In an Objectivist society, who will act as a judge to settle disputes and who will give this individual authority?
(Mod’s note: Capitalized “Objectivist”)
However the system to appoint judges is set up by the Constitution. I see nothing wrong, from an Objectivist standpoint, from the way our federal courts are established.
Your question requires clarification. Are you asking a question about the mechanism: e.g. should judges be appointed or elected, etc.; or, are you asking a broader question? If it is the narrower one, that is really outside the province of Objectivism as a philosophy. There can be many ways in which a court system can be implemented in a Capitalist political system.
Your question requires clarification. Are you asking a question about the mechanism: e.g. should judges be appointed or elected, etc.; or, are you asking a broader question? If it is the narrower one, that is really outside the province of Objectivism as a philosophy. There can be many ways in which a court system can be implemented in a Capitalist political system.
Are they appointed or elected? If they’re appointed, who appoints them and who gives the appointer authority to appoint them? If they’re elected, how do they market themselves?
As I said, this is really outside the province of Objectivism as a Philosophy.
Election and appointment can both be valid implementations.
As I said, this is really outside the province of Objectivism as a Philosophy.
Election and appointment can both be valid implementations.
I don’t exactly understand what you mean by “outside the province of Objectivism as a Philosophy.” If it’s not in the realm of Objectivism as a Philosophy, what realm is it? Are you saying that the question doesn’t carry any kind of philosophical relevance?
A system of elected judges is compatible with a Capitalist political system. So is a system of appointed judges. So is a system that has a mix of the two, as in the U.S. Objectivism lays down the basics of what constitutes a moral political system. There can be many implementations.
For instance, the US Federal government has a Senate and a House of Representatives. What if there were three bodies instead of two? What if the President were elected for 5 years instead of 4? What if juries could only be used in certain types of cases and some other equally just mechanism was used for others? Objectivism really has nothing to say about these specifics.
Objectivist ideas about Individual Rights and Capitalism would form the basis when designing the specifics of a legal system. One would then need to work out some principles within that subject. I haven’t given that aspcet much thought, so take the following more as an example of the type of principles, rather than as the principles themselves. One might lay down a principle that the system must have checks and balances, or that the system must not be overly “democratic”, or that it must not be overly “authoritarian”. (Caveat emptor: All the preceding are rough and informal formulations.)
As such, there is nothing wrong – in principle – with election of judges. As to where they would get money to campaign, they’d get it from the same source that every other elected official gets it – from their own funds or from campaign contributions.