I’ve always understood that no one, not even the government had the right to initiate force. By that I mean that the government can only act to retaliate against the initiation of force or to prevent the initiation of force.
There has to be a cause, it is not within the power of the government to initiate force on a whim. That is tyranny.
You have answered some of your own questions, you just seem to be caught in some sort of logical loop. You need to make clear to yourself what is an initiation of force and what isn’t. Let’s break it down:
- The gov’t doesn’t “protect capitalism” or “safeguard a market and economy” it protects the Rights of the individual.
Agreed.
- When individuals are exercising their Rights, no force is initiated, no coercion is used (As you acknowledge).
I don’t think this is actually what I meant. This argument sounds a little like, “People who have nothing to hide, have nothing to worry about when the government spies on them.” Regardless if someone follows the law by choice, the coercion to follow it still exists.
- So the gov’t isn’t coercing anybody, in fact it is telling all those who would use coercion: “don’t do it”. The gov’t is telling everybody: “don’t use force”, which is something they shouldn’t be doing (using force) in the first place (As you agree).
I’m not sure how you got here. Why isn’t the government coercing anyone if it’s telling them, “Don’t use force (, or else!)”
I am not initiating force against you when I inform you of the rules of scrabble before we play. Rather, I am preventing any misunderstandings from arising later on. It is in fact the only civilized way to play scrabble.
Okay, then why don’t we say a mugger is preventing any misunderstandings from arising later on by informing me of the “rules” of interacting with him?
Not if they want to make a profit.
Indeed. But not all people think of their rational self-interests.
Well, if all of the laws on the books do nothing but forbid various kinds of force initiation, then there would be no reason to object to them, by the first sentence in your second paragraph. Any other laws shouldn’t be there in the first place. Are you asking how to distinguish good law from bad law? Or how to tell when the use of force is justified in the first place?
No, I’m not looking for how to distinguish good law from bad, or how to tell when the use of force is justified.
One last thing-- the example of the mugger. In this case, the mugger would be using force. To say that the dilemma the mugger puts people in is just a matter of cause and effect ignores the fact that the mugger has a choice in the matter: he has chosen to violate the rights of others. That’s what makes him morally (and legally) culpable.
Why does the government not have a choice in making law? There’s nothing naturally mandatory in the existence of laws; individuals choose to create laws.
No, proper Objectivist Laws would define what constitutes an initiation of force that will be met with a response of force.
A law against murder, for example, does not force you not to murder. It cautions you that murder is an initiation of force against another individual, and that if you violate another individual’s right to live by murdering them, and are discovered, you shall be dealt with by means of force in response. You can still initiate the murder. You might even get away with it.
The law should be society’s way of saying, “If you hit me, I will hit you back”. You would have to hit me for me to hit you. You would have to initiate the force, for me to respond with force.
I still don’t see how this is any different from a mugger’s ultimatum. The mugger says, “Do X, or I’ll do Y.” The government says, “Do X, or we’ll do Y.” Nothing forces me to comply with the mugger, nothing forces me to comply with the government. If you say, “The mugger is initiating the force by giving you the ultimatum.” Why isn’t the government initiating force by giving you an ultimatum?
And yet it still is not initiation of force. A law says that if you initiate force, that act will be met with force. That is retaliation, not initiation. Do you understand the distinction?
No, I’m afraid I don’t. Imagine a society with no laws. Everyone in the society acts as if there is a law against murder, even though there is not. A couple new people move in who don’t understand ending someone else’s life is against their own self-interests, and they commit some murders. What should happen to prevent this kind of thing from happening again? Perhaps some laws should be made. Perhaps a law should be written that says, “If you kill someone else, you will be put to death.” Force is initiated at this precise moment. The government is saying, in effect, “Don’t kill anyone, or we will kill you.”
If someone commits murder, and the government then kills that person, I understand that is not an initiation of force - that is retaliation, and the proper use of force by government. But that is not when the force began. Nor, did force begin when the murderer committed his crime. The force began when the government said, “Do X, or we’ll do Y.”
Do you not see the internal inconsistency of your position?
Trust me, I really wish I did.
The government “threatened” retaliatory force because others threatened to initiate force. Savage use of force predates civilization and the rule of law by millenia.
Are threats not force? If you agree the government threatened to use force, then why is government not initiating force?
Why does the government not have a choice in making law? There’s nothing naturally mandatory in the existence of laws; individuals choose to create laws.
I wasn’t sufficiently clear. The government does have choice in what laws it enacts, since these decisions are made by individual people. I did not mean to claim that laws are determined as a matter of physical law or fate; governments (by which I mean their members) choose to enact both good laws and bad laws all the time.
However, the laws they pass have consequences. If the goal of the government in question is to protect individual rights (which is a purpose set down by ethics), then only laws of a certain nature will act to support that end, such as laws prohibiting murder, rape, theft, etc. The fact that a law does not protect individual rights has consequences for those living under the government which passes these laws-- and it is these consequences, measured against the standard of protecting the ability of free, rational individuals to pursue their own happiness (and trade with other such individuals), that determine the propriety of the law in question.
Your mugger’s ultimatum fails this test for “good law” because one cannot live and prosper in an environment where one’s life and property is in jeopardy; “force and mind are opposites.” Governments can pass any laws they want-- but they cannot escape the consequences of these laws on the members of the society they govern. This is parallel to the situation of individuals in ethics, since man is free to act in many different ways, but only certain ways based upon his nature will lead to his flourishing.
Edit: Spelling; Rewording.
No, LFC wouldn’t. Anarchy would.
The reason why that wouldn’t be allowed in Capitalism is because it constitutes fraud.
It is not an act of voluntary trade, it is an act of deception.
As a result, it doesn’t qualify as part of the economy (which is the system of voluntary trade among individuals). A government which provides laws to prevent theft and fraud would not have to be involved in any way in the economy: the deals and contracts people make voluntarily. That is what is meant by the separation of state and the economy.
I think what you’re saying is that once someone commits fraud, that stops being part of the LF economy, therefore a government dealing with someone who breaks the law wouldn’t be a government interferring in an LF economy. I can understand this, but it doesn’t change the fact that the government’s laws exist regardless of whether the economy is LF or not. That is, the very fact that the laws exist constitutes an interference in the market. Laws don’t come into existence once someone breaks them, they exist at all times - even when no one is breaking them and the market is operating as LF.
I still don’t see how this is any different from a mugger’s ultimatum. The mugger says, “Do X, or I’ll do Y.” The government says, “Do X, or we’ll do Y.” Nothing forces me to comply with the mugger, nothing forces me to comply with the government. If you say, “The mugger is initiating the force by giving you the ultimatum.” Why isn’t the government initiating force by giving you an ultimatum?
It is not an ultimatum. You are free to do as you wish unless you prevent someone else to be free.
By your logic I can’t put up a sign that says “Stay off my property or else.” either, because that would constitute an ultimatum against anyone who wishes to come on my property, or murder my children for that matter.
Surely you do see the difference between someone acting to defend individual rights and someone acting to violate those rights?
As far as something forcing you to comply with the mugger, the threat of force obviously does. Also, the threat of law forces you to not violate anyone’s rights. The difference is that in the first instance your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are being violated.
In the second case, they are not being violated, as long as you respect this system of rights. If you don’t, well then by what moral or political principle do you expect to have your rights respected?
P.S. The problem with anarchists, and the libertarian movement in general, is that their ideas don’t rest on the foundation of a rational philosophy. Instead, they base everything on principles which come out of thin air. (Or rather are borrowed from philosophers such as Ayn Rand, but without the context in which she meant them, so they are constantly misinterpreted)
For instance, saying that the use of force is wrong is a statement which has no basis. Why is it wrong? Is it wrong when someone is about to kill you? If not, then the statement “the use of force is wrong”, without any further context, is false.
Yet, that’s what anarchists base their ideas on.
You misunderstand the difference between initiation and retaliation. LFC laws are not an initiation, they are retalatory in nature. An individual still is free to do as he pleases, but face consequences of his choices. Every choice has a consequence, and not having laws qould not change that fact.
I am also free to do as I please when a mugger mugs me - I can choose to not hand over my wallet. At which point he would kill me. Is this not force? A law may proscribe retalitory action, but its existence is initiative. It says, in effect, “Do X, or I will do Y.”
Saying that a laws existence is an initiation of force is the same as saying the idea of right to life and self defense are an initiation of force.
I don’t think so. An idea proscribes no consequences for a certain action - a law does. A law promises specific force (a threat, if you will) if some specific action, some specific choice, is not made, or is made. A law is coercion, while an idea is just an idea. Your idea of a right to self-defense might mean you give your wallet, because that would defend your life; or it could mean you pull out your gun and kill your attacker; or it could mean you beg and plead for sympathy.
I’ve always understood that no one, not even the government had the right to initiate force. By that I mean that the government can only act to retaliate against the initiation of force or to prevent the initiation of force.
There has to be a cause, it is not within the power of the government to initiate force on a whim. That is tyranny.
Then what is the “cause” when we have laws against, for example, murder?
I can understand this, but it doesn’t change the fact that the government’s laws exist regardless of whether the economy is LF or not. That is, the very fact that the laws exist constitutes an interference in the market. Laws don’t come into existence once someone breaks them, they exist at all times - even when no one is breaking them and the market is operating as LF.
If the law doesn’t prevent participants in the economy to act within the framework of that economy (to make any voluntary deals they wish to make), then that law does not involve the government into the economy. How does such a law interfere with the behaviour of anyone who is out to make deals?
While I predict that I’d have no problem proving that LFC in fact means a separation of state and economics, no matter what challenges you bring, I don’t think it is constructive to go down this road any further, because in Objectivism the operating principle as far as politics is concerned is in fact not “separation of state and economics”.
It is instead the principle of individual rights. While “the separation of state and economics” is a logical consequence of that principle, individual rights are what Ayn Rand derived from her ethics, and it is from that principle that she reached the conclusion that Laissez-faire Cap. is the only moral political system.
Imagine a society with no laws. Everyone in the society acts as if there is a law against murder, even though there is not.
But both assumptions are false. Respect for individual rights does not come out of thin air, it is the fruit of developing a civilization. The concept “society” implies laws and recognizes the fact that some men live like animals. Those are the initiators of force, and rational men have created societies in response to this savagery where further initiation of force is prohibited by law. You are seeking first causes, well here is his picture and here is his gang. Laws protecting rights in response to such threats, which as you have noted is not initiation of force.
Recall that fact trumps imagination any day: law is necessitated by fact, not imaginary scenario.
I second Jake’s suggestion that there may be a libertarian/anarchist “Force = Bad” premise operating here. It’s not true that the use of force is unequivocably bad in all circumstances; it depends upon the purposes of its use. Here, the threat of the government to use force in response to a murder is more akin to self-defense against the mugger: both are in service of protecting individual rights. It is this, and not semantic issues about what constitutes “initiating” force, that is important in deciding when the use of force is justified.
It is not an ultimatum. You are free to do as you wish unless you prevent someone else to be free.
By your logic I can’t put up a sign that says “Stay off my property or else.” either, because that would constitute an ultimatum against anyone who wishes to come on my property, or murder my children for that matter.
Surely you do see the difference between someone acting of defend individual rights and acting to violate those rights?
Putting up a sign in your yard isn’t self-defense - it’s a threat, or if you prefer, it’s a warning. Much like a law.
As far as something forcing you to comply with the mugger, the threat of force obviously does. Also, the threat of law forces you to not violate anyone’s rights. The difference is that in the first instance your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are being violated.
In the second case, they are not being violated, as long as you respect this system of rights. If you don’t, well then by what moral or political principle do you expect to have your rights respected?
I could just as easily argue my rights aren’t being violated in the first case as long as I respect the mugger’s system of rights. What the government is saying is, “As long as you follow the law, we’ll respect your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The mugger is saying the same thing, “As long as you obey me, I’ll respect your right to live.”
I’m not concerned with whether laws are rational, what individual rights are, whether they are arrived at rationally or not - because I don’t see how these questions apply to the question I’m concerned with: How can law not be an initiation of force?
Laws don’t come into existence once someone breaks them, they exist at all times - even when no one is breaking them and the market is operating as LF.
The first statement is true, the second is false. Laws are not naturally occurring objects like rocks and bananas. Moral principles are man-made – they are the recognition of man’s proper nature in a social context. Without a recognition of the fact, there is no law.
I wasn’t sufficiently clear. The government does have choice in what laws it enacts, since these decisions are made by individual people.
Okay, government can make “good” laws and “bad” laws. How would any law not be an initiation of force in the form of coercion?
I am also free to do as I please when a mugger mugs me - I can choose to not hand over my wallet. At which point he would kill me. Is this not force? A law may proscribe retalitory action, but its existence is initiative. It says, in effect, “Do X, or I will do Y.”
You are not free to do as you please when being mugged. You in fact have two coices:
to die
to comply with what the mugger says
However, in the case of a law which protects individual rights, you are free to do as you wish, except to violate someone else’s rights.
What is the problem with that freedom? Do you wish to also be free to hurt others or take their property? By what right?
Okay, government can make “good” laws and “bad” laws. How would any law not be an initiation of force in the form of coercion?
“Coercion” has no standing in the debate: what matters is the initiation of force. A law is not initiation of force when it is the threat of retaliatory force, which means “if force is initiated, this will be the retaliation”.
If the law doesn’t prevent participants in the economy to act within the framework of that economy (to make any voluntary deals they wish to make), then that law does not involve the government into the economy. How does such a law interfere with the behaviour of anyone who is out to make deals?
Again, this is the “if you don’t have anything to hide, government spying shouldn’t bother you” argument. Imagine an LF economy with no laws - no possibility for government interference. That’s our starting point. Now, why would we put laws into that system? Because some might try to control the economy (or at least a small part of it). So, we institute laws whose effect is to say, “If you try to do this, then we will punish you.” This is coercion. It exists whether the market continues to operate as LF or not.
While I predict that I’d have no problem proving that LFC in fact means a separation of state and economics, no matter what challenges you bring, I don’t think it is constructive to go down this road any further, because in Objectivism the operating principle as far as politics is concerned is in fact not “separation of state and economics”.
It is instead the principle of individual rights. While “the separation of state and economics” is a logical consequence of that principle, individual rights are what Ayn Rand derived from her ethics, and it is from that principle that she reached the conclusion that Laissez-faire Cap. is the only moral political system.
It might help to clarify that I have a rational moral code, and believe in laissez-faire capitalism and individual rights. I am not an anarchist, I understand the rational need for a government and a system of laws. I’m having a hard time rationalizing how laws could not be coercion.
Putting up a sign in your yard isn’t self-defense - it’s a threat, or if you prefer, it’s a warning. Much like a law.
Now you’re telling me that I shouldn’t be allowed to state the truth ( on a sign placed on my property), which is that I intend to defent my property and my family.
I’m not concerned with whether laws are rational, what individual rights are, whether they are arrived at rationally or not - because I don’t see how these questions apply to the question I’m concerned with: How can law not be an initiation of force?
A law is only initiation of force if it threatens the initiation of force.
However, if it only threatens retaliatory force, then it is not an initiation of force.
If that’s all you’re concerned with, then this conversation should’ve been over when David first made this point.
But both assumptions are false. Respect for individual rights does not come out of thin air, it is the fruit of developing a civilization. The concept “society” implies laws and recognizes the fact that some men live like animals. Those are the initiators of force, and rational men have created societies in response to this savagery where further initiation of force is prohibited by law. You are seeking first causes, well here is his picture and here is his gang. Laws protecting rights in response to such threats, which as you have noted is not initiation of force.
Recall that fact trumps imagination any day: law is necessitated by fact, not imaginary scenario.
So, societies develop with some individuals determining how the rest of the society’s members should act, then institutes laws to force that action?
I find hypotheticals help to clarify issues and questions - Ayn Rand herself actually wrote two mammoth books of extended hypotheticals. So, yes fact trumps imagination, but imagination can help us understand facts a little better.
Is a law ever not coercion? Is a law never coercion? What is the distinction?
The first statement is true, the second is false. Laws are not naturally occurring objects like rocks and bananas. Moral principles are man-made – they are the recognition of man’s proper nature in a social context. Without a recognition of the fact, there is no law.
I thought the rest of my post made it clear I wasn’t arguing laws exist in nature. Once laws are created, they exist at all times - regardless of whether anyone follows them or not.
