Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Emerging States?

Rate this topic


Jon Southall

Recommended Posts

On 12/24/2015 at 2:01 AM, Jon Southall said:

Nicky,

What you wrote was a contradiction. It's a simple fact. You can't have rights as the basis of government and then say rights only count when its practical, without contradicting yourself.

You seem to have trouble reading my posts, or at least remembering what I have written. I support the kind of capitalism Rand was advocating.

The problem is with your stating that the objectivist position on jurisdiction is territorial - then asserting pragmatics trumps rights - can you show me where you have concluded this from, given Rand's arguments on it?

The kind of capitalism Rand was advocating is territorial. I didn't "conclude" it from anywhere, it's a well known fact. I read it in a book she authored.

 

On 12/24/2015 at 2:01 AM, Jon Southall said:

Nicky,

What you wrote was a contradiction. It's a simple fact. You can't have rights as the basis of government and then say rights only count when its practical, without contradicting yourself.

You keep saying that. And then when I ask you to give an example of how the territorial government Rand describes in her non-fiction violates rights, you claim you never said it does. And then, two posts later, you make the claim again, and then I ask for an example again, and then you deny you said it again.

And over and over and...oh wait, no, I believe this is where this cycle ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky,

You keep avoiding your contradiction. You asserted that the basis for the territorial argument is pragmatics. Rand mentioned a territorial approach but did not present an argument for why it must be so - so where are you getting this from? You argued before that pragmatics trumps rights, but I don't think you will find this argued for in Objectivist literature.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please read the full comment before starting to answerdefault_smile.png

On 12/25/2015 at 2:03 AM, DonAthos said:

Could there exist finer gradations between "dictatorship" and "essentially rights-respecting"?

No, not for the purpose of granting or denying consent. The "consent" which appears here is the one which is the source of government's authority, or state legitimacy (as in " The source of the government’s authority is 'the consent of the governed.') Loss of consent means loss of legitimacy, and loss of legitimacy entails the right of people to forcibly overthrow the government and change the régime. But not so when the desired result fails to pass the test of the lawful political process.

The forcible overthrow of the government is morally justified only if there are no peaceful means to change the government, the laws, the policies. That is, when the political process – elections, political parties, freedom of press and of association – is blocked, when we have tyranny.

The consent of the kind you seem to envision – everyone is satisfied with everything – is impossible to obtain and absurd to expect. This is why I called your kind of consent an anti-concept.

I have also noted that you stated yourself that :

Quote

I will not initiate the use of force, but I reserve the right to defend myself against force. … as far as it is within my means and deemed for my benefit

This is exactly what I mean "giving consent" – agreeing to remain "within the system", that is to use its tools to obtain the change. I repeat: as long as the country is not a dictatorship, the government policies reflect – more or less – the dominant views of its citizens. Under those circumstances, forcibly removing such a government means forcing your ideas on the rest of society. Which is a totalitarian endeavor indeed.

Nothing of the above is new, I said all of it before. Likewise, I have nothing new to say about the Alaska business.

P.S.

On 12/25/2015 at 2:03 AM, DonAthos said:

You're saying that others will violate your rights, and that you give your consent for them to do this; you agree that what they do, they have the right to do.

Not at all! I hope you understand by now that my consent goes only to the legitimacy of the government, not to its rights violations – as long as the peaceful corrections to those rights violations are possible in principle, and depend on the philosophy of the public.

 

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AlexL said:

Please read the full comment before starting to answerdefault_smile.png

I have read your full comment, just as I have always read your full comment before beginning any reply, and typically more than once.

Quote

No, not for the purpose of granting or denying consent. The "consent" which appears here is the one which is the source of government's authority, or state legitimacy (as in " The source of the government’s authority is 'the consent of the governed.') Loss of consent means loss of legitimacy, and loss of legitimacy entails the right of people to forcibly overthrow the government and change the régime. But not so when the desired result fails to pass the test of the lawful political process.

The forcible overthrow of the government is morally justified only if there are no peaceful means to change the government, the laws, the policies. That is, when the political process – elections, political parties, freedom of press and of association – is blocked, when we have tyranny.

I'm getting lost in the multiplying verbiage. "The test of the lawful political process"? I don't know what that refers to. And who exactly (besides yourself) is talking about "the forcible overthrow of the government"? Now we also have to deal with "legitimacy"?

Let's try to be clear(er) about this, if we can:

Insofar as a state claims the right to violate the rights of others (as our running example, the US Government, does), then it is not "legitimate." There is no such thing as the right to violate the rights of others, regardless of what the voting populace may believe at any given time.

Consider this (from Galt's speech):

Quote

The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

But this is the very evil you are currently defending: those groups which not only attempt, but do indeed negate man's rights... and continually so. You mean to clothe this evil and make it more palatable by pronouncing their actions "legitimate." (Or you do so unintentionally.)

Quote

The consent of the kind you seem to envision – everyone is satisfied with everything – is impossible to obtain and absurd to expect. This is why I called your kind of consent an anti-concept.

Except that you are mischaracterizing what I've said. Nowhere have I said that consent is "everyone is satisfied with everything," and in the very post to which you're responding, I tried to clarify that very misconception, saying:

On 12/25/2015 at 5:03 PM, DonAthos said:

No, nor is [your characterization] what "consent" means in my usage. To clarify my usage, I could envision consenting to a government, as such, which then might be subject to the occasional misuse of authority, or corrupt official, or honest mistake, or etc. These would be rightly considered aberrations, and would not speak to the essential character of the government in question (which would truly be "essentially rights-respecting"), and would not necessarily shake my consent/my affirmation that it is right for this government to exercise the power that they claim, and furthermore, that they do it in my name.

Do you understand my meaning now, or do I need to elaborate further? For safety's sake, I am not saying that "consent" is "everyone is satisfied with everything"; but that it is an affirmation that it is right for the government to exercise the power which they claim. I am saying I allow for mistakes in the exercise of this power, or even occasional malfeasance (which are aberrations, when the government in question truly is "essentially rights-respecting"), which would not necessarily diminish the aforementioned consent.

I am also saying, however, that it is improper to consent to a system which violates others' rights as a matter of routine and policy (which is true of, say, the current government of the United States).

Quote

This is exactly what I mean "giving consent" – agreeing to remain "within the system", that is to use its tools to obtain the change.

Yes, you've said this before... seemingly verbatim, and I disagreed that what I mean is that I "agree to remain 'within the system.'" I don't know why you've repeated this, rather than respond to the manner in which I've expressed my disagreement the first time, but I hold that you are still mistaken.

Quote

I repeat: as long as the country is not a dictatorship, the government policies reflect – more or less – the dominant views of its citizens. Under those circumstances, forcibly removing such a government means forcing your ideas on the rest of society. Which is a totalitarian endeavor indeed.

If some minority believed in their own liberty (as per Objectivism) and enforced this upon the rest of the world through the threat of retaliatory force, though everyone else disagreed, it would not be "totalitarian."

Quote

Nothing of the above is new, I said all of it before. Likewise, I have nothing new to say about the Alaska business.

Which is a shame, because I believe that "the Alaska business" speaks to an important matter. Since I still do not know your views (let alone your reasoning), I am left to guess: I suppose that you believe that, given a US government run according to Objectivist principles, that Alaska would yet have no right to secede and form its own state. That it ought have no such right.

Is that correct? Or have I got it wrong?

Quote

Not at all! I hope you understand by now that my consent goes only to the legitimacy of the government, not to its rights violations – as long as the peaceful corrections to those rights violations are possible in principle, and depend on the philosophy of the public.

I do not understand the notion that a government which routinely violates the rights of its citizens (the very thing that, in theory, it is designed to prevent) can be "legitimate." And I do not understand the idea that a person may consent to a rights-abusing government, yet pretend that this act of consent does not speak to that abuse.

Edited by DonAthos
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 4:13 PM, AlexL said:

...

To repeat: I was not speaking of moral duties, but of duties and obligations one assumes when taking a job – of professional obligations...

 

It may be better to speak of professional conduct in lieu of duties and obligations then.  My acceptance of employment doesn't obligate me to live for the sake of my employer or his customers; I remain self governing.  The point in dispute seems to be your advocacy of a sovereignty bestowed from the group down, rather than from the individual up.  The interaction of sovereign individuals is what distinguishes the kind of republic envisioned by the American Forefathers from all others past or present.

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 4:13 PM, AlexL said:

...

Are you talking about the personal sovereignty, the person's independency and self-ownership? In this case I am not sure I've clamed the contrary, because I was always speaking about government's sovereignty/jurisdiction over a territory. I do not deny, however, that the sovereignty/jurisdiction of a proper government is related to the personal self-ownership.

 

Indeed I am.  If you understand that groups don't have rights, then it follows that neither do governments in terms of sovereignty or jurisdiction.  It is the fluid nature of politics that continuously demonstrates how inappropriate a group claim to sovereign jurisdiction is.  The individuals who formed the United States in 1776 no longer exist.  If the individuals who reside there today believe they are obligated to follow a national will expressed by the current administration, they are mistaken.  They may be forced to do so, but they aren't obligated as part of their right to life to do so.

A proper government is relational to the sovereign individuals who consent to contract for security.  The danger has always been that dictators arise on the presumption of "sovereign" national territory being something other than security for private individual properties, and that the individuals who own the property diminish their rights by securing it.  The supreme power or authority of individuals, is individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus far, as I had hoped, participating in this thread has helped me to begin a process of clarifying and further integrating my thoughts on these matters; I thank everyone else for their assistance in this.

I'd like to try to set down some of my current thoughts on two terms, "consent" and "legitimacy," and how I believe they are related. This (hopefully brief) discussion may reiterate several things that I have already argued upthread, but as I say, my primary interest is in further clarifying and integrating my thoughts. I ask your indulgence and hope this exercise also proves useful to the ongoing discussion.

"Legitimacy" is a character of government, where we express whether it is right, or not, that some government (which is a man or a group of men) wields the power which it claims. A government is either "legitimate" or it is not, or we may also speak of some activity/action as being "legitimate" or not.

"Consent" is the (ongoing) action of an individual. It is an attitude; an internal orientation of agreement towards some external activity or entity; it must be given voluntarily (if it is to be given), and it may be given, or withdrawn, implicitly/informally or explicitly/formally.

What makes a government "legitimate"? In my view, there are a few elements required. It is true that a government derives its authority--as we have noted--from "the consent of the governed," but this is not the whole story. Such "authority" is not unlimited, and any exercise of "authority" beyond the bounds of either the consent given, or the role that a proper government plays in human society, is of its nature illegitimate. Any government which does so characteristically is illegitimate, regardless of whether or not its citizens "consent" to its activities.

Let me try to concretize the above a bit.

In the 1930s and 40s, any number of Germans may have "consented" that the Nazi regime rule, yet that regime, due to its anti-rights activities/nature, was never legitimate. The purpose of government, properly conceived, is the protection of individual rights. Any government which works against individual rights is thus set against the purpose of government, and accordingly has no legitimate claim to any authority; there is no "right" to violate the rights of others.

When some government does respect rights ("characteristically," or "essentially"), we must yet ask: where does that particular government derive its particular authority (as opposed to any other rights-respecting entity which might claim it)? We must remember the nature of this "authority," which is the delegated right of self-defense. Delegated by whom? The citizens, in whose name the government takes action. This is to say that a legitimate government must not only respects rights, but it is solely empowered by the consent of the governed. Should "the governed" no longer consent to some particular third party acting in their name, then that government is no longer legitimate.

It may be asked (as I have asked of myself), what does this "consent" matter, practically, to the individual who gives or withholds it from some claimed authority? I believe that there is a not-insignificant moral dimension to consenting to an illegitimate authority (which ultimately means to consent to one's own destruction), but more than this, I'd like to speak briefly to the idea, expressed earlier, of "working within the system."

Some appear to presume that if a government violates rights, yet allows for some mechanism to address those rights violations, or correct them in the future, that it is incumbent upon a moral individual/citizen to "work within the system"/utilize that mechanism, rather than withdraw his individual consent from the government, as such. It seems that such an individual must agree to endure these rights violations in the meantime, in that he is expected to "respect the laws" of the entity which claims the right to enforce these violations against individual rights, as such.

I disagree that such a suggestion is moral.

As one concrete example* to highlight the difference between what I believe "withdrawal of consent" to mean, versus "working within the system," consider the draft, which I have registered for, yet is currently inactive in the United States. Suppose that the draft were reactivated and I was selected for conscription. "Respect for the law" might have me willingly report to some induction center, as the law demands, until such time as I can convince an authority--or the populace--that this is wrong.

However, I do not recognize the right of any other entity to send me to fight some war against my will, and I would not respect any draft order given. I would consider my disobedience to such illegitimate authority completely moral.

____________________________

*We may discuss other potential examples in their turn, including my hypothetical of Alaska seceding from the United States in order to pursue some oil drilling which the government in Washington D.C. otherwise disallows. Any attempt to secede by this theoretical Alaskan state would represent a (formal, in this case) withdrawal of consent from one governmental entity, to create another, and it would not be "working within the system," but it would be abandoning the current system altogether for the purpose of creating a new system. Yet I argue that it would be wholly right.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

...

Some appear to presume that if a government violates rights, yet allows for some mechanism to address those rights violations, or correct them in the future, that it is incumbent upon a moral individual/citizen to "work within the system"/utilize that mechanism, rather than withdraw his individual consent from the government, as such. It seems that such an individual must agree to endure these rights violations in the meantime, in that he is expected to "respect the laws" of the entity which claims the right to enforce these violations against individual rights, as such.

I disagree that such a suggestion is moral.

...

Here I believe Ayn Rand's position on Civil Disobedience is spot on.  I think there is a degree of respect necessary to support the concept of legality, i.e., that one ought to attempt to work within a legal framework, such as it exists, in order to demonstrate a willingness to abide the law in a social context.  Such effort at least demonstrates a moral willingness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

23 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

Rand mentioned a territorial approach but did not present an argument for why it must be so.

How would you know? You obviously never read any of her non-fiction. Here's a quote on her opinion about your theory:

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. (Virtue of Selfishness)

That last part is why I keep asking you for AN EXAMPLE of what's contradictory about a territorial government that protects individual rights. Because you're incapable of giving one. Your meaningless philosophizing, that's been going on for several pages between you and Devil's Advocate, is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality.

23 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

You argued before that pragmatics trumps rights, but I don't think you will find this argued for in Objectivist literature.

Another place where you won't find that argued is in my posts...on account that you made it up. I can only assume that it's because you're confused about the difference between practicality and pragmatism. Objectivism is a practical philosophy, not a pragmatic one. All the solutions it offers are practical, none of them are pragmatic. This solution too (not mine, it's Ayn Rand's solution, I haven't added anything whatsoever to it) is also 100% practical, and not pragmatic at all.

But I don't want to talk about that. There's no way I'm wasting my time talking about pragmatism with someone who is yet to prove he can answer a basic, concrete question. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY this conversation is moving ahead to anything else, until you give AN EXAMPLE OF THAT CONTRADICTION YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Here I believe Ayn Rand's position on Civil Disobedience is spot on.  I think there is a degree of respect necessary to support the concept of legality, i.e., that one ought to attempt to work within a legal framework, such as it exists, in order to demonstrate a willingness to abide the law in a social context.  Such effort at least demonstrates a moral willingness. 

I'm not entirely certain what all "a degree of respect" entails, but as I've said, I would not adhere to some draft order... and neither would I be willing to sit in prison for my disobedience, if I could help it. I feel no compulsion to be a martyr and I do not have the "moral willingness" to go to trial in an effort to persuade my fellow men that they have no right to draft me; I know that they do not, and this is enough for my purposes.

When the abstract appeal of "legality" is used to try to subdue people and strip their rights, to take their property, reduce their liberties, shunt them off to wars they do not wish to wage, and etc., then I'm not certain that it is worthy of respect any longer. The law is respectable when it is on the side of justice and when it defends individual rights. When the law perverts justice and abrogates individual rights, then that law loses its claim to the respect of moral men.

Where Rand says

Quote

But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such.

I completely agree. However, my refusal to fight a war against my will is not, I would argue, any "violation of the rights of others." It is rather an assertion of my own rights, which I refuse to surrender.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky,

I have answered you repeatedly and consistently. You'll find I never wrote that the territorial approach was contradictory, you have forgotten again. What I actually wrote was that there are practical reasons why a territorial approach would be superior, but that it had not been shown to be a necessary condition. Go back and read it for yourself.

Again, for maybe the third time now, you haven't answered the contradiction in your post where you asserted that pragmatics were more important than individual rights. You did use the word practical, but so do pragmatists, you did cite Objectivism but pragmatists also have to borrow from moral philosophies.

Maybe you aren't a pragmatist, but your inability and unwillingness to consider a non-conventional state, an innovation of sorts, on the sole grounds that you assert it would be impractical, means you do have pragmatist lipstick on your collar, to borrow the phrase from Snerd.

By the way, I find it disrespectful when you write in capitals, this is shouting. Normally people shout when their emotions are running the show and reason has taken a walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DonAthos said:

I'm not entirely certain what all "a degree of respect" entails, but as I've said, I would not adhere to some draft order... and neither would I be willing to sit in prison for my disobedience, if I could help it. I feel no compulsion to be a martyr and I do not have the "moral willingness" to go to trial in an effort to persuade my fellow men that they have no right to draft me; I know that they do not, and this is enough for my purposes...

But that is exactly the kind of hazard a moral individual faces in a social context.  If you would not place yourself at risk to challenge a legal consequence, then you cannot claim to respect legality.  Such an attitude would prevent a sovereign individual from consent to any governance for fear of the consequence of being proven wrong.  Is legality only to be binding when a jury of peers agrees with your position?

10 hours ago, DonAthos said:

...

I completely agree. However, my refusal to fight a war against my will is not, I would argue, any "violation of the rights of others." It is rather an assertion of my own rights, which I refuse to surrender.

No, not a violation of their rights, which include your own, but a violation of the security that depends on a mutual respect for all rights in a social context.

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

6 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

But that is exactly the kind of hazard a moral individual faces in a social context.

I *think* I understand what you're saying; I'll try to address myself to it, and you please let me know whether I've hit the mark. :)

The key here is context, and specifically that not all "social contexts" are created equal. What a "moral individual" rightly may hazard with respect to the law depends upon the specifics of his actual social context. For instance, a Jew accused of some (actual/real) crime he did not commit may rightly agree to face prosecution of that crime in the modern United States, depending upon the facts of the case to reveal his innocence... however, he would be a fool to do so (if he could reasonably avoid it) in Nazi Germany. He may still be a "moral individual in a social context," but his actions must depend upon the specifics of his social context, and the correct answer is not always to "place yourself at risk."

6 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

If you would not place yourself at risk to challenge a legal consequence, then you cannot claim to respect legality.

There are many conceivable legal consequences I would face "gladly." If I were accused of a murder, I would be willing to endure the subsequent trial*, because I do respect the fact that murder is rightly a crime and that a proper legal system must determine innocence or guilt in that case.

___________________________

*All else being equal, I would be willing to endure a murder trial. But even here there are conceivable circumstances that might make me consider other options. For instance, if I had reason to believe that the state wanted to frame me for the crime... (which is my way of heartily recommending Netflix's new documentary series Making a Murderer :))

There are some legal systems in the world I might not trust at all, because this is not only a question of whether one respects "law" in the abstract, but also (and importantly) the actual institutions and individuals who must carry it out.

6 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Such an attitude would prevent a sovereign individual from consent to any governance for fear of the consequence of being proven wrong.  Is legality only to be binding when a jury of peers agrees with your position?

My position? Well, look, let's start here: we must first agree as to what constitutes a "crime," if I am to be willing to sit for trial. In the case of the draft, there's no question that I would refuse to be forced to wage war (which I think sets me at odds with the "respect for the law" that AlexL has proposed), so I would certainly be "guilty as charged." But do I think it proper to plead guilty for such a thing, and go rot in some cell for my view that I am not a sacrificial animal? Not at all. (If the penalty at stake were some slap-on-the-wrist fine, I might be willing to pay it and call it a day; but I am assuming that draft dodging would carry a far greater penalty; again, the specifics matter to the decision I would make.)

So then I ask myself, would I be willing to go to trial...? And for what--to try to convince some jury that the law itself is in error? But what could I expect jury-wise in this country, in this culture? A group of people who believe that an individual man is an end in himself? Or "peers" who believe that man owes duty to the state, that his life is not truly his own, and who believe that to act otherwise is evil and "selfish"?

Would I be willing to risk my life on my ability to turn twelve random men and women, raised in our culture, into Objectivists, over the course of some week-long trial? LOL, I can hardly persuade my fellow Objectivists to reconsider some minor mistake in their own reasoning, and they are (at least theoretically) committed to following reason wherever it leads. All in all, this sounds like a self-sacrificial enterprise.

But in a murder trial, "my position" would be that I am innocent of the crime. Yet at least I can agree that murder is rightly a crime, and I believe that if I could make the case that the facts must ultimately support, that a jury (even an American jury, who may otherwise be mistaken about many ethical matters) would find me not guilty, accordingly. While I recognize the fact that they might make some mistake, as happens occasionally and incidentally, I would agree to be bound by their decision, knowing that there yet exists an appellate process, and etc.

It is perhaps an interesting question as to the attitude an innocent man should take, once he has exhausted the appellate process, who is yet condemned to death, say, or life in some hellhole prison. I might like to explore that in writing fiction someday (but hope never to have to confront it in life!)

Now, suppose we change the context somewhat. Suppose... that we're in some distant future (which I wish were nearer, but I'm trying to be realistic about this). And in this distant future, the ideas of Ayn Rand have taken hold of the American mindset, and we have begun a great process of change in this country... yet the laws are laggard, and they still reflect our older, poorer conceptions. We are at a crossroads.

Then, let us say, there was a draft (perhaps enacted by older men and women who still hold the reins of power against a rising tide of liberty). In that circumstance, I might be willing to go to trial, to make the case that it is the law which is wrong, and have my dramatic Roark-in-the-courtroom scene. :)

6 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

No, not a violation of their rights, which include your own, but a violation of the security that depends on a mutual respect for all rights in a social context.

But that's just it. If that "security" you mention actually existed, then you're right, and I shouldn't want to threaten it. But if my fellow men are conspiring to send me into the meat grinder--if that is the product of "the system" as it is currently set up, and what I can reasonably expect should I participate on their terms--then it does me, as an individual, no good to play along.

And remember, that's really the brass tacks: what is it best for me to do, for my life, as an individual? Fight in some war, because I "respect the laws" written by men who have no respect for me, qua individual? Agree that they may cast me into a dungeon for refusal to immolate myself? I do not believe so. I believe that those options sound too much like "sacrifice," in this case, in the name of some principle which perhaps applies to a proper society, and proper governance, but not to the reality of 2015 America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A proper respect for legality obviously requires a proper legality, and that presumes a practice of justice based on a fundamental right to life.  In the American example, a trial by jury only requires one of your peers to be persuaded that your actions were reasonable given the circumstances.  That's as fair an opportunity for judgment by others as I can imagine, and I believe a moral individual would accept that kind of risk.

Your focus on the draft is an interesting example of a practice of law that requires a sacrifice for security.  Does such a practice contradict a right to life?  I don't think so given the opportunity to declare oneself a conscientious objector which would direct ones service away from the battlefield.  Does such a practice contradict a right to liberty?  Again, I think not given that ones liberty in a social context requires someone to bear the risk of defending it.  I doubt you'd be more comfortable allowing the sacrifice of others in service for your liberty to object?

If aggression were not a force to be reckoned with, no ones life and liberty would be at risk; but it is and they are.  Perhaps your refusal to surrender your rights is not so much an issue as you refusal to submit yourself to the legality of securing them in a social context?

In any case, throwing out examples of corrupt legality where bad men are out to get you, and gray zone legalities that require some concession to security in a social context, I mostly agree with your observations and share your reservations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

A proper respect for legality obviously requires a proper legality...

Right.

Otherwise, loosely speaking, it's as though we're talking about the obedience or love or respect or whatever that a child "owes" his parents without taking the nature of those parents into consideration. They may be abusive monsters, and then what are we counseling, exactly, when we counsel the child to heed them?

The law may be a great benefactor: force-plus-right has the potential to effect great good. But when the law is set against man's individual rights, it is a destroyer, and counseling man to "obey the law because it is the law" does nothing for men but speeds them to their destruction.

With respect to governance, we must resolve to only support those laws, nations, institutions, and men which actually perform the task of proper governance, and uphold individual rights, and withhold our support from those which do not, as it is in our power and interest. We may need to obey an unjust law to avoid some threatened consequence, just as the poor child may have to humor his abusive parents and their demands, but do we call this "legitimate"? Do we offer it our "consent"? By no means. And if we discover some way of effecting better in the world, and escaping our abuse, we are right to take it.

4 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

...and that presumes a practice of justice based on a fundamental right to life.  In the American example, a trial by jury only requires one of your peers to be persuaded that your actions were reasonable given the circumstances.  That's as fair an opportunity for judgment by others as I can imagine, and I believe a moral individual would accept that kind of risk.

It is perhaps a conversation for another time/thread, to discuss the pros and cons of our present trial-by-jury system, and I'm certainly not prepared for it. But for our current purpose, and as I've said, I would be willing to submit to such a thing for the purpose of defending myself against some criminal charge which fulfills the government's proper role of defending men against the initiation of force. But not for something which ought not be a crime in the first place.

To try to help you understand my position (though perhaps you do already and we simply disagree)...

I think I recall that you consider yourself Christian? Or maybe not, but I'll proceed as though you do. Well imagine that Christianity were outlawed, and now we're asking whether or not you should submit yourself to the authorities for the proper punishment. What is that punishment? It could be life in prison. It could be death. These don't seem terribly likely to me, but I'm here to make a point, so death it is! :) Well, should you, being a moral individual, submit yourself to such a trial? And if you concede you're "guilty" of being a Christian, is it your moral duty to accept the punishment that your fellow men have decided you deserve for it? It occurs to me that a Christian might well say "yes," being as Christianity is pro-martyrdom, haha, but as for me and my viewpoint, I would say that you ought not throw yourself onto the flames for the sake of the state.

I do not think that a moral individual must submit to those who wish to destroy him. And actually, what I conceive of as "morality" is pitched directly against that very sentiment.

4 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Your focus on the draft is an interesting example of a practice of law that requires a sacrifice for security.

I am not certain that the object of the draft is always "security," per se, but taking this at face value my response is thus: I am not willing to be sacrificed.

4 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Does such a practice contradict a right to life?  I don't think so given the opportunity to declare oneself a conscientious objector which would direct ones service away from the battlefield.  Does such a practice contradict a right to liberty?  Again, I think not given that ones liberty in a social context requires someone to bear the risk of defending it.  I doubt you'd be more comfortable allowing the sacrifice of others in service for your liberty to object?

If aggression were not a force to be reckoned with, no ones life and liberty would be at risk; but it is and they are. Perhaps your refusal to surrender your rights is not so much an issue as you refusal to submit yourself to the legality of securing them in a social context?

Debating the morality/legitimacy of the draft certainly takes us too far afield, I think. I'd employed it primarily for what I assumed was its convenience, in that I expected others to concede its immorality and impropriety... but I should know better by now. ;) I've seen self-described Objectivists* argue in favor of eminent domain, coercive taxation, legislated morality, and so many other initiations of force that it's as though we're already living in an Objectivist Utopia! :)

If the draft fails for you, specifically, as an example, it may be replaced with whatever you believe it improper for a government to be doing (if anything falls into that category).

____________________________________

*I recognize that this doesn't describe you, Other DA. I'm just sayin'.

4 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

In any case, throwing out examples of corrupt legality where bad men are out to get you, and gray zone legalities that require some concession to security in a social context, I mostly agree with your observations and share your reservations.

And they lived happily ever after!

But we still need to bring (some part of) this back around to the topic of "emerging states," and I hope you'll assist me in that endeavor. As this conversation was spun off from the discussion AlexL and I were having, I'd like to allow him more time to respond again, if it suits him, before I write more on the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 12/26/2015 at 5:53 AM, DonAthos said:
Quote

Loss of consent means loss of legitimacy, and loss of legitimacy entails the right of people to forcibly overthrow the government and change the régime. But not so when the desired result fails to pass the test of the lawful political process.

The forcible overthrow of the government is morally justified only if there are no peaceful means to change the government, the laws, the policies. That is, when the political process – elections, political parties, freedom of press and of association – is blocked, when we have tyranny.

I'm getting lost in the multiplying verbiage. "The test of the lawful political process"? I don't know what that refers to.

#1. The word "verbiage" is not courteous enough for me;

#2. "The lawful political process" means e.g. elections. "Failing to pass" means losing an election or referendum or voting in Congress, etc. on a subject linked to specific rights violations: draft, specific taxes, Obamacare, and such.

IOW, the preceding does not warrant a violent overthrow the government and withdrawal of consent. Note that my concept of consent is the one consistent with and implied in "The source of the government’s authority is 'the consent of the governed.'", and is different of yours, which is not consistent with that principle. For me, withdrawal of consent means automatically the moral right to overthrow of the régime. OTOH, your response to what you mean consent is to fight the government by all nonviolent means – which is perfectly OK with me. That is: we agree in essence, we have, more or less, a terminology disagreement only.

On 12/26/2015 at 5:53 AM, DonAthos said:

Insofar as a state claims the right to violate the rights of others (as our running example, the US Government, does)...

Just a detail : I don't know of a state that openly claims "the right to violate rights". It will rather say that the specific right does not exist, or that it is conditioned but the conditions are not fulfilled, and so on.

On 12/26/2015 at 5:53 AM, DonAthos said:

If some minority believed in their own liberty (as per Objectivism) and enforced this upon the rest of the world through the threat of retaliatory force, though everyone else disagreed, it would not be "totalitarian." (emph. mine)

Sorry, you must be kidding. You are pleading in fact for a putsch (rather then for a preceding philosophical revolution); I am afraid you misunderstood the Objectivist position.

The Alaska business: no separation outside or against the procedures foreseen by the Constitution, and all the more so under "a government run according to Objectivist principles". As long as the state is not totalitarian, its Constitution prevails. Besides, every Constitution describes procedures for changing it.

Quote

DonAthos (from another post) :… consider the draft, which I have registered for, yet is currently inactive in the United States. Suppose that the draft were reactivated and I was selected for conscription. "Respect for the law" might have me willingly [sic!] report to some induction center, as the law demands … I do not recognize the right of any other entity to send me to fight some war against my will, and I would not respect any draft order given. I would consider my disobedience to such illegitimate authority completely moral.

Me too. It is however possible that your registering for the draft weakens your case - legally as well as morally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, AlexL said:

#1. The word "verbiage" is not courteous enough for me;

Noted.

38 minutes ago, AlexL said:

#2. "The lawful political process" means e.g. elections. "Failing to pass" means losing an election or referendum or voting in Congress, etc. on a subject linked to specific rights violations: draft, specific taxes, Obamacare, and such.

IOW, the preceding does not warrant a violent overthrow the government and withdrawal of consent. Note that my concept of consent is the one consistent with and implied in "The source of the government’s authority is 'the consent of the governed.'", and is different of yours, which is not consistent with that principle.

I disagree. I believe that my conception is the consistent one, not alone with Objectivism, but with reality.

38 minutes ago, AlexL said:

For me, withdrawal of consent means automatically the moral right to overthrow of the régime.

Obviously I have the moral right to overthrow a régime which initiates force against me, or to withdraw my consent in some other fashion (supposing that I have such a right is the only thing that makes "consent" sensible in the first place; it is voluntary or else none of this is meaningful). The secession of Alaska is one such way to "overthrow a régime," and it may be as peaceful as anything. If you believe that the US government would not allow it to happen, and would initiate force in response, that certainly may be... but then, you believe that government to be "essentially rights-respecting," so I'm not sure what you would expect on that score or why.

38 minutes ago, AlexL said:

OTOH, your response to what you mean consent is to fight the government by all nonviolent means – which is perfectly OK with me. That is: we agree in essence, we have, more or less, a terminology disagreement only.

Not so. I will not initiate the use of force, but this is not the same as swearing myself to "nonviolence," let alone the "respect for the law" you have previously prescribed.

38 minutes ago, AlexL said:

Just a detail : I don't know of a state that openly claims "the right to violate rights".

Openly? Of course not. But that's not the standard, and we do not need mustache twirling or a black hat in order to recognize a villain. A state does not have the right to violate rights, whether it recognizes or admits to this or not.

38 minutes ago, AlexL said:

Sorry, you must be kidding. You are pleading in fact for a putsch (rather then for a preceding philosophical revolution); I am afraid you misunderstood the Objectivist position.

I believe it is you who misunderstands.

38 minutes ago, AlexL said:

The Alaska business: no separation outside or against the procedures foreseen by the Constitution, and all the more so under "a government run according to Objectivist principles". As long as the state is not totalitarian, its Constitution prevails. Besides, every Constitution describes procedures for changing it.

I disagree. The Constitution prevails so long as the governed consent to it, because the Constitution derives its authority from their consent. When the people of Alaska decide that they want to govern themselves, that is their right. If you would stop them from governing themselves in peace, that makes you the initiator of force. If you would commit yourself to stopping them, they would have the moral right to respond in kind.

38 minutes ago, AlexL said:

Me too. It is however possible that your registering for the draft weakens your case - legally as well as morally.

Legally, I'm not disposed to say.

Morally? The man who gives his wallet to the robber at gunpoint has no less of a moral claim to his wallet than before (and the robber has none). You have questioned my understanding of "the Objectivist position," but if you have any sympathy for Objectivism, I do not yet see it reflected in your arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can agree that a consent to be governed is not a consent to be sacrificed, but in fact a consent to terms of contract.  One agrees to the legality of a contract so long as the terms remain consistent.  A contract that regularly allows the parties to vote on how services are provided can hardly be faulted just because one party loses a particular vote; that much was apparently agreed to in advance.  The degree to which an individual respects legality depends on ones willingness to suffer a bad vote in order to achieve a better result in some future vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

I think we can agree that a consent to be governed is not a consent to be sacrificed, but in fact a consent to terms of contract.  One agrees to the legality of a contract so long as the terms remain consistent.  A contract that regularly allows the parties to vote on how services are provided can hardly be faulted just because one party loses a particular vote; that much was apparently agreed to in advance.  The degree to which an individual respects legality depends on ones willingness to suffer a bad vote in order to achieve a better result in some future vote.

Two wolves and a sheep, and all that.

I don't agree that my rights (or those of anybody else) are up for popular vote. I don't support any form of government which incorporates the premise that majority rule is boundless; whatever other aspect of this "contract" which might be up for vote, the bounds must be individual rights, and these may not be crossed. I'm not willing to settle or to "consent to" less.

In the meanwhile, absent protection of individual right (and in the face of its direct abrogation), is it moral to submit to the will of the majority? Hardly. One ought not "respect" so-called legality which works against man and man's rights. Tactically, could one try to make use of whatever voting mechanism exists to try to improve things? Certainly. One could also form a new state, if it is in his power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Two wolves and a sheep, and all that...

Why is it that Objectivists, on the whole, express optimism about Man's essentially good nature... until he enters a voting booth??

8 hours ago, DonAthos said:

... I don't agree that my rights (or those of anybody else) are up for popular vote. I don't support any form of government which incorporates the premise that majority rule is boundless; whatever other aspect of this "contract" which might be up for vote, the bounds must be individual rights, and these may not be crossed. I'm not willing to settle or to "consent to" less...

Thus the need for a Constitution...

8 hours ago, DonAthos said:

... In the meanwhile, absent protection of individual right (and in the face of its direct abrogation), is it moral to submit to the will of the majority? Hardly. One ought not "respect" so-called legality which works against man and man's rights. Tactically, could one try to make use of whatever voting mechanism exists to try to improve things? Certainly. One could also form a new state, if it is in his power.

... and for voting to adjust for contemporary challenges; and yes it is moral to abide by the result of the election one has participated in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Why is it that Objectivists, on the whole, express optimism about Man's essentially good nature... until he enters a voting booth??

I'm really not sure what this is referring to... "Man's essentially good nature"? Is that an Ayn Rand quote? (And perhaps it is; Rand wrote a lot! :))

Anyways, I think that most Objectivists are concerned about man's ability and sometimes willingness to violate the rights of his fellow men: hence the desire for governance, and the context for this discussion. I don't know whether it's a blow against optimism for "Man's essentially good nature" to want laws, or to want those laws to protect against the initiation of force, but there it is.

Quote

Thus the need for a Constitution...

Yes, absolutely. But more than this, the Constitution must say the proper things... and then it must be properly enforced. It is not enough to have some constitution. (The Soviet Union had a constitution, I believe.)

Quote

... and for voting to adjust for contemporary challenges; and yes it is moral to abide by the result of the election one has participated in.

I think you're looking at it like this:

I agree to participate in some vote, because I'm desirous of some outcome, and voting is my means to secure it. By the terms of this agreement, I bind myself to the outcome, whether fair or foul. It is dirty pool to do this, then withdraw "my consent" when the voting turns against me.

But I look at it more like this:

Other people decide they're going to have a vote on something which potentially violates my rights. I disagree that they have any right to "vote" on such a thing, but they don't care. If the voting goes one way, they're going to initiate force against me, so in order to prevent that, I (might) cast a vote in my own favor in the hope that I can save myself that way. But never do I believe that the vote is, itself, legitimate. I am merely fighting back against those who threaten me with whatever means are at my disposal.

It's like, suppose, Other DA, that I suggest we're going to have an Objectivism Online vote on whether or not to eat your spleen. You say, "How absurd! Of course you're not going to eat my spleen!" But I say, "Well... that depends on how the voting goes. If it goes against you, we have force enough to get it done. But fear not: you get a vote, too!"

Whether you decide to vote (in an attempt to save yourself against my threatened force) or not, do you believe that you now have some moral obligation to submit to the results of the vote (which may well take place without any bit of your participation)?

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Whether you decide to vote (in an attempt to save yourself against my threatened force) or not, do you believe that you now have some moral obligation to submit to the results of the vote (which may well take place without any bit of your participation)?

Or would you rather take what's behind door number three?

Let's keep it simple for the purpose of this discussion.  A Constitution exists as a set of predefined rules of interaction, and voting as a means to effect how those rules are applied.  Propositions by wolves to put sheep on the menu are ruled unconstitutional.  As a member of the Sheep Party it is in my interest to participate in elections in order to maintain governance over a relationship that would otherwise go to the wolves.

In terms of Jon's topic, you and I are (I believe) agreed that individuals possess both the sovereignty and jurisdiction necessary to operate as free agents in an O Nation without borders.  But even without territorial governments, contracts and election results remain binding to the parties involved.  Specifically, the individual who willingly enters into negotiations with others by contract or vote has to be able to rely on their respect for the resulting agreements, as do they for his.

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

3 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

But even without territorial governments, contracts and election results remain binding to the parties involved.

I believe we've reached the point where I can only repeat myself in response, and so it's time to stop chasing this particular rabbit down its hole. If you believe that you're bound to the will of other people, because they hold an election, then I suppose that you are! :)

For myself, I'll continue to choose otherwise.

And speaking of that, in a day or so I'll try to relate as much as I can of the preceding conversation to the topic of "emerging states" and see if I reach any kind of a conclusion (or even an argument).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, I doubt we're that far apart on this issue in any case.  I would only clarify that being bound to the will of other people isn't the point, which is more about being morally proactive in a social context.  Cut and running remains my last option while opportunities to persuade remain viable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Fair enough, I doubt we're that far apart on this issue in any case.

We may not be; I'm just replying to what I'm given. :)

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

I would only clarify that being bound to the will of other people isn't the point...

Well, that may not be your point, but it is mine. My point is:

A bunch of people get together and say, "Hey, DonAthos, we've decided that we're going to have a government and we're going to have a draft. By the way, because you live where you live, you're going to be drafted, too."

And I don't consider myself morally bound by any of that. AlexL would give me the option of "withdrawing consent" to their actions by moving elsewhere, but I believe that concedes the notion that this bunch of people -- this so-called, self-proclaimed "government" -- has the right to do what they're doing in the first place. But they do not. I do not consent that they should do these things and neither do I give them any consent to do them in my name.

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

...which is more about being morally proactive in a social context.

I'm not certain I know what you mean, though I'll say that I consider the withdrawal of consent from an illegitimate government to be "moral proactivity in a social context."

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Cut and running remains my last option while opportunities to persuade remain viable.

I've never argued against persuasion, but neither do I consider myself morally committed to persuasion (and this alone) for the purpose of securing my own liberty. It is for this same reason that we want our police force armed and our military strong; we do not rely upon on our ability to persuade all those who wish to initiate force against us, however much we might otherwise prefer it.

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...