Grames Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 There is nothing wrong with having more than one police force, and to say otherwise is to effectively regulate an individual's options in emergency situations. There cannot be a justified objective law which states: "Only one police force is permitted". How the hell did you you come up with this little rule that an individual's options in emergency situations may not be limited? How does it lead to "I should be able to call as many different police forces as I want" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 Consider a society with an O'ist Constitution wherein the use of initiatory force is prohibited by an objective rule of law. Initially, this rule of law is not intrinsically monopolized by any individual or group of individuals. However, this rule of law is agreed upon by each individual living in the society. It follows that since a society consists of solely individuals, it is ultimately up to the individuals to ensure that the rule of law is objectively enforced so that natural rights are guaranteed. Provided that there are no conflicts of interests among rational men, two separate rational individuals can objectively enforce the rule of law without conflicting interests. Given a crime is committed and an individual initiates force, it is the responsibility of an individual (not necessarily the victim) to report that crime and take action to prevent it from occurring again. "this rule of law" is not necessarily agreed to by each individual living in a society; there are plenty of badasses out there who think the rules are for suckers. Do you suppose Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer or the average bank robber agree to these rules? Objective laws are there to be applied to the people who do _not_ agree with them, whether they like it or not, because they are violating the rights the laws are intended to protect. This is related to the similarly mistaken notion of government by contract that keeps cropping up in threads from time to time. Government cannot be by unanimous consent or you would need a criminal's consent to arrest him, try him, and (upon conviction) punish him. Competing law agencies is again a non-starter _unless_ there is an overarching law agency that delegates its powers. Without such, one could form his own law agency and declare himself under the protection of same and accuse the other agencies of trying to kidnap him, when in fact they are trying to arrest him for murder. Ultimately there would need to be an authority to recognize the legitimate law agencies and that authority would have to be able to enforce its decisions. Which brings us back to having a _single_ government. This is all part and parcel of the same bogosities that Ayn Rand and other Objectivists have refuted, time and time again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazingtruth Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Perhaps I'm no good at conveying the thought, but I'll give it another shot. Beyond "no individual may initiate force against another individual", why does it follow that there can only be one police force? Any laws which suggest anything beyond that are effectively regulating my individual liberties. An individual is only limited by his own capabilities in accordance with his environment. There is nothing which permits the possibility of competing police forces from coming to fruition so long as an objective implementation of the law is enacted. That is to say that it doesn't matter WHICH police force gets there first, as long as they fulfill the obligation of following the objective law. In short, to claim that since there are two police forces that one would not be objective is completely unfounded in reality. Same applies for court systems. Other possibilities such as alternative police forces cannot be limited by a government whose sole aim is to prevent initiatory force, if they are not illegal in operation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazingtruth Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 "this rule of law" is not necessarily agreed to by each individual living in a society; there are plenty of badasses out there who think the rules are for suckers. Do you suppose Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer or the average bank robber agree to these rules? Objective laws are there to be applied to the people who do _not_ agree with them, whether they like it or not, because they are violating the rights the laws are intended to protect. This is true, and I do realize I may have suggested that everybody will abide by it. I stand corrected. Competing law agencies is again a non-starter _unless_ there is an overarching law agency that delegates its powers. Without such, one could form his own law agency and declare himself under the protection of same and accuse the other agencies of trying to kidnap him, when in fact they are trying to arrest him for murder. Ultimately there would need to be an authority to recognize the legitimate law agencies and that authority would have to be able to enforce its decisions. Which brings us back to having a _single_ government. Why ought we consider a police force a necessary authority? After all, it is merely a group of individuals. I've seen critiques of anarcho-capitalism and the competing police forces compared to lynch mobs. What difference is a recognized police force different than a lynch mob? Isn't the police simply an accepted form of a lynch mob? There are no conflicts of interests among rational men, and likewise there is no disputes among objective lynch mobs, if you will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Why ought we consider a police force a necessary authority? After all, it is merely a group of individuals. I've seen critiques of anarcho-capitalism and the competing police forces compared to lynch mobs. What difference is a recognized police force different than a lynch mob? Isn't the police simply an accepted form of a lynch mob? There are no conflicts of interests among rational men, and likewise there is no disputes among objective lynch mobs, if you will. A lynch mob is extrajudicial force, and is therefore illegitimate, even by your own premises. An “objective lynch mob” is a contradiction in terms, in other words. The whole point of organized retaliatory force is to bring this necessary and beneficial activity under the subordination of moral objectivity. That's why it follows that only one jurisdiction of law and order should exist, because justice requires that even retaliatory force should not be left at the discretion of each individual person. It doesn't really have anything to do with “conflicts of interest.” I suppose though, the point you are trying to make is that as long as objective law is followed, everyone has a right to retaliate on their own, but that is the same self-contradiction as "obejctive lynch mob" isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Perhaps I'm no good at conveying the thought, but I'll give it another shot. Beyond "no individual may initiate force against another individual", why does it follow that there can only be one police force? It does not follow. Your expectation of being able to rationalistically tease out the whole of an objective legal system by deducing from a single principle is wrong. People squabble, dispute and fight. People do this at every legal level of a single dispute. There are the participants in the incident, there the the policeman who may differ on how to handle the scene, there are lawyers advocating for their clients and judges with differing interpretations of the law. These are facts validated by observation of the present day and throughout history. There are perfectly understandable reasons why this is so and will always be so: people have differing contexts, people are fallible, people can be evil, natural disasters can have economic consequences. Objective law will never stop that quarrelsomeness, it is instead a means to cope with it. Objective law is itself subject to dispute, argument, and differences in judicial philosophy. How can there be agreement on what the objective law is? It is inadequate to rely on persuasion and rationality alone. Some people will not be persuaded and that is the problem to be solved by the law, if it could be assumed away then there is no need for any law at all and anarchism would be justified. In disputes of force the greater force wins. Other things being equal the greater force resides on the side of the majority. The very nature of force rewards collective action. It is in the interest of rational men to join their political systems together to maintain a rational majority and so prevent their losing a contest of force, up to the natural limits of geography and the human limits of language barriers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazingtruth Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 The whole point of organized retaliatory force is to bring this necessary and beneficial activity under the subordination of moral objectivity. That's why it follows that only one jurisdiction of law and order should exist I'm not 100% clear on what you mean by moral objectivity. Two or more organized retaliatory forces can produce and ensure the same result under an objective law. Is this not an accurate interpretation of "there can be no conflicts of interests amongst rational men"? I suppose your key word is subordination. In a business contract, the laborer is subordinate to the employer; likewise each individual is subordinate to the rule of law. Why is it necessary that the enforcers of law have more authority (by law) than the criminals? Surely, they should have more physical force at hand. As of right now, if a single criminal can overpower the police, military, and society he can commit whatever crime he wishes (despite the authority of the officers). In essence, how does legal authority have any bearing on physical force? People squabble, dispute and fight. People do this at every legal level of a single dispute. There are the participants in the incident, there the the policeman who may differ on how to handle the scene, there are lawyers advocating for their clients and judges with differing interpretations of the law. My argument here is that under an objective law, there would not be any differing interpretations of the law: it would be crystal clear. Again, no conflicts of interests. Yes a third party is absolutely needed, but what is wrong with having a fourth party, fifth party, sixth.... Given they all will say the same thing because they have an objective interpretation of the objective law. A policeman is no different than another layman, and is no different than myself. His job is to ensure the law is being followed. Objective law is itself subject to dispute, argument, and differences in judicial philosophy I do not believe this to be true, could you explain this further? And I agree completely with your last point, the greater force can never lose. In an society with competing police forces, with all the police agreeing on the Objective law, it would take a revolution to overpower them -- as is the case with all societies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazingtruth Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 I suppose though, the point you are trying to make is that as long as objective law is followed, everyone has a right to retaliate on their own, but that is the same self-contradiction as "obejctive lynch mob" isn't it? Retaliate in accordance to the Objective law, that is. If a guy steals a piece of candy, retaliation cannot objectively be murder in self-defense. A police force is essentially a legal 'gang' of good guys. If they get over powered by the criminals, well that just sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 To clarify something--it doesn't necessarily have to be a _standing_ police force. There could be one sheriff (for example) who deputizes people when a gang of badasses tries to move into town. I believe crime levels would be a lot less under an Objectivist society than they are today, even if we discount today's levels of drug use, drug dealing, and tax evasion (none of which would be relevant in an Objectivist society. Much violent crime today stems from drug dealers defending their turf, etc--activities ancillary to dealing drugs-- or people stealing to make money for their next "fix" which is artificially highly priced due to being illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 I'm not 100% clear on what you mean by moral objectivity. Two or more organized retaliatory forces can produce and ensure the same result under an objective law. What exactly do you mean, 'under an objective law?' Do you mean that there is a single, supreme, codified legal authority which establishes conditions under which force can be used? If so, then we're already talking about government. Sure, there can be multiple organizations charged with carrying out this law; in today's America, there's a different one for every city, and every county, and there are numerous state and federal organizations as well. What makes this different from anarchy is precisely the fact that they are all working under one objective codified set of laws. So either there is an overarching, agreed-upon objective law, in which case we're already talking about a monopoly on force (even though there are different branches to this monopoly), or the different organizations subscribe to different and conflicting legal codes, which is anarchy and the absence of objective law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Retaliate in accordance to the Objective law, that is. If a guy steals a piece of candy, retaliation cannot objectively be murder in self-defense. A police force is essentially a legal 'gang' of good guys. If they get over powered by the criminals, well that just sucks. The problem with this is that it is not in accordance with objective law if it is extrajudicial retaliation or vigilante justice. Even if the guy is only killing a murderer, it is not morally right because morality demands organized retaliation that is itself limited, regulated, and procedural. If there are vigilantes operating in society, then they are a threat to me, even if they are only lynching criminals objectively in their opinions. This is what Grames means when he says two people won't even necessarily agree on what objective law means. Objective law is an abstraction, it's not a perceptual object. No two people on these forums probably even agree on what is objective justice. Why, because humans, as you know, are fallible at the conceptual level. So since vigilante gangs and lynch mobs are not validated by the legal code, they are a threat to the freedom and safety everyone in society, so in prohibiting them, the government exercises retaliatory force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazingtruth Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Yes, there ought to be an objective codified set of laws. Each individual is therefore subordinate to the rule of law. This indicates that the police force (a group of individuals) is not in a position of authority compared to the average citizen. Consider Police Institution A, a group of individuals who enforce the law. Unfortunately, they are slow in reaction times and generally inefficient. An individual decides he has had enough with this and he and his buddies form Police Institution B, a group of individuals who decide they can do a better job than Police A. There are no formal ties between both organizations and they may not even be aware of each other. Or, they can be aware of each other and Police A can say "Oh shoot, we're not getting anymore donations or contract signings and have no source of income because of the competition by Police B, we should step up our game". Thus Police A and B enter into competition which will result in better quality (if possible) and better reaction times to criminal activity. Police A and B cannot differ much in distribution of justice, because they are obligated to follow the objective law. The same premise may hold true for court systems, military, and monetary systems. Essentially, why can't police forces and courts be run like a business corporation, except with a moral obligation to uphold the law? There should not be, as determined by law, any monopoly on the enforcement of an objective rule of law. The objective rule of law cannot state that it is illegal for Police B to be established, nor can it state that Police A is the only legitimate arbiter of retaliatory force. The necessity in having an established institution (called the Police) is to guarantee that there is an OBLIGATION to uphold the law. Individuals by their own merit cannot be forced to protect the rights of others from criminals (just as Peikoff argues that doctors should not be obligated to help others by the Hippocratic Oath). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Yes, there ought to be an objective codified set of laws. Each individual is therefore subordinate to the rule of law. This indicates that the police force (a group of individuals) is not in a position of authority compared to the average citizen. Consider Police Institution A, a group of individuals who enforce the law. Unfortunately, they are slow in reaction times and generally inefficient. An individual decides he has had enough with this and he and his buddies form Police Institution B, a group of individuals who decide they can do a better job than Police A.... Police A and B cannot differ much in distribution of justice, because they are obligated to follow the objective law.... So how is it ensured that they are both following objective law; specifically, the codified, official objective law of the land? There must be some entity entrusted with ensuring that rights-protecting organizations comply with that code. Furthermore, this entity must have some kind of a monopoly on interpreting that law; there cannot be two entities on equal footing when it comes to interpreting it and determining if organizations are in compliance with it. So we have a need for a monopoly in judging compliance with objective law; but how are they to implement their decisions and disassemble any organizations that are judged in violation of the law? There must be an enforcement arm of this monopoly entity to do so. Do you see what I'm driving at here? In order for there to be an objective law that is codified and enforced, all rights protection must take place within the context of a single interpreter and enforcer of that law; i.e. a monopoly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nanite1018 Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) So how is it ensured that they are both following objective law; specifically, the codified, official objective law of the land? There must be some entity entrusted with ensuring that rights-protecting organizations comply with that code. Furthermore, this entity must have some kind of a monopoly on interpreting that law; there cannot be two entities on equal footing when it comes to interpreting it and determining if organizations are in compliance with it. So we have a need for a monopoly in judging compliance with objective law; but how are they to implement their decisions and disassemble any organizations that are judged in violation of the law? There must be an enforcement arm of this monopoly entity to do so. Do you see what I'm driving at here? In order for there to be an objective law that is codified and enforced, all rights protection must take place within the context of a single interpreter and enforcer of that law; i.e. a monopoly. But then who checks the monopoly? I haven't made up my mind on this subject ("anarchy" a la anarcho-capitalist-types vs. a no taxes minarchist state a la Objectivism), as I find it quite complex. I think the biggest problem is that the government does not have a check on it as a whole (see America's growth in statism over the last two hundred years), and so it will tend to expand if at all possible. What is the remedy of minarchists and Objectivists for this? A vigilant populace with a good philosophy. Indeed, a society filled with people with a proper philosophy is the only real check on government, for if people suddenly all changed their mind, the government would quickly follow along. As a result of this, I don't see why the situation would be significantly different in the case of "anarchy"- a bunch of defense agencies competing for business. Who will check them to ensure that the criminal element- those who use force illegitimately (i.e. initiate force against those who have not violated the rights of others)- is a tiny portion of the population, held at bay and unable to interfere in everyday life? The populace will. If you have a society of criminals, then you are going to have a bunch of crime. If you have a society of people where the vast majority have an Objectivist morality and believe in absolute private property and personal sovereignty, etc., then you will have relatively little crime and people will be able to hold it at bay. This is the same sort of argument that people give for the possibility of funding government via donations- in order to get to that point you'd need to have a society of Objectivist-ish people and they would see the need to donate to the government so their rights are protected. So I do not see what the difference is in principle between the two. However, I can see how perhaps having a monopoly-type government would be more efficient and effective then a non-monopoly system. As of right now, I don't see the difference as one of principle, but a pragmatic one about what is the most effective strategy of protecting individual rights (and that a non-monopoly system would be able to protect individual rights, only it might not be able to do it as well or as efficiently). Edited March 25, 2011 by nanite1018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazingtruth Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 The problem with this is that it is not in accordance with objective law if it is extrajudicial retaliation or vigilante justice. Even if the guy is only killing a murderer, it is not morally right because morality demands organized retaliation that is itself limited, regulated, and procedural. To what extent must morality be conceptualized? Morality is not automatic, but must an individual confer with a Congress to produce moral results? Decidedly not. If the guy witnesses a murder, sees the murderer running away with the gun, eliminates with full certainty the possibility that his murder was neither in self-defense nor retaliatory in any way, and shoots the murderer, I do not see anything immoral about this. Yes, it may be more pragmatic to apprehend the murderer and call the police. So how is it ensured that they are both following objective law; specifically, the codified, official objective law of the land? There must be some entity entrusted with ensuring that rights-protecting organizations comply with that code. They are constantly keeping each other in check through competition. The minute a true monopoly is established, no checks can be applied in any way. However, I can see how perhaps having a monopoly-type government would be more efficient and effective then a non-monopoly system. As of right now, I don't see the difference as one of principle, but a pragmatic one about what is the most effective strategy of protecting individual rights (and that a non-monopoly system would be able to protect individual rights, only it might not be able to do it as well or as efficiently). I do not see how a monopoly-type government can be more efficient except by making the populous subordinate to the state or law enforcement. In doing so, individual rights are violated. Remember that threat of force IS initiation of force. A monopolized state which has the possibility of being corrupt without having checks on its power provides a threat to the populous. Whereas, a denationalized law enforcement will always be checked by other law enforcement agencies and by the public. Same concept applies to courts -- in fact, courts might even be easier to check because there already is a lesser likelihood of irrationality. Just because the concept is alien to civilization and history, and is difficult to conceptualize, does not mean that it will not be pragmatic. I'm trying to see how this concept works with a non-monopolized military force. This scenario may prove to be a tad tricky. It is pragmatic to have one large standing military, rather than several separate entities. Although in reality the fighting is done by smaller operational units which work on smaller missions -- they might as well be separate. I guess the important factor is communication, but you cannot force they communicate. Simply, it is in their interests to do so. The bottom-line is that the rule of law can not prescribe a monopoly on anything besides itself without violating the rights of an individual. I cannot monopolize another individual or group of individuals and claim them as my own. Yes, there is a pragmatic issue which must be addressed between "rights v. results". But there is something inherently wrong with a Huxley-esque World Order where rights are regulated to produce results (also see China). So the pragmatic issue fails if and only if individuals value rights as king, which Objectivists do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazingtruth Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 "The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas. If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules." -- Ayn Rand from The Virtue of Selfishness, my emphasis added Ayn Rand does not directly address the issue of objective vigilantism in this excerpt. The above quote "without such rules" implies: 1) that men do need an objective rule of law (to which we have all agreed), and 2) it does not outlaw the possibility of men who attempt to prosecute crimes with such rules. I would correct the following phrase as: "...it would degenerate into mob rule [provided that individuals could not naturally live by such objective rules]". It appears as if Ayn Rand presupposes that man cannot be his own arbiter of justice because a man cannot be fully objective as an end to himself. Therein she continues "If physical force is to be barred...", which is a logical connection following from the idea "physical force is to be barred because men cannot be fully objective". However, I believe the assumption made by Ayn Rand in this particular excerpt is invalid. The underlying premises which must be proven to defeat my argument are that "a man cannot be fully objective", and "that courts are more objective than a man". Further, and perhaps more importantly: "That which cannot be formulated into an objective law, cannot be made the subject of legislation—not in a free country, not if we are to have “a government of laws and not of men.” An undefineable law is not a law, but merely a license for some men to rule others." -- Ayn Rand from an article "Vast Quicksands" in The Objectivist Newsletter It is impossible to hold as a subject of legislation that "only one monopolized court system/police force is permitted". Doing so gives a license for some men of authority to hold greater importance of the individual. My power is only checked by that of other individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc K. Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) dmastt: I'm going to provide a reply to the substance of your argument in a minute but you first need to slow down and consider the way you are replying: it is completely unacceptable. It is crucial that you attribute your quotes. I am having a hard time following who you are replying to. Two posts ago you replied to three different people using three different quotes and attributed none of them. It is impossible to follow!!! It is pure anarchy Quote tags are provided for you when you hit the "Reply" button. If you want to reply to multiple posts in one post, then use the "Multiquote" button and quote tags are again provided. It might also be advisable to answer one person per post. I suggest you rewrite your post #65 by copy and paste and ask the moderators to delete the current version. Also, you should read this thread from the beginning as many of your questions have already been answered. You might also consider searching for other threads on "anarchy", "anarchism" and "minarchism" as there are tons to explore. Here is a good one in which many of the issues you raise have been addressed. Thank you. Edited March 26, 2011 by Marc K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc K. Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) Essentially, why can't police forces and courts be run like a business corporation, except with a moral obligation to uphold the law? There is a fundamental contradiction involved in having a "market in force" and it is impossible to get around. Markets like minds do not and can not operate by force. "Freedom" means: free from force. When we speak of a free market we mean a market free of force. A "market in force" is not only a contradiction in terms but I believe it makes use of a stolen concept. The only way to decide the issue is on principle: - The only thing that can violate your Rights is force. - Therefore, the only civilized interactions among men occur when no force is involved. - The only proper function of government is to protect your Rights. - It follows then that what government must do is outlaw the use of physical force. - You don't outlaw the use of physical force by making it lawful for men to practice it. You cannot uphold a principle by violating it. Edited March 26, 2011 by Marc K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 To what extent must morality be conceptualized? Morality is not automatic, but must an individual confer with a Congress to produce moral results? Decidedly not. If the guy witnesses a murder, sees the murderer running away with the gun, eliminates with full certainty the possibility that his murder was neither in self-defense nor retaliatory in any way, and shoots the murderer, I do not see anything immoral about this. Yes, it may be more pragmatic to apprehend the murderer and call the police. If you'll notice, you had to include that impossible step "eliminates with full certainty the possibility that his murder was neither in self-defense nor retaliatory in any way..." in your scenario. That is precisely why we need courts of law; to allow the best determination of the facts possible, and to carry out objective judgment based on those facts. There is simply no way for your hypothetical individual to do this, and that is why we cannot allow punishment to be enacted by just anyone. Courts serve the purpose of meeting this condition that you've included to the best of human ability. They are constantly keeping each other in check through competition. The minute a true monopoly is established, no checks can be applied in any way. Of course checks can be applied in a monopoly, by structuring that monopoly institution in certain ways. A government with separation of powers and checks and balances, for instance, is much more firmly kept in check than an absolute monarchy. In contrast, multiple independent entities on equal ground in determining what the objective code of law means, or if they even want to follow it, usually leads to the strongest of these winning out and being able to 'interpret' the toothless objective code any way they want, or disregarding it completely. In order for the objective code of law to actually have teeth, there has to be an institution attached to it charged with enacting it. Now, certainly, there are good ways and bad ways to structure such an institution to keep it to its stated purpose, but that's another discussion. The point is that asking for an 'objective code of law' to hold sway without any enforcement mechanism is asking for an impossibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazingtruth Posted April 9, 2011 Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 I've been reading up on several sources on this debate, and have ultimately decided that I do agree that an anarcho-capitalist system is not necessarily the way to go since it essentially forces men to deal with force, or at the very least they *must* be prepared to do so. Thank you Mark K for distinguishing a "market in force" for me, that was the most convincing argument. Another key factor was the distinguishing between retaliatory force and defensive force. Retaliatory force, meaning 'retribution' or 'revenge', cannot be a right rationally given to the individual. In essence, 'retaliatory force' is a form of initiatory force in reverse (truly, a counter-initiatory force), and must be legally limited and objectively verified. Whereas, defensive force is preemptive and is a right of the individual. I'm now taking a holistic look at the O'ist Minimalist governing style. The necessary components are a police force, military force, and court system. I do have further questions though. Perhaps this is what nanite was starting to get into. My primary concern is who decides how it is that these positions are established? By vote? Would that not lead to the largest subjective whim winning an election? And further, what are the possible checks and balances which can be placed on each of those three governmental roles. Is it necessary for the police and military to be separate? Is there an executive branch? A legislative branch? Etc. Thank you all for your patience and assistance, it has now been well-received. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.