The definition of "monopoly."

Suppose the people in a town are purchasing protection and arbitration services from United Protection Services. But Sally, a peaceful, non-invasive individual, simply doesn't like the way they do business. She wishes instead to purchase protection and arbitration services from the Acme Protection Group. People shop around for services from different companies all the time in a free market. Now there are going to be 2 protection providers in the same geographical area. Either (A) there are now "competing governments" (although that term is not the right one, but it's the one Ayn Rand used for this situation), or ( we prevent this by prohibiting Sally from entering into this contract. Is there an option ©? Of (A) and (, which one necessarily violates the rights of a non-invasive individual?

You describe security guards and arbitrators. Government provides retaliatory use of force, not preventive. Non sequitor.

[Bob G]

You describe security guards and arbitrators. Government provides retaliatory use of force, not preventive. Non sequitor.

You are correct about the non sequitor and the idiocy of competing governments. However, I would not dismiss preventive measures from a police force. (Arbitrators, I agree.)

The idea of the beat cop is preventive, as well as some of the measures taken in NYC in recent years.

And remember the full page ad a few years ago in which Dr. Peikoff and two other authors condemned the NYC police for not providing protection for the Rushdie publisher when the muslims threatened (my name was proudly on that ad). I think that there are many things that police could do that would be preventive. That probably would not include permanent security guards generally, perhaps, and certainly not anything preemptive.

[Dr. Dave]

"You have an invalid presupposition: "force" is not a market service, so people in a town will not purchase "force services" from anyone. The use of force is not something that can be contracted."

This is a very interesting point. I had not heard the argument put this way before. It goes a step beyond the "archy defense" in The Nature of Government. I am not yet convinced however --

Suppose I have the right to do X. On what rational basis am I prohibited from contracting with some other person to do X on my behalf? Substitute for X "retaliate against aggression." Since you can't initiate aggression, you can't purchase it. But you can purchase retaliatory force. Any right that a person has, they can delegate to another agent if they so choose. To try to prevent them from doing this is to initiate force against them.

[DavidOdden]

But you can purchase retaliatory force.

No, that is false. That is the anarchist position.

[Dr. Dave]

"You describe security guards and arbitrators. Government provides retaliatory use of force, not preventive."

Protection is a broad term that covers everything involved in obtaining redress for injury or damage: policing services -- including detective work to catch aggressors, etc., the judicial services required to examine evidence, etc., and "corrections" services to keep people safe from dangerous people.

The issue is whether there is a rational justification for these services being concentrated in one monopoly provider organization in a given geographical area.

[Dr. Dave]

"Common law" was created by the Normans. The foundation of common law (judicial decisions, court reports, the practice of royal officials announcing "the common law" and having a single system of law) were not part of Anglo-Saxon tribal law."

Yes you are sort of right. A recent chapter on Anglo-Saxon Law says that "... many customs of Anglo-Saxon law evolved into a form that survives in English and American common law" (p. 251). So there is a distinction between the 2, but not one that affects my point. Here is the url for the chapter:

http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/...o-saxon-law.pdf

I remember hearing once that the reason why many legal terms seem almost duplicate -- e.g. "assault and battery", "will and testament" -- is because one word has an English origin and the other is it's French origin counterpart. So common law grew out of some sort of mixture of traditions of the conquerer and traditions of the conquered.

[Grames]

But you can purchase retaliatory force. Any right that a person has, they can delegate to another agent if they so choose. To try to prevent them from doing this is to initiate force against them.

Protection is a broad term that covers everything involved in obtaining redress for injury or damage: policing services -- including detective work to catch aggressors, etc., the judicial services required to examine evidence, etc., and "corrections" services to keep people safe from dangerous people.

This package deal is too much. Where there is a government, people do not have a broad right to retaliatory use of force. The inalienable right of self-defense which remains with the individual does not encompass punishment or enforced restoration. What they do not have cannot be delegated.

[Dr. Dave]

This package deal is too much. Where there is a government, people do not have a broad right to retaliatory use of force. The inalienable right of self-defense which remains with the individual does not encompass punishment or enforced restoration. What they do not have cannot be delegated.

If I attempt to delegate my right of retaliation, do I thereby initiate the use of force? If I do not thereby initiate the use of force, why isn't it the person who prevents me the one who initiates force?