Is the use of force inevitable in society?

[ruveyn1]

tadmjones,

 

I was asking whether or not objective laws were discoverable by man like the laws of phyics are discoverable by man. I did not imply that objective laws must be discoverable.

Law that govern humans in society are made up,  not discovered.

 

ruveyn1

[Nicky]

I was asking whether or not objective laws were discoverable by man like the laws of phyics are discoverable by man.

Neither the laws of physics, nor the principles of morality/politics, exist as concretes in reality. They are both abstract sets of ideas intelligent observers formulate using logic, and based on their observation of reality. They both reflect reality (if formulated using logic correctly), but neither IS reality.

So neither is directly discoverable (it makes no sense to say "to discover something that doesn't exist"), but both are formulated based on the way reality is (using logic- induction and deduction- as the means of processing the concretes we observe in reality).

To put it another way, abstract principles are tools we create to help us understand reality, they're not things we discover ready-made, as a part of reality.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Nicky

[2046]

Are you saying that since there can not be unanimity on questions of justice, the only thing man can do is to cooperate and come to mutial agreements on what justice is and what is justified?

 

If so, then based on your second paragraph, are you saying that once it is determined what is justified, then the government can enforce laws based on what has been determined to be justice without the consent of everyone?

First question: Well no, that's obviously not the only thing you can do, but that might be the more prudent thing to do. I think that would certainly be the point of constitutional design, I mean, what would be the point of having things like limits to government and "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" if unanimity on questions of justice could be expected?

 

Second question: According to Rand, on the one hand, the institutions of government must rest on individual consent (and here I differ from Dante and say that it must be "explicit" and any other type of consent isn't really consent) because of the fact that it derives its authority to retaliate from the right of self-defense of individual members. On the other hand, the kind of force used only in defense of person and property, whether by individuals or by the state, does not for Rand require consent in terms of each individual's own subjective opinion. It is justified in terms of natural law, and if natural law diverges from some people's own subjective opinions, then too bad for them.

[tadmjones]

First question: Well no, that's obviously not the only thing you can do, but that might be the more prudent thing to do. I think that would certainly be the point of constitutional design, I mean, what would be the point of having things like limits to government and "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" if unanimity on questions of justice could be expected?

 

Second question: According to Rand, on the one hand, the institutions of government must rest on individual consent (and here I differ from Dante and say that it must be "explicit" and any other type of consent isn't really consent) because of the fact that it derives its authority to retaliate from the right of self-defense of individual members. On the other hand, the kind of force used only in defense of person and property, whether by individuals or by the state, does not for Rand require consent in terms of each individual's own subjective opinion. It is justified in terms of natural law, and if natural law diverges from some people's own subjective opinions, then too bad for them.

And or if a person realizes that they are in such a society and they do not agree that that type of society is preferrable they should work to disassociate themselves from such a society?

[tjfields]

First question: Well no, that's obviously not the only thing you can do, but that might be the more prudent thing to do. I think that would certainly be the point of constitutional design, I mean, what would be the point of having things like limits to government and "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" if unanimity on questions of justice could be expected?

 

If cooperating and coming to mutual agreements is not the only thing you can do, what are the other things you can do? Additionally, if cooperating and coming to a mutual agreement on what is or is not justified is the "more prudent thing to do," is this not just a form of majority rule? If 51% of the people come to a mutual agreement about what is justified then that is what is justified and if the 49% disagree it is "to bad for them?"

 

In your second paragraph you mention "natural law." What is "natural law?" Is this natural law something that everyone will know or does it to come from cooperating and coming to mutual agreements or from one of the other things that you can do?

[tjfields]

Nicky,

 

Thank you for the answer:

 

Neither the laws of physics, nor the principles of morality/politics, exist as concretes in reality. They are both abstract sets of ideas intelligent observers formulate using logic, and based on their observation of reality. They both reflect reality (if formulated using logic correctly), but neither IS reality.

So neither is directly discoverable (it makes no sense to say "to discover something that doesn't exist"), but both are formulated based on the way reality is (using logic- induction and deduction- as the means of processing the concretes we observe in reality).

To put it another way, abstract principles are tools we create to help us understand reality, they're not things we discover ready-made, as a part of reality.

 

I will restate my question using your answer. Are objective laws formulated based on the way reality is (using logic - induction and deduction - as the means of processing the concretes we observe in reality)?

[2046]

If cooperating and coming to mutual agreements is not the only thing you can do, what are the other things you can do? Additionally, if cooperating and coming to a mutual agreement on what is or is not justified is the "more prudent thing to do," is this not just a form of majority rule? If 51% of the people come to a mutual agreement about what is justified then that is what is justified and if the 49% disagree it is "to bad for them?"

 

In your second paragraph you mention "natural law." What is "natural law?" Is this natural law something that everyone will know or does it to come from cooperating and coming to mutual agreements or from one of the other things that you can do?

Okay there's a mess of questions in there, let's just go down the list:

 

1. If cooperating and coming to mutual agreements is not the only thing you can do, what are the other things you can do?

 

You could try to be the dictator and force your one true interpretation of justice onto other people, for example. But obviously there are problems with this strategy.

 

2.  if cooperating and coming to a mutual agreement on what is or is not justified is the "more prudent thing to do," is this not just a form of majority rule? If 51% of the people come to a mutual agreement about what is justified then that is what is justified and if the 49% disagree it is "to bad for them?"

 

Well certainly it is a form of majority rule, but one that isn't really escapable. It seems to be two different aspects of consent doctrine are being run together. Again, on the one hand, there is the view that the institution of the state must rest on the consent of individual members in terms of justifying its actions. On the other hand, there is the view that whatever governmental institutions do exist ultimately do rest on actual consent of the mass majority of people. This goes for any system. If the system is a dictatorship based on one-party rule, then ultimately the mass majority of the people must consent to this system. If a system is based on natural rights, then ultimately the mass majority of people must consent to natural rights. This is the La Boetiean/Humean thoery of consent, that whatever system exists is going to be supported by the consent of the majority. You're just not going to be able to sustain one particular pattern in which human agents with free will act unless they themselves go along with it to a certain degree. Of course this doesn't parse out into nice little percentages like 51 and 49, but it has to be a sizeable majority. But I mean, yeah, if you're in the minority, say, in a system that views it proper to tax away your income, then yes, too bad for you. If you're in the minority in, say, a libertarian system, and you're a communist, then again, too bad for you. That's part of what being in the minority means for any system: you won't be able to get other people to cooperate with your perferred vision unless you change their views.

 

3. In your second paragraph you mention "natural law." What is "natural law?"

 

It might help to make yourself familiar with the tradition of natural law theorists, as Rand falls into this category of thinkers. Broadly, it is the view that man has a nature, and that using his reason, man can know the objective good for man, including the principles of justice.

 

4.  Is this natural law something that everyone will know

 

I thought I already mentioned this, but one of the leading natural law theorists is John Locke, who took the aforementioned view that conflicting interpretations of the natural law is part and parcel of human nature.

 

5.  or does it to come from cooperating and coming to mutual agreements or from one of the other things that you can do?

 

What kind of sense does it make to say that the use of force in defense of person and property is justified in terms of natural law, as opposed to in terms of people's subjective opinions, if natural law itself is justified in terms of people's subjective opinions? Rather, the entire point of natural law is that it is justified in terms of the nature of man and reality (yes, like the laws of physics or biology.)

[tjfields]

2046,

 

If "the entire point of natural law is that it is justified in terms of the nature of man and reality" but there are conflicting interpretations of natural law (the view held by Locke, and you?), then how is it decided which interpretation gets enforced? If there are two rational but contradictory interpretations of natual law and one of those interpretations gets enforced by the government, is the response to those who support the non-enfocred interpretation: too bad for you? Is this not the use of non-retaliatory force, i.e. one group of people are forcing their interpretation of natural law on another group?  

[2046]

2046,

 

If "the entire point of natural law is that it is justified in terms of the nature of man and reality" but there are conflicting interpretations of natural law (the view held by Locke, and you?), then how is it decided which interpretation gets enforced? If there are two rational but contradictory interpretations of natual law and one of those interpretations gets enforced by the government, is the response to those who support the non-enfocred interpretation: too bad for you? Is this not the use of non-retaliatory force, i.e. one group of people are forcing their interpretation of natural law on another group?  

You can conceive of any number of ways that could be decided. Suppose you live in a system in which such questions were decided by coin toss. I mean, that depends entirely on the political structure you live in. For Rand, again like we said already, it seems pretty apparent that she favored representative democracy. As far as what is or isn't non-retaliatory force, in that instance, depends on who is in fact right regardless of if they consent or not. In other words, basically post #28 again.

 

But if I can interpret your question in another way, you could be asking something like, why is it morally binding on men to conform to one particular political structure as versus another, and isn't forcing someone to conform to a structure they don't consent to an initiation of force? Why is it, say, senators serving for 6 years the magical number, why do we have to abide by that, versus say, I can choose my own representative or agent and fire him any time I want? Again, though, there is a difference between asking why someone should or shouldn't be forced into a certain political structure without their consent, and asking why should someone be forced to abide by a particular conception of justice. Political structure and articulated conceptions of justice are two different things, one for Rand, was justified in terms of consent, the other in terms of natural law.

[tjfields]

2046,

 

Please help me understand your thoughts. Are you saying the following:

 

There are natural laws;

The interpretations of natural laws can differ;

The choice of which interpretation of natural laws gets enforced in a society can be based on many methods; and

Whether or not the enforcement of an interpretation of nature law constitues the use of non-retaliatory force is based on whether or not the interpretatin natural law is the right interpretation of natural law.

[2046]

2046,

 

Please help me understand your thoughts. Are you saying the following:

 

There are natural laws;

The interpretations of natural laws can differ;

The choice of which interpretation of natural laws gets enforced in a society can be based on many methods; and

Whether or not the enforcement of an interpretation of nature law constitues the use of non-retaliatory force is based on whether or not the interpretatin natural law is the right interpretation of natural law.

Yay, I think you got it. Hopefully that can helps to some extent?

[tjfields]

2046,

 

So to avoid the use of non-retaliatory force, society has to enforce the interpretation of nature law that is in fact right. How do we know which interpretation is in fact the right interpretation? Since there are different interpretations of natural laws, will there not be different interpretations of which is in fact the right interpretation? 

[2046]

Yes undoubtedly, so I think that's where it's important to have a constitutional design that incentivizes its agents to solve disputes over conflicting interpretations of justice in terms more favorable to individual rights, peace, and cooperation.

[tjfields]

2046,

 

So, to you, there is no objective way of determining which is the right interpretation of natural laws so what society should do is "have a constitutional design that incentivizes its agents to solve disputes over conflicting interpretations of justice in terms more favorable to individual rights, peace, and cooperation."

 

To go back and answer the question asked in the original post (and modified later), you would answer that the use of non-retaliatory force could be inevitable, although it could be minimal, in society since there is no objective way of determining which is the right interpretation of natural laws?
 

[Nicky]

Nicky,

 

Thank you for the answer:

 

 

I will restate my question using your answer. Are objective laws formulated based on the way reality is (using logic - induction and deduction - as the means of processing the concretes we observe in reality)?

Yes.

However, to understand what that actually means, you must understand Ayn Rand's philosophy as a whole. She describes what IS (Metaphysics), she describes how one should conceptualize what IS (Epistemology), she describes how one should determine one's goals based on what we are and the reality we live in (Ethics), and she describes what is required for individuals to attain those goals in a social context (Politics).

The answer to the last question is: objective laws. However, that answer is highly dependent on the previous question (what an individual's goals should be). You can't just declare that a government should make up laws that are according to reality, without specifying what the goal of those laws is. That would be meaningless. Depending on the goal, a government can come up with perfectly logical methods to for instance exterminate the Jewish population, or intellectuals, or the rich, or to preserve a feudal hierarchy, etc. (much like an engineer can use logic to make his device fly, be driven, or do any number of other things, including crash or do absolutely nothing useful). Without the right goal, all that mental effort is worthless.

In other words, without the right Ethics, Politics means nothing. The right Ethics, of course, must also be chosen the same way: by applying logic to reality. By formulating principles for men to live by according to their nature. The most fundamental of those principles is rational egoism. And, the most fundamental principle of a Politics that allows men to be rational egoists is freedom (individual rights).

[2046]

2046,

 

So, to you, there is no objective way of determining which is the right interpretation of natural laws so what society should do is "have a constitutional design that incentivizes its agents to solve disputes over conflicting interpretations of justice in terms more favorable to individual rights, peace, and cooperation."

 

To go back and answer the question asked in the original post (and modified later), you would answer that the use of non-retaliatory force could be inevitable, although it could be minimal, in society since there is no objective way of determining which is the right interpretation of natural laws?

 

Arg, no, facepalm. We were all good up until then. Given that I would personally agree with the natural rights viewpoint, obviously then I do think there is a way to determine the correct interpretation of justice, since it is a province of human reason in this viewpoint. So, in that case, I do think use of non-retaliatory force is avoidable. Personally, I think Rand had it wrong in favoring limited government as such a constitutional design, as opposed to free market constitution, and I would say that only in the latter is it avoidable.

[tjfields]

Nicky,

 

Thank you for your answer.

 

Building on your answer, if objective laws can be formulated based on the way reality is (using logic - induction and deduction - as the means of processing the concretes we observe in reality) which is necessitated by the appropriate metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, then why does Ayn Rand argue against multiple, competing governments in the same geographic location?

 

Ms. Rand argues that there needs to be one government which acts a the final arbiter and there can not be competing governments. However, if objective laws can be formulated based on the way reality is, then it should not matter if there is one government or dozens within a certain geographic location since all the governments will be enforcing the same objective laws.

[ruveyn1]

In other words, without the right Ethics, Politics means nothing. The right Ethics, of course, must also be chosen the same way: by applying logic to reality. By formulating principles for men to live by according to their nature. The most fundamental of those principles is rational egoism. And, the most fundamental principle of a Politics that allows men to be rational egoists is freedom (individual rights).

If there were two distinct ethical systems each of which is compatible with human survival and flourishing  how would you say that one is "better" than the other?

[Dante]

Nicky,

 

Ms. Rand argues that there needs to be one government which acts a the final arbiter and there can not be competing governments. However, if objective laws can be formulated based on the way reality is, then it should not matter if there is one government or dozens within a certain geographic location since all the governments will be enforcing the same objective laws.

It does not follow that 'all governments will be enforcing the same objective laws' simply because objective political principles are discovered, not created, by men. These political principles result from a long process of induction and deduction, and people are not infallible or inerrant in this process. Consider the laws of economics; we are clearly discovering, rather than creating, these laws, and yet there is wide disagreement even among professionals about even the most basic questions. One central principle of Rand's philosophy is that individuals are not inerrant, that there is no automatic and guaranteed path to knowledge. Over time, the truth has an advantage in the battle of ideas, but there is no guarantee it will prevail.

[tjfields]

Dante,

 

To go back and answer the question asked in the original post (and modified later), you would answer that the use of non-retaliatory force could be inevitable in society since people are not infallible or inerrant in the process of discovering objective laws?

[Nicky]

Nicky,

 

Thank you for your answer.

 

Building on your answer, if objective laws can be formulated based on the way reality is (using logic - induction and deduction - as the means of processing the concretes we observe in reality) which is necessitated by the appropriate metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, then why does Ayn Rand argue against multiple, competing governments in the same geographic location?

 

Ms. Rand argues that there needs to be one government which acts a the final arbiter and there can not be competing governments. However, if objective laws can be formulated based on the way reality is, then it should not matter if there is one government or dozens within a certain geographic location since all the governments will be enforcing the same objective laws.

That's a non-sequitur. Just because A=>B, that doesn't mean that "someone can do A" =>B.

Yes, it is possible to formulate objective, rational laws, and no, that does not mean that 10 different governments will all formulate objective, rational laws. In fact it's pretty clear that in a "choose your own government" scheme, criminals would choose to form governments that make crime the norm.

Dante,

 

To go back and answer the question asked in the original post (and modified later), you would answer that the use of non-retaliatory force could be inevitable in society since people are not infallible or inerrant in the process of discovering objective laws?

The use of non-retaliatory force, in honest error, is impossible to avoid, because government is done by humans, and humans are not omniscient. Even a perfectly moral person will err, due to not being omniscient.

But the use of non-retaliatory force on principle can be avoided, and the use of non-retaliatory force by malice or carelessness can both be punished. A government that achieves this would in fact be what Ayn Rand considered an ideal government. Yes, Ayn Rand's ideal government would in fact have corrupt elements. But such elements/individuals would have to act in secret, and would be punished and removed, whenever discovered.

 

Objectivism is a philosophy for living on Earth, and in Objectivism, "ideal" is in fact synonymous with "the best that is possible". Of course, we do tend to have a better ability to fully imagine what's possible than the anti-humanist  pragmatists, skeptics and theists all around us, who justify the systematic use of force by claiming humans are inherently evil/impotent and not worthy of freedom on principle.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Nicky

[tjfields]

Nicky,

 

Let me change the question. If 10 (or more) different governments within the same geographic location all formulated objective, rational laws and enforced those laws, then would it be acceptable to have competing governments in the same geographic location? 

[Dante]

Dante,

 

To go back and answer the question asked in the original post (and modified later), you would answer that the use of non-retaliatory force could be inevitable in society since people are not infallible or inerrant in the process of discovering objective laws?

 

 

What do you think 'inevitable' means?  Because from where I'm standing, the phrase 'could be inevitable' makes no sense at all.

 

Freedom of choice and the fallibility of the knowledge discovery process means that we can't be sure that true ideas will win out; it also means that we can't be sure that people will choose to do wrong.  In both cases, the choices of people who have free will determine the outcome.  If you're asking whether it's theoretically impossible for people to live in society without intentionally initiating force, my response is unequivocally no.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Dante

[Nicky]

Nicky,

 

Let me change the question. If 10 (or more) different governments within the same geographic location all formulated objective, rational laws and enforced those laws, then would it be acceptable to have competing governments in the same geographic location? 

I don't like responding to impossible hypotheticals, sorry. I think it is impossible for 10 out of 10 governments to formulate perfectly identical, perfectly objective laws.

 

But, if you were to build a computer system in which a large number of individual elements were programmed to  interact with each other in a highly simplified manner and organize into 10 groups governed by simple, objective rules of conduct, then yes, such a system would be very similar to a system in which the same elements were instructed to do the same exact thing, except instead of 10 groups, form just one. 

 

However, the first system would be less efficient. Furthermore, if you introduced even the slightest level of imprecision (a small random variable somewhere, in the behavior of the individual elements when forming groups), the first system would quickly malfunction, because there would be no means of resolving the conflicts between the groups. You could of course try to come up with conflict resolution protocols, which may or may not work depending on what problems you were able to foresee. However, by writing these protocols, you have just made yourself a part of the system, and in fact its ONE government. 

Edited February 25, 2013 by Nicky

[tjfields]

Nicky,

 

If, as you state above that "The use of non-retaliatory force, in honest error, is impossible to avoid, because government is done by humans, and humans are not omniscient. Even a perfectly moral person will err, due to not being omniscient." and "I think it is impossible for 10 out of 10 governments to formulate perfectly identical, perfectly objective laws." then were does the honest error come from?

 

If 10 or more groups of people can not formulate identical objective laws, then each group will formulate and then seek to enforce their concept of objective laws claiming that the other concepts are not objective and constitute the use of non-retaliatory force. When one group succeeds in enforcing their concept on the other groups, the use of what the other the groups consider non-retaliatory force would not be a 'honest error' on the part of the enforcer rather it would be acceptable under the concept of objective laws being enforced. You could not avoid the use of non-retaliatory force on principle because the principle is being defined by the concept of objective laws that is currently being enforced.

 

Does this problem have a solution?