Objectivist and Marxist/Critical Conception of Law

[MelvinPoh616]

What are the Objectivists views on the critical/marxist conceptions of law,

they claim that law only justifies, consolidates and benefits class-division/a top minority of the bourgeois.

Whats the objectivists view of law?

I'm currently writing a paper, would like to know

thank you

[Dante]

Could you give a more fleshed-out definition of the critical/marxist conception of law?

In the Objectivist view, laws should be objective and solely based on the principle of individual rights. Laws should protect citizens against the initiation of physical force or fraud by other individuals in society, and that is the only proper function of the law.

[Dante]

Here are some resources on the Objectivist conceptions of the proper role of law and government:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/law--objective_and_non-objective.html

[MelvinPoh616]

Thanks. Well here in terms of that, I'm talking of the conception of law that arose out of the Critical Legal Movement. Basically, they come from a marxist ideological base, they believe that "law is indoctrinated and fashioned in such a way that it creates inequality"

[Dante]

Thanks. Well here in terms of that, I'm talking of the conception of law that arose out of the Critical Legal Movement. Basically, they come from a marxist ideological base, they believe that "law is indoctrinated and fashioned in such a way that it creates inequality"

Is this inherent in the nature of law as such? That would seem to lead to the conclusion that anarchy is a superior system. Or is the claim simply that this is the way it is now, and that we should redesign the law to avoid this?

In the Objectivist view, there is certainly nothing inherent in the concept of law which leads to an immoral outcome. It is perfectly possible, in principle, to have a legal system that accords everyone equality before the law through respecting each of their individual rights. Of course, this has nothing to do with material equality; any legal system that wants to make people equal in terms of the resources they possess has to engage in egregious rights violations to do so.

[MelvinPoh616]

Yes indeed, it claims that law is in a way bad and not naturally good and we should be critical of it. Depending on different theorists, some may claim a total overthrow of current laws with more egalitarian laws, some claim anarchism as the solution.

but

i see so its ultimately a question of group rights v. individual rights.

[JayR]

What is meant by "more egalitarian laws"?

[Dante]

Well, in the Objectivist view, the concept of "group rights" is simply invalid. Individuals possess rights, by virtue of their nature as human beings, but any form of "special" rights for (e.g.) women, minorities, laborers, entrepreneurs, politicians, etc is simple nonsense.

[softwareNerd]

Yes indeed, it claims that law is in a way bad and not naturally good and we should be critical of it. Depending on different theorists, some may claim a total overthrow of current laws with more egalitarian laws, some claim anarchism as the solution.

There seem to be at least two aspects here:

First, an answer to the question: "what is good law?" [On this, Obejctivism would be very different from a Marxist]

Second, how do current laws measure up to that standard [both a Marxist and an Objectivist may be equally critical of current laws, since we live in a mixed-economy]. Of course this is not really agreement. It is like two people looking at an ill man and one saying "he ought not to be ill, he ought to be dead" and the other saying "he ought not to be ill, he ought to live a healthy life"

[Greebo]

Objectivsts hold very strong views on what Law should be. Laws *should* protect individual rights by providing an objective framework defining what constitutes a violation of individual rights, the means to determine when said rights have been violated, and establish guidelines for consequences when said rights are proven to have been broken.

To say that "Law _is_..." is to assume some intrinsic definition of Law inherent in their nature. Laws are man made. Their nature is what we make of it. Laws must be evaluated individually and objectively to determine their morality.

When Marxism or any other _ism declares that Law is "<insert definition here>", it forgets that Law is not metaphysically given.

[Greebo]

Yes indeed, it claims that law is in a way bad and not naturally good and we should be critical of it. Depending on different theorists, some may claim a total overthrow of current laws with more egalitarian laws, some claim anarchism as the solution.

but

i see so its ultimately a question of group rights v. individual rights.

What are "group rights"?

[Tomer Ravid]

The first premise that gets into politics is that man is the only rational and volitional

animal. He has no automatic guidance to the achievement of values, and all he can do is to

integrate the foreseeable nature. The above infers that other men are volitional as well.

Therefore, if a group of men shall avoid an individual's pursuit of his own values, he won't

be able to survive accordingly to nature. But a 'group of men' is also a set of individuals

who should survive qua men, and contradictions [in context about man's own

nature] cannot exist. Thus one cannot promise his own survival without promoting the

recognition of his own rights.

Now, as we understand why, in effect, such a law is required, the question is: What laws are the proper ones, i.e., how can one objectively defend his own rights? The main assumption to determine the following will be as follows:

p1. Law and right are derived from man's nature concepts. Man has a specific nature. Laws, therefore, may consist of no contradictionary view on man's unique nature.

When, you may ask, such contradictions exist?

Well, by definition, the legal initiation of a physical force is, in essence, the only means contradictionary view on man's nature. The contradiction, in context, is not about the existence of it, but about its function in laws: A society that enables it is not a state [or at least not a proper one] but an anarchy. The contradiction is the view of such barbarism as a 'law based upon man's nature'.

A law that initiates physical force is a conceptual contradiction.

A contradictionary law that does not permit the initiation of physical force is a conceptual contradiction as well.

There can be no dictator without the right for his own liberty;

Nor can a theft without the right to hold any property at all.

No murder, therefore, can exist without the implicit right for his own life.

And how can one prove that this standard of noncontradiction shall be sufficient to defend the noted at the top paragraph? Well, this is implicit there: Rights are to promise that man will be able to live as if he survived only as well as his integrations are, without any other men to forbid it. They should not make your morality 'higher' but, in fact, to avoid immoral men to be disturbing its private consequences.

This, in my opinion, is the standard of law.

Any questions?