Market anarchists in the Rothbardian tradition do in fact have principled answers to which sorts of rights protection agencies ought to protect, although whether Objectivists agree 100% with those rights is another question.
Well, to use your words, Objectivism recognizes ultimately only one rights protection agency: government. Everything is subordinate to objective law, which upholds individual rights via government. (private protection firms are subordinate too)
First, are you saying that the idea of a contractually formed government is untenable? Because I don’t see that.
I am saying that. A government creates and enforces laws for all people who live in a given area, whether they sign the agreement or are even capable of entering in an agreement. A contract can only bind those who agree to it. A contractually-formed whatever isn’t a government; a government isn’t contractually formed.
If Smith bought the land under the condition that he would only sell it to Jones on the same conditions he bought it, then where’s the trouble?
The problem is that if Smith nevertheless sells it to Jones without such a condition, the condition then ceases to exist (and recall that the point was to emulate a monopoly on protective force by contract). Smith might be sued by the developer, but Jones will not be bound by the condition.
But then if you think that is untenable, how do you answer their idea that a government must initiate force to exist?
Well, it’s very simple, that in fact the government does not initiate force, it uses defensive / retaliatory force in response to the force initiated by someone else. I’m not getting the connection that you’re trying to make here: the idea of a clever contractual approximation of government simply fails because the idea requires the independent existence of a government to impose the condition on resale of property.
I am saying that. A government creates and enforces laws for all people who live in a given area, whether they sign the agreement or are even capable of entering in an agreement. A contract can only bind those who agree to it. A contractually-formed whatever isn’t a government; a government isn’t contractually formed.
Then how is a government formed in the first place, assuming it is not imposed by brute force?
Isn’t a Constitution a kind of contract?
Bob Kolker
Actually they do, or at least as definitive a determination as can reasonably be expected from any work on political philosophy. Rothbard would say that his philosophy determines, for instance, what sort of protection agencies people should form, but it’s up to those people to either recognize that fact and form such agencies or not.
Awright, what, according to natural law philosophy, is the natural duration of copyright? I need to know, because there are a bunch of books and movies that I’d like to copy and distribute. But the royalties would kill me, so I need to know when I can freely copy these items. And I don’t want to have to find out by having the Harper Row knee-breakers confiscate my property. I have a similar question about the natural duration of a patent, but maybe we can stick to the copyright.
Isn’t a Constitution a kind of contract?
Of course not. Are you joking?
Awright, what, according to natural law philosophy, is the natural duration of copyright?
I don’t know. I suspect that the point of this question was to get me to admit that, given that you go on to say
I don’t want to have to find out by having the Harper Row knee-breakers confiscate my property.
But I’m not really sure what I’m supposed to conclude from this, except that you think it refutes my argument.
Is your point that without an understanding of natural law philosophy, you have no idea what to expect w/r/t enforcement of copyright laws under market anarchism? This is true, but you have no idea what to expect with such an understanding under market anarchism, or any other system. To know what to expect, you have to know the relevant laws. Under market anarchism, this means the policies of the relevant agencies. So in practice, I would tell you call 1-800-KNEE-BRK and listen to their automated summary of copyright policy, or something along those lines. If I’m missing the point, please explain it to me.
Of course not. Are you joking?
Not at all. It is an agreement among parties. Either a government comes into being by force, or it is brought into being by some sort of covenant or agreement. If the latter, then it is a kind of contract. If it is the former, then it is tyranny. If I recall the U.S. Constitution was brought into being by an agreement reached by representatives of several legislative bodies. And each of those were organized according to the will of qualified voters (the several States each had constitutions). That sounds like a contract to me. If it is not a contract, then just what is it?
On such matters, sir, I do NOT joke. I may find politics laughable and an object of derision and contempt, but Law and Constitution are very serious business.
Bob Kolker
Is your point that without an understanding of natural law philosophy, you have no idea what to expect w/r/t enforcement of copyright laws under market anarchism? This is true, but you have no idea what to expect with such an understanding under market anarchism, or any other system. (bold mine)
Or any other system? Under market anarchism, yes. Under objective law (laissez-faire capitalism), no. You say, “no idea of what to expect”? I know what to expect with its copyrights laws because there aren’t “agencies” (plural) in which copyrights laws may vary. There is only one. I don’t have to call a phone number, or constantly check everytime, or where ever I’m at to know that if you use someone elses words as your own, you are a parasite literarily and enter into the realm of criminality, since the morality/ethics of it does not change. Since objective law’s moral basis is an objective theory of values, I know what to expect with copyrights, or have a good idea of what to expect with things, unlike what you said of having “no idea what to expect…under any system.”
A government creates and enforces laws for all people who live in a given area, whether they sign the agreement or are even capable of entering in an agreement. A contract can only bind those who agree to it. A contractually-formed whatever isn’t a government; a government isn’t contractually formed.
You are very correct.
Then how is a government formed in the first place, assuming it is not imposed by brute force?
How? Ethics: it provides the necessary moral base for the existence of a government in a social context.
Here:
“Rights,” states Ayn Rand, "are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
A “right,” in Ayn Rand’s definition, “is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.” A right is a sanction to independent action;[…]
Individual rights are absolutes.
I am saying that. A government creates and enforces laws for all people who live in a given area, whether they sign the agreement or are even capable of entering in an agreement. A contract can only bind those who agree to it. A contractually-formed whatever isn’t a government; a government isn’t contractually formed.
Not so - the contract can specify that nobody is allowed onto the premises until they agree to the contract.
The problem is that if Smith nevertheless sells it to Jones without such a condition, the condition then ceases to exist (and recall that the point was to emulate a monopoly on protective force by contract). Smith might be sued by the developer, but Jones will not be bound by the condition.
I don’t understand why Jones won’t be bound. If Smith didn’t have a right to sell under the conditions he sold, then the sale is null and void. Jones would in fact be bound.
The property contract, by the way, is only an analogy. What I describe is not a contract of property, but a contract with one’s government to be a citizen. Starting at square one, a number of people live in the same geographic area - jurisdiction - and decide to secure their rights. They start a government and draw up a border. Anyone who enters that border must contractually agree to respect the laws and government of that nation. This violates nobody’s rights. The government-creation-contract would also stipulate that nobody may enter into other contracts with other protection agencies (governments) without renouncing this contract and moving out of that geographic area (i.e. renounce citizenship and emigrate - or at least agree to abide the jurisdiction while remaining). Again, no rights are violated.
Well, it’s very simple, that in fact the government does not initiate force, it uses defensive / retaliatory force in response to the force initiated by someone else.
What I mean is, that anarchists have argued against me that the instant one single person does not agree to a government’s legitimacy - say they want their rights enforced by some other government - then the government must use force. I say this is not true - the citizens might agree voluntarily to be bound to their government such that they can’t just change their minds at a whim. That is, if they aren’t immature anarchists. And similarly, jurisdictions can be established such that people have to agree to abide them upon entering - and thus a government isn’t initiating force by maintaining and policing its jurisdiction (at least, not as such).
Does all this track, as far as you can tell?
You say, “no idea of what to expect”?
Read more carefully before you fly off the handle with moral indignation. What I said was that understanding natural law philosophy will not tell you what to expect. The point is that under market anarchism, as now or under an Objectivist-approved government, you have to actually investigate the institution to know what it says.
Since objective law’s moral basis is an objective theory of values, I know what to expect with copyrights, or have a good idea of what to expect with things
You only have a good idea of what to expect insofar as you are sure that the government complies with Objectivist principles, will continue to comply with Objectivist principles, and will not be conquered by an anti-Objectivist power. If you can make those assumptions, why can’t I assume that my protection agency’s policies are based on an objective theory of values, that they will remain based on such indefinitely, and that my agency is too strong for me to have to worry about the policies of non-objective agencies?
why can’t I assume that my protection agency’s policies are based on an objective theory of values, that they will remain based on such indefinitely, and that my agency is too strong for me to have to worry about the policies of non-objective agencies?
You can’t assume because yours aren’t based under objective law et al. You said it was under “natural law philosophy” and “that understanding natural law philosophy will not tell you what to expect”. You said that applies for all systems - but - understanding objectively defined laws will tell you what to expect.
Just because I expect a person who has commited say (to go with our enforcement of copyrights example) plaigery, when brought to justice, to be punished for having done so, that doesn’t guarantee that they will be properly in the courtroom. There might be as you said…some sort of corruption of sorts, etc. But that certainly does not change what I expect should happen to them. My point was is that the morality of it does not change, because it comes from an objective theory of values (read: Objectivist ethics).
You can’t assume because yours aren’t based under objective law et al.
I’m not completely sure what you’re saying here, and I have no idea how it answers my question. Can you elaborate?
You said…“that understanding natural law philosophy will not tell you what to expect”. You said that applies for all systems - but - understanding objectively defined laws will tell you what to expect.
I agree with you, and this does not contradict my point. I said above “you have to actually investigate the institution,” which is exactly what “understanding objectively defined laws” amounts to, as far as I can tell. But just as understanding natural law philosophy will only give you a general idea of what a particular natural-law-philosophy-based legal system permits or enjoins, understanding Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics will not tell you the precise nature of every law of some Objectivist state.
But just as understanding natural law philosophy will only give you a general idea of what a particular natural-law-philosophy-based legal system permits or enjoins, understanding Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics will not tell you the precise nature of every law of some Objectivist state.(bold mine)
I thought you said " no idea what to expect"?
But I understand what you are saying. I agree that I do not know every individual law in such a system, philosophy of law is not of any real interest to me to begin with, but I do know the nature of the laws as such, just not all the specifics… Like plagiary for example again. I know it’s a crime, and expect a person to be punished for having done so, but their punishment, the degree of their deception, etc. and all the laws that are associated with that crime, those are the specifics of it. But still, I have an good idea of what will happen to a plagiarist and know what to expect since the immorality of plagiarism as such has not changed.
Is your point that without an understanding of natural law philosophy, you have no idea what to expect w/r/t enforcement of copyright laws under market anarchism?
No, it is that even with a perfect understanding of natural law philosophy, you can’t answer the question. This means that the difference between moral and immoral conduct under anarchy is unknowable.
Under market anarchism, this means the policies of the relevant agencies.
The policies of the producers versus the consumers. Consumers prefer short-term duration of IP protection, producers prefer long-term protection. As a consumer, my conpany would have a duty to protect my right to copy any work 1 year after it has been created. As a producer my company would have a duty to protect the exclusive ownership right of the producer for 1,000 years. Who do I believe? Well, I suppose I will check to see who has a more powerful army and is more likely to prevail in a war.
Not so - the contract can specify that nobody is allowed onto the premises until they agree to the contract.
That’s a misrepresentation of the legal relationships. The owner of the property has the right to forbid entry to his property, and that right is independent of any contract. A person who does not agree to the contract is not bound by the contract, but he is still bound by the basic law of trespass. Then the owner may grant permission to enter, provided that the person agrees to the contract. So the person only became a party to the contract in order to secure an exception to the owner’s right to exclude him.
I don’t understand why Jones won’t be bound. If Smith didn’t have a right to sell under the conditions he sold, then the sale is null and void. Jones would in fact be bound.
But he does have that right. So in fact the proper way to secure a market-anarchy account of monopoly law is to not actually sell the property – give leases. When a man owns property, he has the exclusive right to dispose of it, which includes selling it. The right isn’t conditional, i.e. you don’t own the land or the car subject to some contractual conditions, you own it. Because of privity of contract, you can’t stick a third party with contract conditions that they didn’t agree to. (But with government, you have an external agency that can say “These kinds of contract conditions can be imposed on a third party”).
What I describe is not a contract of property, but a contract with one’s government to be a citizen.
Hm. One problem is that contracts are voluntary in the sense that you can decline to sign and can otherwise go about your business, which is not the case of citizen-government relationships.
Starting at square one, a number of people live in the same geographic area - jurisdiction - and decide to secure their rights. They start a government and draw up a border. Anyone who enters that border must contractually agree to respect the laws and government of that nation.
No, that’s where the mistake lies. Anyone who enters that border must respect the laws. Voluntary agreement is not required and there is no contract. Minors, who are incapable of entering into contracts (and are not bound by the terms of contracts), are nevertheless subject to the law.
The approach you’re taking depends heavily on the notion of implicit agreement. It may be possible to post guards at the border and require every immigrant to sign the contract before they are allowed to enter the country, but you cannot post guards at every hospital and obligate infants to sign the contract before they are allowed to leave the womb.
The government-creation-contract would also stipulate that nobody may enter into other contracts with other protection agencies (governments) without renouncing this contract and moving out of that geographic area (i.e. renounce citizenship and emigrate - or at least agree to abide the jurisdiction while remaining). Again, no rights are violated.
What this comes down to is saying that you do not in fact own your property, you are leasing it long-term from the government, so that dumping Govco in favor of Tannahelp is a breach of contract (the remedy being termination of the lease and expulsion from the government’s property).
The important common element of contracts and governments in a rational society is that they respect some level of the right to choose an action. You may choose to enter into a contract, or decline. You may choose to reside in a place, or you may choose to leave. In the case of the contract, party A by right has something that party B wants, and the contract says what B must do to partake in A’s rights. With a government, the only way to make citizenship be analogous is if you say that the government has the right to the land and grants it to B subject to certain conditions (law-obediance). The flaw is that the government does not have a right to the land.
What I mean is, that anarchists have argued against me that the instant one single person does not agree to a government’s legitimacy - say they want their rights enforced by some other government - then the government must use force.
Their error then lies in the mistaken equation of belief and act. You can disagree with a government’s legitimacy all you want, and you can even enter into any private law enforcement contract you want to. The agents of Tannahelp can rightfully go to your neighbor’s house and inquire about the new chainsaw that looks very much like the one that disappeared from your basement. This is all fine – it is when they act with force, busting down the door and taking the chainsaw, that Tannahelp has initiated force. The government does use force, and it does not initiate the use of force. And of course Tannahelp would be using force, so the question of using force is a real red herring, unless you’re dealing with a pacifist anarchist.
So the point is that there are certain acts which require agreement, and others which do not. Interest rates at the bank are negotiable and set in the contract; the prohibition against murder is non-negotiable, and not a matter of “agreement”. It is a recognition of an objective fact, that for man to live as a rational being, certain things must be prevented, whether or not everyone agrees.
Objectivism is against “market anarchy” or “anarcho-capitalism” because these are invalid concepts, insofar as capitalism requires there to b e a very strong government to protect individual rights.
Due to the fact that abiding by reason is volitional, there will never be a time in which any significantly large organization of individuals can rely merely on the good will (or the presumed) rationality of their neighbors. Galt’s Gulch was never intended to be a different country – it was simply a retreat for the strikers to go to, and eventually a place of refuge once the strike was well under way; and it had maybe a few hundred people in it. These are but some of the issues that the anarcho-capitalists don’t understand or evade when they claim they can organize “peaceful gangs” to defend their turf against their neighbors. Even if that was possible, which I doubt, the level of the political entity would once again revert to the level of the city state; and there would be no way to enforce any agreements between the city states, except for war. It also means that the level of voluntary organizations would be geographically limited to the area of the city state – in other words, without some governing body over a larger geographical area to protect the rights of everyone involved, no reasonable man would want to engage in large-scale enterprises, such as forming a corporation that involved peoples outside the city-state.
And the Magna Carta or the Constitution of the United States is not a contract between the people and the government, in the sense of their being mutual benefit to all parties involved in the contract, but rather is a limitation the people place on their government – that the government is limited to what it is permitted to do by the people, but the people are free to do whatever they want to do, so long as they don’t initiate force. The Constitution does not tell me I can’t set up my own business, but it does tell the government that it cannot set up organizations without the people’s consent.
The idea that people will become rational and that they will get along with one another without the state is pure fantasy; and it blames the government (implicitly) for the decrease of rationality over the past hundred years. It was not the government that did that, but rather people falling for irrational philosophies that, like anarco-capitalism, reduced their thinking to the range of the moment. I mean, sure, if everyone agreed to be rational and not to initiate force and not to have disagreements over contracts, then maybe we wouldn’t need governments. However, we don’t need protection from the rational, but rather from the irrational initiators of force or from people who will have disagreements with us that must be resolved in some peaceful manner.
Anarchy leads to chaos. It has happened every time a government has fallen in history. And that is because there must be some protection over a large enough geographical area or people are not going to be able to plan long-range. And if they cannot plan long-range because some local gang is going to be initiating force or fraud against them, then they will become ghettos, just like they do today when local gangs take over a neighborhood.
And the Magna Carta or the Constitution of the United States is not a contract between the people and the government, in the sense of their being mutual benefit to all parties involved in the contract, but rather is a limitation the people place on their government – that the government is limited to what it is permitted to do by the people, but the people are free to do whatever they want to do, so long as they don’t initiate force. The Constitution does not tell me I can’t set up my own business, but it does tell the government that it cannot set up organizations without the people’s consent.
Exactly. I’m glad you that you had brought that up.
I have a question: That means that the government is under objective control right? since government exists by permission only? This is a way of placing limitations on government as such, so I think that this is placing it under objective control.
Market anarchists in the Rothbardian tradition do in fact have principled answers to which sorts of rights protection agencies ought to protect, although whether Objectivists agree 100% with those rights is another question.
I am confident that Rothbardian anarchists do have answers to what rights ought to be protected. However, it still seems that under anarcho-capitalism, the market outcomes will always reign supreme, even if the dominating protecting agencies are deliberately crushing rights that ought to be protected according to Rothbard’s views on natural law. This is what I mean by anarcho-capitalism being a form of subjectivism. A just society is not determined from objective reasoning but from the whim of a market.
In other words, if a mafia don gradually accumulates power and manages to overthrow an otherwise legitimate right protecting agency, it appears as if a true market anarchist would say: “Well, the organized criminals are reprehensible, but hey, this is how markets work.”
I have a question: That means that the government is under objective control right? since government exists by permission only? This is a way of placing limitations on government as such, so I think that this is placing it under objective control.
A government, proper or improper, cannot exist without the people’s implicit consent. Look at it this way, even with our bloated government, most of the people do not work for the government as an agent of enforcing the law. If the people got feed up with those people, the government could be overthrown (or at least an attempt could be made), by those people who were not a part of the government. And the people of the USA are not the government, as some claim.
The people, for the most part, will accept the prevalent philosophy – including the philosophy of a proper government – and will tolerate their government within a range of what they think it ought to be doing. If they accept Communism or Nazism as an ideal, then that is the type of government they will get; if they accept man’s rights, then they will get the United States of America.
We have a lot of problems with our government not merely securing individual rights, but it is our government that makes free speech possible in that if someone initiates force against you because of something your said or wrote, the government will crack down on them. In other words, it is only because of our government that places like oo.net can exist. In Iran or the former Soviet Union, the government agents would be knocking down our doors and hauling us to jail.
But I don’t think the people’s consent per se keeps government objective – it keeps it within a range, but it is only a philosophy of reason that can make a government objective (i.e. based on man’s factual nature and the requirements of the rational man). In other words, that range of what a government ought to be doing is guided by the philosophy the people accept (implicitly or explicitly).
The owner of the property has the right to forbid entry to his property, and that right is independent of any contract.
Right, but when the citizen signs the “contract of citizenship,” he is agreeing that he will not admit those who do not agree to be bound by his government’s jurisdiction. The purpose of this is to preserve the jurisdiction itself, which is a function of protecting the rights of the citizens.
A person who does not agree to the contract is not bound by the contract, but he is still bound by the basic law of trespass.
Correct - so if someone does trespass, he can’t yell that the government is initiating force on him by imposing its jurisdiction on him - since he started it by trespassing.
Then the owner may grant permission to enter, provided that the person agrees to the contract. So the person only became a party to the contract in order to secure an exception to the owner’s right to exclude him. But he does have that right.
Sure. The owner could decide to exclude him anyway for any reason. His citizen contract would only specify that he does not allow in any foreigners that don’t agree to the jurisdiction.
When a man owns property, he has the exclusive right to dispose of it, which includes selling it. The right isn’t conditional, i.e. you don’t own the land or the car subject to some contractual conditions, you own it.
Is that how that works? Hm. But what about things like mineral rights, which can be sold separately from the land? Could not one separate the particular jurisdiction rights from the land rights? Would that do the trick?
Hm. One problem is that contracts are voluntary in the sense that you can decline to sign and can otherwise go about your business, which is not the case of citizen-government relationships.
Sure, but if you decline to sign, then the government declines to let you in. So you can indeed go about your business so long as you remain on the other side of the border.
No, that’s where the mistake lies. Anyone who enters that border must respect the laws. Voluntary agreement is not required and there is no contract.
The problem with this lies in the fact that the person entering the border may already have a government that has agreed to secure his rights. To simply say that once he has crossed line “a” he forfeits that is a problem - he didn’t agree to forfeit that. The solution is to make it a condition of the property owners that he must agree to abide the jurisdiction when entering their property, because he doesn’t enter their property by right, so they can stop him there.
Minors, who are incapable of entering into contracts (and are not bound by the terms of contracts), are nevertheless subject to the law.
Ah, but minors are bound to their guardians. For instance, if a man is evicted from an apartment, they can kick out the kids too, even though they couldn’t enter the leasing contract. They could make it a part of the citizen contract that you make your kids - should you have any - abide the jurisdiction, too. I could definitely see it being legitimate that, once you turn 18, you either sign the citizenship (or at least the jurisdiction) contract or you have to go find some other country to live in.
With a government, the only way to make citizenship be analogous is if you say that the government has the right to the land and grants it to B subject to certain conditions (law-obediance). The flaw is that the government does not have a right to the land.
I’m curious if my “mineral rights” idea solves this.
This is all fine – it is when they act with force, busting down the door and taking the chainsaw, that Tannahelp has initiated force. The government does use force, and it does not initiate the use of force.
The above treats Tannahelp as an illegitimate agency of rights-protection and the government as a legitimate one. The anarchists ask - Why? Why is it an initiation of force when Tannahelp does it but not when the government does it? What gives the government the right to be the exclusive government? Why it and not some other government?
My answer is that at some point, people had to have established a jurisdiction, such that their government has the right (granted by them the owners) to be the exclusive government in that area. That tannahelp can’t waltz in because its patron agreed to abide that jurisdiction upon entering it (and if not, he’s a tresspasser).
…the prohibition against murder is non-negotiable, and not a matter of “agreement”. It is a recognition of an objective fact, that for man to live as a rational being, certain things must be prevented, whether or not everyone agrees.
Yes, but the problem is that I’ve actually had anarchists agree to that. The problem is that they object to one particular government’s right to be the sole enforcer of it.* I had to show a way in which one government could become a sole enforcer without itself initiating force to remove other, potentially competing, enforcers (governments). I.E. a voluntary way that government can be established.
*(of course, in objecting they run into the problem of no jurisdiction and no rule of law and I don’t have to tell you how completely inimical to the protection of rights that is - bloody idiot anarchists - but I still have to answer the point of how to establish those things voluntarily)