Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Emerging States?

Rate this topic


Jon Southall

Recommended Posts

I agree with Devil's Advocate's explanation above, because his line of thinking makes more sense to me.

A government is created by individuals from within a specific community. Individuals who work in the government come from the community, and their "customers" are individuals from within the community that has established it. The soverienty lies in the lives and property of all the individuals whom the government serves, its jurisdiction must surely relate to the community - the individual members, their lives and property.

Hypothetically, if we wanted to create an Objectivist state, why couldn't we just do this within existing territories; the new community of Objectivists - the individuals would have mutually recognised sovereignty over their own lives and property and would self-govern. Why would its jurisdiction not take precedence over the existing state or authority, other than for reasons that the existing authority would use force to prevent them from establishing a new community-based (rather than territory-based) state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

Why would its jurisdiction not take precedence over the existing state or authority, other than for reasons that the existing authority would use force to prevent them from establishing a new community-based (rather than territory-based) state?

Whether it is territory-based or "community-based", what does this mean in real concrete terms: i.e. what will these people do differently? If this new government is some type of mutually agreed arbitration, it may be legal in the eyes of the existing government. On the other hand, will they continue to pay taxes that they used to pay, will they continue to obey the laws on environment, job-safety, etc. that they were previously obeying? No matter where you live -- Russia or USA -- if you break the law of that government, that government will probably react against you. If you do so under the color of forming a new state, you might add sedition to the other charges.

You brush this aside as if it is not important, but if we're talking about actionable thinking, this is almost an immutable  metaphysical reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AlexL said:

I am not sure what you mean.

Thanks for taking the time to reply!

As for what I meant by the portion of my post in question, I had thought that I was agreeing with you! :) You had written:

On 12/15/2015 at 5:09 AM, AlexL said:

First of all, the "community", whatever it means, has nothing to do with this. A "community" has no particular rights, only individuals have.

To which I then responded:

On 12/15/2015 at 6:42 AM, DonAthos said:

First let me agree with the above: the only rights are individual rights. Anything a "government" (which is still a collection of individuals) has the right to do may only come from individual rights.

So it initially strikes me as a curiosity that you wouldn't grasp my meaning here... unless, perhaps, we don't mean the same thing and I misunderstand you entirely. In which case, truly, this may be a fruitful area to explore!

So let me throw out some thoughts and I'll ask you to please tell me where we agree and/or disagree:

1) A group, as such, has no rights. Only the individuals which comprise that group have rights, and each individual has the same rights. (For convenience, let us call these "individual rights," which is a redundant construction but I find that it helps me to express/retain my intended meaning, and especially in discussion.)

2) A "government" is some group of people who claim a monopoly of force, or the legitimate use of retaliatory force, or however we would like to phrase this (Rand has it: "the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct"). Normally we might add something about territory, jurisdiction or geographic area, etc., but since that's the very thing which is being questioned, and since it doesn't speak directly to my current point, we'll forebear.

Being a group of people such as discussed in my #1, we find that the government, as such, has no rights. Only the individuals which comprise the government have rights.

3) The individuals who comprise the government do not have any right, more or less, than any other individual. In the essay "Collectivized 'Rights'," Ayn Rand wrote:

Quote

 

A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess.

 

When a man becomes a police officer ("joins that group"), he does not thereby acquire any new rights; he has only the same rights he always had. Thus

4) Anything a "government" (which is still a collection of individuals) has the right to do may only come from individual rights.

_____________________

I hope that this breakdown clarifies my intending meaning, but again, please do let me know where we potentially disagree. Or if we agree on every point, please say that, too! :)

12 hours ago, AlexL said:

Remember, we all have the exactly same individual rights, but most of us are not authorized, for example, to question a suspect, as a police officer is.

Well, but this is the interesting bit, isn't it? First, let me assure you that we agree on this much: I cannot, as presently constituted, rightly act in the manner of a police officer.

But we might do well to ask: why not? The difference you cite is "authority," but isn't that the very question we're examining? Where does this "authority" come from? If I, qua individual, have no authority to question a suspect, then where does the police officer get his from? His boss? That merely pushes the question back another level, but it brings us no closer to answering it.

Suppose I were to proclaim myself a police officer and pin a badge to my chest. I suspect you would say that I still have no authority to act as a police officer would, but why not? Assuming that my badge is as shiny as any other, and that I am bound to respect the rights of others as any legitimate officer would, what's the special sauce I would be missing?

12 hours ago, AlexL said:

In this case the legitimate claim to authority has the one which was the first to establish on that territory a rights-respecting régime.

I guess there are a couple of issues to sort out here, but let's start with the direct claim. (Please forgive the absurdity of the example I'm about to introduce, but I want to try to clarify this as much as possible...)

Okay.

So we're on Gilligan's Isle. Do you mean to say that authority is a matter of "dibs"? That the first of our castaways to proclaim himself "the government" is the government, and has the proper authority to thereafter act as government?

We'll say that it is the Skipper (which seems likeliest to me). He says that he's in charge and everyone else must do as he commands. And then, so long as the Skipper respects the others rights, we would say that the other castaways must submit to his authority.

Do I have this right? Or do you mean something else?

12 hours ago, AlexL said:

It does. If those British citizens try to establish a rights-respecting government on parts of Fascist Spain, they cannot do it in UK's name if they have not been authorized by the British government...

Well, I would suppose they're doing it in their own name.

But doesn't this conflict with what you said in response to Jon Southall? He had asked about this:

On 12/16/2015 at 4:58 AM, Jon Southall said:

Also under your idea, if say a large group of Americans decided to live in a foreign country where the state fails to respect and protect the rights of individuals, would you agree than an implication would be they could claim that the state there has no jurisdiction, giving them the right to put in place a new state covering the territory in which they live.

To which you replied:

13 hours ago, AlexL said:

No, they could not – for the reason I stated in the similar question by DonAthos.

So I'm confused. Would a group of British citizens have the right to reject the authority/jurisdiction of Fascist Spain and proclaim their own state on that territory (in their own name)? Or would they not?

(Or maybe I misunderstand you and need further clarification.)

12 hours ago, AlexL said:

...and they are not entitled to help from UK. They are on their own.

I'm not 100% certain I understand your meaning, here. While they might not be "entitled" to help in the sense of "being owed," I should hope that they would be "allowed" to receive help, if it should be offered to them. Just as the American revolutionaries were not "on their own," but were assisted by the French.

12 hours ago, AlexL said:

On the other hand, UK had the right to eliminate the Franco's régime in order to install a rights-respecting government, and could have done it if it was in its legitimate interests.

Yes, agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2015 at 4:05 PM, Jon Southall said:

Thanks all, this is a very interesting discussion.

What is the basis of a 'national claim' to sovereignty or jurisdiction over a territory?

Individual rights. That is the goal of Objectivist politics: the protection of individual rights. Establishing a government that has sovereignty over a territory is the only (known) way of achieving that goal.

As I explained above, the alternative you are proposing would fail to achieve that goal. So are all other alternatives that I've ever heard of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

...

Hypothetically, if we wanted to create an Objectivist state, why couldn't we just do this within existing territories; the new community of Objectivists - the individuals would have mutually recognized sovereignty over their own lives and property and would self-govern. Why would its jurisdiction not take precedence over the existing state or authority, other than for reasons that the existing authority would use force to prevent them from establishing a new community-based (rather than territory-based) state?

It's an interesting question and it suggests a moral jurisdiction to me that in some respects is already in place.  Consider for example the kind of moral exemption to national law Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis invoked and is getting away with to some degree.  Could a philosophical separation from state be formed using the church from state model?  Certainly Ayn Rand proposed this kind of thing for business, but I doubt any existing state would want to divorce its cash cow.


But a community of philosophers without borders?  Now that's something I'd enjoy exploring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snerd, Nicky

The problem I have with your thinking is that it is contradictory. On the one hand you claim that the basis of national claim to jurisdiction is individual rights. That is a premise that I think the three of us are all in agreement with.

Nicky then contradicts this by asserting for practical purposes, a governing authority must be territorial. This means pragmatics are trumping rights. It's collectivistic thinking, because it means the rights of individuals can be sacrificed when respecting and protecting them would be impractical (from the perspective of the group of individuals who are claiming jurisdiction) - even when it is not concerning the life or property of any of their own members.

If Nicky you are making the point that it would be easier and more effective to govern when members of a community live together territorially then we would agree, but the fact this is true does not necessitate it. 

Snerd, this leads me on to your post. The contradiction is similar to Nicky's, you think the emergent community requires the permission of the other community. I see no legitimate reason why, so long as it does not breach the rights of those individuals.

In practice if a group of Objectivists wanted to form its own independent community, and self-govern by establishing a borderless government whose jurisdiction is grounded in the lives and property of its members, I want to know why this can't happen. Apart from the fact governments would intervene by force.

If it is the fear or force only, then I would conclude none of our governments are truly interested in protecting and respecting individual rights. How could such a conclusion be taken seriously?

To be a dog is to be a dog, regardless of the fact some masters hold a longer lead than others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

Snerd, this leads me on to your post. ...

In practice if a group of Objectivists wanted to form its own independent community, and self-govern by establishing a borderless government whose jurisdiction is grounded in the lives and property of its members, I want to know why this can't happen. Apart from the fact governments would intervene by force.

I really was not addressing the question of whether such a group would have the moral high ground against their current government (we're assuming the existing government violates rights as a matter of principle). I was merely saying that you were sweeping away the "in practice" part as if it were no big deal, but it was actually a huge deal.

 

27 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

If it is the fear or force only, then I would conclude none of our governments are truly interested in protecting and respecting individual rights. How could such a conclusion be taken seriously?

To be a dog is to be a dog, regardless of the fact some masters hold a longer lead than others. 

What aspect of that conclusion do you think is false? I can understand those who say that the U.S. is a pretty free country using many yardsticks, even though the government restricts many other areas. However in your last line you say that a government that violates even a small sliver of rights is "not interested in protecting rights". Yet your question seems to say that you conclude that one or more current, existing government actually does protect all forms of individual rights? What am I missing?

 

Also, I did not say that " ... the basis of national claim to jurisdiction is individual rights". Perhaps that was aimed at some other post, but I thought I'd clarify anyway.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer:

I've skimmed the first page and I haven't read any of the second, yet; I don't have much time. Please forgive me for any dead-horse-abuse.

 

On 12/14/2015 at 8:05 AM, Jon Southall said:

What is the basis of a 'national claim' to sovereignty or jurisdiction over a territory [if not property rights]?

A nation's claim to its geographical area stems, in part, from the fact that most societies are geographically-based (and I'm just using "society" to mean a group of individuals who tend to interact and cooperate with each other). All things being equal, your nextdoor neighbor's actions are usually going to impact your life much more than those of some stranger on the opposite end of the world. Furthermore, all material property has to be somewhere. Even the internet, which we usually think of as some disembodied entity, is essentially a program that runs on countless computers, across the world (and inside of those computers, that disembodied "program" is basically a certain pattern of physical switches and gates, each of which has a distinct location).

Given the fact that both you and any thing you own must be somewhere, the act of controlling your own environment (which is a necessary part of the way that human beings ought to live) means to control the things in your own geographical area. That's what I think it means to "own" a plot of land: you're claiming the exclusive right to arrange the things in that area, however you see fit, and to forbid anyone else from messing with them.

On 12/14/2015 at 8:05 AM, Jon Southall said:

What is the basis of the claim to it when it is not private property? Is it just force-based?

Unfortunately, that's usually the case in the world, as it is right now.

 

Ideally, just as we might build an army as a direct extension of our individual rights to defend ourselves, the geographical influence of our government should be a direct extension of the -geographical rights?- (the property rights, as applied to location) of its citizens. Meaning that a citizen of the UK should be able to invoke UK law on himself and his property, wherever they happen to be (although nobody has a "right" to violate anyone else's rights, regardless of which laws in which countries might sanction it).

 

The way it is right now, the NSA is currently demanding that Microsoft hand over a litany of its clients' private information, despite the fact that it's all stored in foreign servers; arguing its legality on the grounds that those servers are the private property of American citizens (specifically, Microsoft's shareholders). This means that it's OK to violate geographical boundaries, in order to violate property rights, which provides a great demonstration of the precisely wrong way to look at it.

 

On 12/14/2015 at 8:05 AM, Jon Southall said:

I can't fully work out how a hypothetical Objectivist state would accept a moral relativism of this kind, unless the differences were so trivial in extent as to render them unimportant.

The same way an Objectivist individual should, when faced with a potential violation of their rights: to carefully weigh, within the context of their own ambitions and priorities, what kind of response (if any) would be most worthwhile. So, for example, you shouldn't set out to get caught selling drugs in order to tell the Supreme Court that it has no right to engage in such prohibitions. However, if your #1 goal in life is to run a successful business and somebody tries to force you to ruin it (to run it in some way that's doomed to failure), you'd better find a way to fight it. It's all a matter of cost-benefit analysis.

 

If I delegated my right to retaliation to somebody else then I'd expect them to use it at least as well as I would, if not better.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
A few grammatical errors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snerd, 

My point was that if objectivists wanted to establish their own state, perhaps operating borderlessly, then force would be initiated against them.

You seem to think America is a free nation, yet I think it likely that Americans would not respect the emergent sovereignty of a new community, it would initiate or threaten lethal force to make them comply, for example if they refused to pay American taxes or comply with American regulations. The government would view it as sedition.

My point is that if the basis of sovereignty is individual rights, individuals ought to be free to decide which community they want to be a part of, and within that community govern themselves, provided they do not initiate force. Furthermore this community does not need to be located in one territory, although practically this would be better.

A case in point. Israel. Jewish people purchased land and established a new state after ww2. Is the jurisdiction of Israel legitimate or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Devil's Advocate:  … Private property implies sovereignty and having the jurisdiction to dispose of as the individual owner chooses.

No, private property cannot imply (i.e. give rise to) sovereignty because:

- sovereignty is the prerogative of a state/government of having the power to define and implement laws (on a territory),

- while private property and ownership presupposes the existence of a government which defines and enforces property deeds

It looks like the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

Quote

DonAthos: Anything a "government" (which is still a collection of individuals) has the right to do may only come from individual rights.

I objected to the implication that anything a "government" has the right to do come from individual rights of the government officials. I specified that persons who are also government officials exercise their function not because of their individual rights, but as their specific duties; I guess you overlooked this.

In detail: The government (the state) is instituted to perform a number of functions. Under a proper government, a number of institutions are defined (police, army, justice), together with a limitative list of their sub-functions and detailed procedures. In this way, the functions and procedures are not rights given to the state, but strictly limited duties. They do originate in people's individual rights, but their protection is being delegated, they become government's duties. To the extent that these functions cannot be (yet) performed by robots ;-), people are hired (or delegated) in order to perform these duties – through strictly defined procedures. Again, those are not rights given to the government officials, but strictly limited duties. In order to perform these duties, people have to be specifically commissioned for this. IOW, not everybody can proclaim himself a police officer.

Now about competing claims of sovereignty over a territory. The specific case was UK and Spain, both right-respecting states. UK has no legitimate claim over Spain territory, because Spain is rights-respecting and it is already there. It was for such a context that I said "the legitimate claim to authority has the one which was the first to establish on that territory a rights-respecting régime".

So that your "Gilligan's Island" case is completely different. I will only say this for now: if Skipper says he respects others' rights, but also that he's in charge and everyone else must submit to his authority, then he has deep mental problems ;-)

 

Quote

DonAthos: 2) A "government" is some group of people who claim a monopoly of force, or the legitimate use of retaliatory force…

No, as I explained, it is misleading to say that a government is a number of people with special rights. They are people commissioned to carry some specific, circumscribed, duties.

Quote

DonAthos: Would a group of British citizens have the right to reject the authority/jurisdiction of Fascist Spain and proclaim their own state on that territory (in their own name)? Or would they not?

Yes, they would. I obviously misread: you mentioned those people's citizenship (American) and I thought they intended to proclaim the territory as being American. Otherwise, their citizenship(s) are irrelevant.

Further.  My "they are not entitled to help from UK" should mean " they are not entitled to help from the UK government"

Did I skip something important?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AlexL said:

I objected to the implication that anything a "government" has the right to do come from individual rights of the government officials.

Here, once more, is the statement to which you objected (and which I've now expanded upon at length):

Quote

 

First let me agree with the above: the only rights are individual rights. Anything a "government" (which is still a collection of individuals) has the right to do may only come from individual rights.

 

I disagree that there is any "implication" in this that some official has any "right" apart from any one else. Hopefully my taking the time to clarify has helped you to understand my meaning, as here, directly:

Quote

 

The individuals who comprise the government do not have any right, more or less, than any other individual.

But then I'll also say that these officials have the same rights, qua individual, as any one else... so yes, strictly speaking, anything a "government" has the right to do does come from the individual rights of the government officials, so long as it is understood that you and I have the same rights, equally.

If not, then I suppose we are left to imagine some magical source of the right of governance, like God and "the divine right of kings," or that there is no "right" at all apart from the might of whomsoever proclaims himself in charge.

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

I specified that persons who are also government officials exercise their function not because of their individual rights, but as their specific duties; I guess you overlooked this.

If I've overlooked anything, it was only in my zealousness to clarify my meaning (which I had judged misunderstood). But let's correct that oversight here:

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

In detail: The government (the state) is instituted to perform a number of functions.

Yes.

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

Under a proper government, a number of institutions are defined (police, army, justice), together with a limitative list of their sub-functions and detailed procedures.

All right.

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

In this way, the functions and procedures are not rights given to the state, but strictly limited duties.

No, there are not "rights given to the state" (which is also not something I've said, I don't believe), but anything that the state--or its agents--do is, of necessity, an exercise of individual right (and again, the same individual rights that you or I have). I don't see the utility of distinguishing that from "duty," here, and I fear the potential for misstep accordingly. But let's continue.

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

They do originate in people's individual rights...

Précisément!

(This is what I've been saying, and what you appear to have taken issue with, but I suppose we're now too far invested for that to matter much...)

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

...but their protection is being delegated...

Yes, government represents a delegation... this is a not unimportant point to the question(s) before us, I believe. What is the specific nature of this "delegation"? What is (or ought to be) its mechanism, in reality? I imagine that we shall come back to this, and find it central.

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

...they become government's duties. To the extent that these functions cannot be (yet) performed by robots ;-), people are hired (or delegated) in order to perform these duties – through strictly defined procedures.

Yes, I think this helps to clarify a bit, if we imagine the government in the role of hired help. Yet, while there is a sense in which a cook, say, has a "duty," in that the cook has been hired to do something specific (cook) and is thus expected to do that thing (and not, say, wash the cat), I would never set that against, or as being apart from, the cook's individual rights, or say that the cook's vocation was anything other than an expression of his individual rights. I grow increasingly concerned that this use of "duty" is more apt to confuse than clarify, and that it might hide some yet-submerged difference of opinion.

Specifically, I don't see how it is meant to contend with anything I've said to this point, though I trust that... somehow it must. Otherwise, what are we arguing about at all? :)

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

Again, those are not rights given to the government officials, but strictly limited duties.

I agree that the "delegation of rights" upon which a proper government acts is strictly limited. I continue to balk at your use of the term "duty," though perhaps your meaning is unobjectionable, and I'm only reacting this way based on things like this quote from Rand's essay "Causality Versus Duty":

Quote

 

One of the most destructive anti-concepts in the history of moral philosophy is the term “duty.”

An anti-concept is an artificial, unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The term “duty” obliterates more than single concepts; it is a metaphysical and psychological killer: it negates all the essentials of a rational view of life and makes them inapplicable to man’s actions . . . .

 

But assuming that Rand is not here speaking to your use of the term (and currently I believe that she is not), I'll try to let go of some of my discomfort as we continue.

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

In order to perform these duties, people have to be specifically commissioned for this.

Ah. Now we're getting somewhere.

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

IOW, not everybody can proclaim himself a police officer.

People have to be specifically commissioned? By whom? If it does not do for a police officer to proclaim himself such, then who possesses the power to make a (legitimate) police officer out of an ordinary citizen?

Or when you say "not everybody can proclaim himself a police officer," do you mean to imply that some people, some lucky few, can proclaim themselves police officers? I wouldn't think so, but otherwise we have yet to put our finger on precisely where a police officer gets his authority from.

But are you quite sure I cannot proclaim myself a police officer (in right, I mean; not according to contemporary law wherever we happen to live)? If I were to swear myself to upholding the principles of proper governance (taking upon myself what you cast as "the duties of government"), then what do you believe ought to stop me, in reason? If what the government does is right, then why cannot I act likewise?

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

Now about competing claims of sovereignty over a territory. The specific case was UK and Spain, both right-respecting states. UK has no legitimate claim over Spain territory, because Spain is rights-respecting and it is already there. It was for such a context that I said "the legitimate claim to authority has the one which was the first to establish on that territory a rights-respecting régime".

Probably we have enough on our plate without discussing contemporary politics too much, but I do wonder... when you describe Spain (or the UK) as being "rights-respecting," what is your criterion? Personally, I live in the United States, and while I regard it as being relatively rights-respecting in comparison to other governments, contemporary and historical, I also know (as is oft decried on these very forums) how the government of the US taxes and regulates and, in general, violates the principles of just governance. That is to say, the US government routinely violates rights. Why, the source of its funding in everything it does is predicated on the violation of rights!

This may or may not be at issue between us, but it might matter to the present discussion if we were to toy with the idea (as others in the thread have already seemingly begun) of establishing a "Galt's Gulch." Whether in Spain, or the UK, or here in the US, wouldn't such a thing then become "the first to establish on that territory a rights-respecting régime"? Or would you see that as a competition between two "right-respecting states," and thus say that those Objectivists should not be allowed to establish an independent government within some preexisting state?

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

So that your "Gilligan's Island" case is completely different.

Perhaps so, but at present I do not see how.

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

I will only say this for now: if Skipper says he respects others' rights, but also that he's in charge and everyone else must submit to his authority, then he has deep mental problems ;-)

Have you seen the show? Gilligan is his best friend, his "little buddy," leading him continually into disaster after disaster; certainly the Skipper has some deep mental problems! :)

But... isn't this otherwise your claim? That some government sets up shop (somehow) on a territory, proclaiming itself to be in charge, and demands that everyone else must submit to its authority, and because it is the first to do so, this becomes legitimized?

I understand you consider what you're saying as being different from the Skipper proclaiming himself in charge of the island, but again, I have yet to understand the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following the example of the American Revolution, Objectivists could proclaim independence by explaining why a separation from existing governments is necessary along with the intention to form a borderless community of sovereign individuals.  Assurances of non-aggression and an intention to follow the law of the land until their independence is officially recognized would seem a prudent step to take. The declaration would be sent instantly via the internet to all governments.  A group of Objectivist representatives could then petition the United Nations for a status of diplomatic immunity.

 

There are at least three legal precedents I’m aware of that make the scenario possible:

 

1)  The establishment of Indian Reservations which essentially operate independently within the United States.

 

2) The immunity invoked by conscientious objection, generally respected to some degree by existing governments.

 

3) The American model of a separation of church and state that includes exemption from taxation.

 

Any deal breakers thus far?

Edit: For the purposes of this discussion, I'm calling calling this project, "O Nation"

 

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, prudence would allow that the future citizens of O Nation agreed in advance to continue following the law of the land until they were officially recognized by the existing local government and/or granted diplomatic immunity by the UN.  This would be consistent with bringing their grievances to court in respect for existing law, as suggested by Ayn Rand, prior to taking a more confrontational stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2015 at 10:21 PM, Jon Southall said:

Snerd, Nicky

The problem I have with your thinking is that it is contradictory. On the one hand you claim that the basis of national claim to jurisdiction is individual rights. That is a premise that I think the three of us are all in agreement with.

Nicky then contradicts this by asserting for practical purposes, a governing authority must be territorial. This means pragmatics are trumping rights.

Give an example of a right being violated by the government Ayn Rand describes in her non-fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DonAthos said:

[...]

Governmental official (agents) exercise their official duties by virtue of the fact that the Law requires a number of functions (policing, justice, etc.) to be performed in order to protect the rights of the inhabitants. They do not exercise these function by virtue of their own (special) individual rights; they have no such special rights. Of course, they do retain their general individual rights (life, liberty, property, etc.), but they also have duties, either as employee (e.g., police officer), or as an elected official (e.g., Member of Parliament). BTW, any employee, with any employer, is in such a position.

In case you wonder: to the extent that there are some possible friction between their rights and their duties (no possible frictions in the case the government officials are robots!), they are solved in the best possible way - by voluntary agreement of the official.

For example, a police officer in active duty has the right to life as any other person, but it is implicit in his duties to accept a higher risk; this is permissible only if the person voluntarily accepts his position as a police officer. Some government officials have to accept some restrictions to their freedom of speech, some devoir de reserve, but this is known in advance and, therefore, voluntarily accepted as a pre-condition for employment.

The above was one of the points of disagreement. I hope my position is now clear to you. I hope it is also clear that land property rights are not the source for sovereignty and legitimacy of a government/régime.

What other fundamental questions do you have? Our discussion became too "bushy", with dozens of remarks and questions. So: please list a couple of most fundamental subjects about which you have questions and/or objections. Please also state your position, in most clear and unambiguous terms, including your arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, AlexL said:

...

For example, a police officer in active duty has the right to life as any other person, but it is implicit in his duties to accept a higher risk; this is permissible only if the person voluntarily accepts his position as a police officer. Some government officials have to accept some restrictions to their freedom of speech, some devoir de reserve, but this is known in advance and, therefore, voluntarily accepted as a pre-condition for employment...

 

No one who respects the right to life requires a duty from others to accept the risk of losing their own.  Police and soldiers aren't required to take a bullet, nor are firemen required to get burned.  Training and equipment allow these professionals the ability to perform their tasks with a reasonable expectation of returning home safely, and they are allowed to use their judgment when to engage and when to hold back.

A counter example would be relying on citizens to perform similar "voluntary duties" in advance of the arrival of officers:  "Brevard County, Florida, Sheriff Wayne Ivey said in a video message that citizens carrying guns could be the first line of defense in active-shooter situations." http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/wake-san-bernardino-sheriffs-urge-residents-carry-guns-n476291

I think the point is it's the training, not a special endowment of rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

No one who respects the right to life requires a duty from others to accept the risk of losing their own...  Training and equipment allow these professionals the ability to perform their tasks with a reasonable expectation of returning home safely

Who said otherwise? In this profession the risk of NOT returning home safely is higher, this is why nobody requires (demands, imposes) it on anyone. Besides, in a free country, the government does not force people into any specific profession – it is everyone's free choice.

Similarly, in a free country the military service is voluntary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

What other fundamental questions do you have? Our discussion became too "bushy", with dozens of remarks and questions. So: please list a couple of most fundamental subjects about which you have questions and/or objections.

All right. In the interest of "trimming the bush" (and I couldn't find any better way of phrasing that; sorry) here's what I'd like to focus on:

1) I continue to be uneasy about your use of the term "duty." Can you please explain exactly what a "duty" is in your usage?

2) I would like to see the following addressed:

12 hours ago, DonAthos said:

[The police] have to be specifically commissioned? By whom? If it does not do for a police officer to proclaim himself such, then who possesses the power to make a (legitimate) police officer out of an ordinary citizen?

Or when you say "not everybody can proclaim himself a police officer," do you mean to imply that some people, some lucky few, can proclaim themselves police officers? I wouldn't think so, but otherwise we have yet to put our finger on precisely where a police officer gets his authority from.

But are you quite sure I cannot proclaim myself a police officer (in right, I mean; not according to contemporary law wherever we happen to live)? If I were to swear myself to upholding the principles of proper governance (taking upon myself what you cast as "the duties of government"), then what do you believe ought to stop me, in reason? If what the government does is right, then why cannot I act likewise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DonAthos asked: "But are you quite sure I cannot proclaim myself a police officer (in right, I mean; not according to contemporary law wherever we happen to live)? If I were to swear myself to upholding the principles of proper governance (taking upon myself what you cast as 'the duties of government'), then what do you believe ought to stop me, in reason? If what the government does is right, then why cannot I act likewise?"

"Every individual is empowered to arrest wrongdoers in certain circumstances, but individuals looking to make a citizens arrest act at their own risk. Not only is the act of apprehending a criminal inherently dangerous, but failure to meet the legal requirements for a citizens arrest could have devastating consequences for the person making the arrest." ~ http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/citizen-s-arrest.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be in favour of a O Nation. Seriously. In time how much better our lives would be. 

I think it would be a possible way of striking/shrugging without committing suicide - if it were possible to achieve what DA suggests.

If we want to build a better world around us, let's go and do it. We have the sovereignty to do so in our lives and property. But this takes courage and we have to shrug off the false believe that what is can be all that there is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DonAthos said:

All right...here's what I'd like to focus on:

I am somewhat disappointed that you've paid attention to the last paragraph only…

11 hours ago, DonAthos said:

1) I continue to be uneasy about your use of the term "duty." Can you please explain exactly what a "duty" is in your usage?

I was using "duty" in this sense:  "responsibility of conduct, function, or performance that arises from an express or implied contract or from the fact of holding an office or position".  You can think of it as simply a "job description". Obviously, it has very little to do with the (anti-)concept "duty" from the moral philosophy.

For the second point which you would likeme to address:

11 hours ago, DonAthos said:

- who possesses the power to make a (legitimate) police officer out of an ordinary citizen? 

- where a police officer gets his authority from.

I've already presented the answer – it was in the first of the paragraphs you did not pay attention to. Here it is again: 

"Governmental official (agents) exercise their official duties by virtue of the fact that the Law requires a number of functions (policing, justice, etc.) to be performed in order to protect the rights of the inhabitants."

So that the logical sequence is this: necessity of protecting the rights à institutions to do this à detailed specifications for functions and procedures (Constitution, laws, regulations) à if robots cannot perform all these ;-), then willing humans have to be selected and trained to learn and follow the procedures. All these humans – government officials, agents, etc. – must also be controlled and be accountable.

Therefore, the answer to your two questions is: the power to make a legitimate police officer out of a consenting ordinary citizen have the institutions mentioned above. The hierarchy of laws, as well al the corresponding institutions are the source of officer's authority.

The reasons why you shouldn't be allowed to proclaim yourself a police officer are implied above: you should be selected and embedded into a hierarchy which ascertains your competence for the job, provides you with training and insures your accountability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

I am somewhat disappointed that you've paid attention to the last paragraph only…

I didn't mean to cause you any disappointment. I had thought you wanted, and specifically had asked for, something stripped down and more focused (contra "bushiness"), and so I opted to respond in a narrow manner in order to better give you a more manageable conversation. If I misjudged in this, I apologize.

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

I was using "duty" in this sense:  "responsibility of conduct, function, or performance that arises from an express or implied contract or from the fact of holding an office or position".  You can think of it as simply a "job description". Obviously, it has very little to do with the (anti-)concept "duty" from the moral philosophy.

All right. That sense of "duty" seems fine with me, only... it seems to me that you've employed it in order to contrast with the idea of "rights," and thus, apparently to disagree with me that governmental action must come from individual rights, saying that these actors do not so much have the "right" to act as they do as much as they have the "duty."

Yet I do not think that there is any sensible contrast between a "job description" and the exercise of individual human rights. What people do in their professions, including what they do according to some contract that they've signed, is fully an expression of their rights. (Or if it is not... if we are talking about the "duty" that some mob enforcer might have, per the requirements of his job, then this continues to be a fine usage of the term, but again it has nothing to do with "rights." A mob enforcer has no right to perform his supposed responsibilities or his "duties.")

But perhaps it is a mistake to pursue this particular matter further? If we can agree that governmental officials have a job description--if this is the extent of what their "duty" means--then perhaps that is concord enough for now.

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

For the second point which you would likeme to address:

- who possesses the power to make a (legitimate) police officer out of an ordinary citizen? 

- where a police officer gets his authority from.

I've already presented the answer – it was in the first of the paragraphs you did not pay attention to.

Because I did not respond directly to your first paragraph does not mean that I did not pay attention to it. I did not receive it as an answer to the questions I had posed, yet I will examine it again with that context in mind, and your additional commentary, forthwith.

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

Here it is again: 

"Governmental official (agents) exercise their official duties by virtue of the fact that the Law requires a number of functions (policing, justice, etc.) to be performed in order to protect the rights of the inhabitants."

So that the logical sequence is this: necessity of protecting the rights à institutions to do this à detailed specifications for functions and procedures (Constitution, laws, regulations) à if robots cannot perform all these ;-), then willing humans have to be selected and trained to learn and follow the procedures. All these humans – government officials, agents, etc. – must also be controlled and be accountable.

Therefore, the answer to your two questions is: the power to make a legitimate police officer out of a consenting ordinary citizen have the institutions mentioned above. The hierarchy of laws, as well al the corresponding institutions are the source of officer's authority.

With respect, this does not appear to yet answer my questions. Everything you describe--this "hierarchy of laws" and constitutions--they are all, themselves, apparatuses (apparati?) of some preexisting government. They all already presume authority. Thus, this begs the question of where that authority itself comes from.

Constitutions, laws, and regulations must be written by men. (Robots, too, would need to be constructed and programmed in some specific fashion.) Heck, I could write a Constitution in the same manner that I could proclaim myself a police officer. Still, you would not recognize me as the ruler of my own nation--would you? Why or why not?

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

The reasons why you shouldn't be allowed to proclaim yourself a police officer are implied above: you should be selected and embedded into a hierarchy which ascertains your competence for the job, provides you with training and insures your accountability.

I find nothing about this questionable, per se. I agree that a nation ideally should deputize in the fashion described, with respect to competence, training and accountability. But again it begs the question--or removes it back a level--as to where the authority comes from to do all of this, and why I cannot act in like fashion (ascertain anyone's competence, provide training to others or myself, insure accountability, etc.).

Can you share with me your thoughts as to where this "authority" comes from originally? What is its actual source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I share similar thoughts to you Don.

Alex needs to set out what he reasons the basis of government jurisdiction and sovereignty to be. Presently the presumption of authority begs the question as you point out.

This thread is about the emergence of a state so is looking at the basis of government. You cannot presume an authority to address this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DonAthos said:

this begs the question of where that authority itself comes from.

 

48 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

Alex needs to set out what he reasons the basis of government jurisdiction and sovereignty to be.

I thought I have already explained this. But maybe I don't understand the question. I suggest both of you to share with me your own thoughts on this subject. In this way I will understand what aspect(s) you ask me to address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...