RoR: Forum

Post 20

Monday, February 11 - 6:47pm

Link

Edit

"And even beyond this, I will not vote for any Republican until the party repudiates its affiliation with Christianity, if I live that long."

LOL! Yeah, SO many Democrats running for higher office as avowed atheists or agnostics. You're virtually roadkill, in either party, if you don't at least pretend to be religious.

And how, exactly, is it not collectivist to condemn an entire category of individuals because of the platform of an organization that they've oftentimes reluctantly joined just because half the population votes a straight party line ticket, in particular if the individuals in question reject the planks of that platform?

Sorry, if reverence for the utterances of this Peikoff clown is considered a mandatory step in acceptance into the True Church of Objectivism (Orthodox), no thanks. Pass.

Post 21

Monday, February 11 - 8:22pm

Link

Edit

Modern Libertarianism is an improper subset of Objectivism. See It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand by Jerome Tuccille (Stein and Day, 1971). Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged influenced an entire generation. At the 1965 convention of Young Americans for Freedom, there were radicals for capitalism taking on the traditionalists, calling for an end to the draft, etc. The schism came from the Objectivist side and once cut loose, the LP drifted. It is, after all, a poltiical party with all that implies. Rand often said that political change is the end of the line, not the beginning. So, for her, the battle was always about metaphysics and epistemology.

As for Dr. Peikoff being a "clown" we all have our foibles. Please feel free to cite some bullet points from your own CV. His is impressive enough for whatever disagreeable tone his public comments may take. His essay on the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy could save Western Civilization.

Post 22

Monday, February 11 - 10:56pm

Link

Edit

Jim,

Don't be put off by Peikoff's cavalier dismissal of the Republican Party's affiliation with Christianity. True, the Democrats also claim to be Christians, but unlike the Republicans they're nominal Christians who are pro-choice on abortion, and whose political base is far more secular than the GOP's. By contrast, the Republican Party is the home of the Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals, which I think is what Peikoff is referring to. Remember Ann Coulter's book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism? To a certain extent, I think she is correct. The liberals are nothing like the conservatives when it comes to religion.

- Bill

Post 23

Tuesday, February 12 - 12:08am

Link

Edit

Well, I've ordered the Peikoff book that was recommended, so maybe I'll have a better opinion of him after seeing that. I suppose if someone just saw Hayek's collectivist statements or knew Milton Friedman solely from his getting payroll deduction implemented, they might have a dim view of those giants, too.

Guess I'm just wary of anything resembling worship of a person at this time -- I've seen way too much of that regarding Joseph Smith or General Authorities of the LDS Church, which was part of why I left it.

Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes with the Peikoff comments. If so, newbie mistake.

Post 24

Tuesday, February 12 - 8:58am

Link

Edit

Just to keep some things in perspective, Peikoff's book, OPAR, is based on his lectures - which in turn are based or derived from Branden's lectures of the old NBI..... so most of the value of the book stems from what Branden wrote and delivered, and little if any real originality other than perhaps the arrangement of the topics is Peikoff's....

Post 25

Tuesday, February 12 - 12:20pm

Link

Edit

John,

And while Uzis certainly can do a lot of damage, I don't think banning them does one bit of difference. Banning weapons are about as successful a venture as banning recreational drugs are. The best answer is to have an armed citizenry ready to defend themselves from criminals, which criminals will themselves get guns whether there is or isn't a ban.

Just for clarification, I wasn't advocating banning Uzi's. I created the two links in post #16 to demonstrate that assault weapons are not only terrifyingly lethal but easily concealed.

This was a response to Ed's post #14, in which he seemed to imply either that (a) assault weapons are brazenly conspicuous, or (b) that current airport security personnel are totally incompetent. (Perhaps he wanted to assert both.) The fact that current TSA staff are successfully preventing such compact weapons from getting on board planes at the present time tells me that both (a) and (b) are false. I would not get on an airplane in the current global terrorist environment in the absence of such security.

I am defending the view that current domestic regulations curtailing certain of our rights are temporarily necessary (as with Martial Law) until and unless our government decides to start doing its proper job of destroying our would-be destroyers instead of toying with disaster.

Post 26

Tuesday, February 12 - 12:57pm

Link

Edit

A point that cannot be overemphasized: Airport security should be private and operated by the airlines, not by the government. That way, the airlines have a profit incentive to ensure that the security personnel are doing their job. When airport security is run by the government, it can be run incompetently, and the airline has no quality control over it.

- Bill

Post 27

Tuesday, February 12 - 1:17pm

Link

Edit

Just to keep some things in perspective, Peikoff's book, OPAR, is based on his lectures - which in turn are based or derived from Branden's lectures of the old NBI..... so most of the value of the book stems from what Branden wrote and delivered, and little if any real originality other than perhaps the arrangement of the topics is Peikoff's...

I took Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism back in 1963, so it's been awhile, but I think Peikoff covers Rand's philosophy in greater depth than Branden did. Branden's course was the first presentation of Rand's philosophy to the general public, and Peikoff and Rand had a lot of time, after Branden's departure in 1968, to review and revise the presentation of her philosophy and to cover certain issues that had not been raised or that needed more emphasis or explanation than was provided by Branden's initial series of lectures. This was done in Peikoff subsequent courses, which were eventually adapted to the format of a book. You might say that Peikoff's OPAR was, at the time he wrote it (1992?), a state-of-the-art presentation of Rand's philosophy.

- Bill

Post 28

Tuesday, February 12 - 4:50pm

Link

Edit

A point that cannot be overemphasized: Airport security should be private and operated by the airlines, not by the government. That way, the airlines have a profit incentive to ensure that the security personnel are doing their job. When airport security is run by the government, it can be run incompetently, and the airline has no quality control over it.

The purpose of airport security is to prevent the imminent threat of violence on commercial aircraft. That�s the job of a police force or a police auxiliary with government oversight, not private enterprise. Security personnel are performing a role similar to that of air marshals. They are expected to use physical force in the routine fulfillment of their duties.

The issue is not really whether the actual security work is done by government or private agencies, but the temporary emergency laws requiring that certain security procedures be followed. It�s possible that a private agency could do this with appropriate government oversight and control, and I think that such privatization has recently been considered by Congress. I would endorse such a plan. It might well be more effective than the current federalized system.

But to argue that such laws should be suspended in favor of free market security competition is to invite certain disaster. If would only take one company to decide to minimize screening and promise passengers smooth sailing with little or no inspection or delays. Plenty of impatient travelers would be eager to take advantage of it�and they would be jeopardizing not merely their own lives but potentially thousands of others. Sorry. It just would not work.

It would be comparable to allowing private owners of nuclear power plants (if there were such) to build facilities without adequate external concrete walls. To suggest doing away with such nuclear security regulations in today�s world is hopelessly naive. Such legislative requirements are an emergency extension of the government�s responsibility for self-defense in a world of rampant suicide bombers who feel inspired by Allah. Once that movement is smashed and a stable peace is restored, it may be reasonable to go back to private security measures, but not in the aftermath of 9-11 when the perpetrators have not been neutralized and remain free to murder at will.

I am fully aware that I am wasting my breath on people who believe it�s okay to kill a fetus within a few hours before the mother�s water breaks and mount anti-aircraft weapons on their front lawn, but I wanted to offer this clarification for the general reader.

Post 29

Tuesday, February 12 - 5:16pm

Link

Edit

Dennis I sanctioned your post for fleshing out the issue a bit more. I don't think it necessarily means government oversight over private security firms explicitly telling them to follow procedure and protocols and holding them responsible to them is necessarily a rights violation or an emergency power. A plane is literally a flying bomb, and you are right in comparing it to a nuclear power plant, or for that matter I would compare it to equating the right to bear arms to the right to bear a nuclear warhead. There isn't a reasonable expectation of safety there. No one has a right to endanger others and to endanger the safety of others is an initiation of force. I would call that oversight a proper function of government using retaliatory force. Let private contractors provide the security but hold them accountable and make sure their procedures and protocols will protect others from having their lives and property destroyed.

Post 30

Tuesday, February 12 - 5:35pm

Link

Edit

The purpose of airport security is to prevent the imminent threat of violence on commercial aircraft. That�s the job of a police force or a police auxiliary with government oversight, not private enterprise.

Why is it the job of a police force and not private enterprise? You're making this statements like it's an incontestable fact, and then pinning your subsequent argument on this shaky foundation. Why are unionized security personnel hired by the government vastly superior to security personnel hired by private enterprise? Does donning a government uniform, and being supervised by bureaucrats who can't be fired under civil service rules unless they set their boss' desk on fire and then put out the fire by peeing on it:

1) make one a better marksman
2) make one better able to understand and prevent security threats
3) make one vastly superior at screening luggage for explosives
4) make one far superior at deciding whether security and public satisfaction are greatly enhanced by making everyone take off their shoes and throw away bottled water and breast milk for babies and confiscating toenail clippers and preventing passengers from arming themselves so they can fight back if terrorists attempt to take over the plane and ...

Using this logic, let's also try this on for size: "The purpose of teachers is to educate children. That�s the job of unionized public school teachers, not private enterprise. Based on this incontestable truth, we can deduce that ..."

Post 31

Tuesday, February 12 - 6:02pm

Link

Edit

Jim

Why is it the job of a police force and not private enterprise? You're making this statements like it's an incontestable fact, and then pinning your subsequent argument on this shaky foundation. Why are unionized security personnel hired by the government vastly superior to security personnel hired by private enterprise?

In defense of Dennis, I don't think he necessarily said that unless I'm mistaken. He said there needs to be oversight if private firms are used, I don't disagree with that. Teachers do not perform any function of rights protection. The government is responsible for establishing a legal frame-work for the procedures and protocols for rights protection i.e. due process, thus it would not be inconsistent with that legitimate function to have oversight over private security firms to make sure they are not initiating force by endangering the rest of us who live on the ground and would prefer not to have a plane crash into their place of work or home. I think minimum standards are required while an airline if it wants to can exceed those standards. For example Jim do you think it would be ok if you owned a nuclear warhead, provided no security for it and used shoddy safety standards while handling it? Would you not think that is an initiation of force? Isn't that the same as waving a loaded handgun at customers eating at a local McDonald's?

Edit: Just wanted to expound on this a little more.

When the police use due process to arrest a suspected criminal, or more generally applying the use of force, it does so with specific protocol and standards including documentation of every incident they are involved in. Including using such things as written police reports, and video cameras mounted in police cars and police stations. They do this to make sure police are not abusing their authority to use retaliatory force or at least have a system that can punish police officers for using inappropriate force, i.e. force that becomes an initiation of force. Now if private security firms are hired to perform this function they too must be held accountable to minimum standards of following due process including a system of documentation that makes sure the process is transparent.

(Edited by John Armaos on 2/12, 6:36pm)

Post 32

Tuesday, February 12 - 8:35pm

Link

Edit

John, this is what he said: "That�s the job of a police force or a police auxiliary with government oversight, not private enterprise."

As I read it, this sentence specifically rules out a private police force or security detail. I have no problem with those private security forces being subject to the Bill of Rights, rules of evidence, and other protections of civil rights that police must adhere to. I'm basically calling for allowing privatization of certain police and security functions while making sure they act with at least equal regard for civil rights that any public police or security officer would be held to -- a tiny step toward that anarcho-capitalism society you feel is unachievable. ;)

Post 33

Tuesday, February 12 - 9:10pm

Link

Edit

Perhaps Dennis can expound on what he means, I don't want to speak on his behalf, but I'm not interpreting his words the way you are I believe.

And also, government oversight over private security firms to make sure they follow due process with transparency is not anarcho-Capitalism. They would all have to follow one set of rules for due process, not a myriad of conflicting laws operating side by side in the same geographical area. Such a system to a certain degree exists right now where private contractors work for the Department of Defense providing security (Blackwater), including domestic security firms who perform the same function that are bound by U.S. laws on how they can operate.

Anarcho-capitalism again is the absence of a monopoly government within a specific geographical area.

Post 34

Tuesday, February 12 - 9:15pm

Link

Edit

The government's takeover of airport security was disgusting. A former coworker of mine in Chicago used to work for a private security firm at O'Hare prior to 9-11. In the aftermath of the attack, the government made up outright lies about this company in their effort to make the case that the entire industry should be privatized. In fact, they blamed this company for errors that were in fact the fault of the government! Good people lost good private sector jobs.

Even aside from that, I can't see why airlines are incapable of determining their own level of security. Sure, there could be some level of interaction with the government in terms of sharing lists of undesirable travelers and so forth, but there is otherwise no reason for the TSA as it is currently incarnated to exist. Police exist to enforce laws. Private security exists for the immediate protection of private property. Rent-a-Cops and real cops interact just fine with one another in many other situations - no reason they can't in an airport.

Also, as an aside, the planes-as-missiles technique is going to be vastly more difficult to pull off now. The 9-11 hijackers were able to do what they did because the passengers assumed (rationally given their current understanding) that the best approach was to comply with the hijackers. Knowing what we know now, what group of passengers wouldn't violently revolt against the hijackers en masse once the hijackers try to take over the cockpit? Better to save others if you're going to die anyway (such as the flight 93 heroes thought).

Post 35

Tuesday, February 12 - 9:32pm

Link

Edit

Pete I agree the whole things was a mess and disgusting. The fact that the airlines were able to escape liability and get a huge tax payer paid bailout was one of the most disgusting things Congress did in recent history.

Post 36

Tuesday, February 12 - 10:40pm

Link

Edit

And also, government oversight over private security firms to make sure they follow due process with transparency is not anarcho-Capitalism.

Agreed. Competing legal and justice systems in a single geographic area is really hard to achieve. I guess I'm an optimist long-term about this, but a pessimist short-term given the rising tide of statism. I was talking about simultaneously getting closer to both minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, not actually achieving either with this one incremental improvement. If we get to minarchism and can't get rid of the last few things, well, I'd be delighted to have a much smaller government. I'm not a fanatic about it.

What I was trying to convey in our prior exchange on this was that I don't think you can categorically rule out anarcho-capitalism for all time, say, 200 or 500 years from now, since the frontier in America was in fact pure anarcho-capitalist, and large swaths of the colonies during the American Revolution were anarcho-capitalist or close enough to it that if you kind of squinted it was all good. So we know pure anarcho-capitalism is possible in extremely sparsely settled areas. The question is whether the hotbeds of current statism, large cities, also could become purely anarcho-capitalist with certain technological or philosophical advances.

And, in relooking at Dennis' post, perhaps we're saying the same thing using different definitions of words, and I'm just thinking we don't agree. I apologize if I misunderstood his intent -- trying to post in a limited time span makes it hard to think of all the angles.

Post 37

Tuesday, February 12 - 11:47pm

Link

Edit

John,

Thanks very much for the sanction. And you are correct that I do advocate using private security agencies with government oversight to handle airport screening. That was made clear in the second paragraph of the same post (#28).

�Anarcho-capitalism� is, of course, a contradiction in terms, since capitalism requires a government to ban physical force before the free market can function. It is silly to suggest this floating abstraction as a practical way of dealing with the security issue in the midst of the war on terror. I have better things to do with my time than argue that nonsense. Can we please try to stay serious?

There was a time not so long ago when getting on an airplane did not involve standing in long, slow-moving lines, getting interrogated by surly half-wits, having your carry-on luggage x-rayed and disrobing in public. I am hopeful those times will eventually return, although some level of screening will probably be mandatory for the foreseeable future. I can see that being totally within the purview of the various airports and airlines with little or no governmental regulation. The airlines have a competitive interest in offering a safe product.

Right now, we are in the midst of a global war, even though one of the two major political parties does not seem to have gotten the news. And because the enemy is prepared to use airliners as weapons, the same governmental body charged with conducting that war has the responsibility to enforce uniform rules of airport security. I see those temporary emergency rules and restrictions as being entirely separate from due process protections. The government must spell out in detail exactly what the private screeners need to do to keep the public safe and require that all airport security staff abide by those stringent rules and standards.

Once the federal government finally shows some cashews and the enemy gets properly neutralized, those federal rules and restrictions can be lifted, and security can once again become a private responsibility.

One final point�a reiteration of my prior warning about the dangers of bombs and assault weapons. Terrorists are well aware that passengers are no longer going to sit complacently while their aircraft is transformed into a WMD. Their current plots are very likely designed to either kill the passengers and crew (with reassembled assault weapons) or bring down the aircraft with improvised explosives.

Post 38

Wednesday, February 13 - 1:16am

Link

Edit

ONE
Multinational corporations could not function unless they admitted to and made use of competing legal systems. Look at the labels of the things you buy. They are made in China or Mexico, or assembled in Taiwan or El Salvador. The same factory that licenses to sell 25,000 "Lauren" shirts in the USA will put "Gucci" labels on them for Japan. The licensing itself is under different laws. The shirts are shipped and sold under different laws. The fabrics, the dyes, the sewing machines and shipping cartons and all that and more is all handled in a global world marketplace of completing (and conflicting) laws.

Which laws are used for the standard of reconciliation is part of the negotiation. Contracts state whose laws the contract will be intrepreted under. That is the choice of the parties. It is not a "geographic monopoly." Geographically, it is a globe with several hundred competing legal systems. Business -- real business, not philosophy -- is done this way every day. If something hits a snag, the lawyers work it out. No one fires a shot when grommets from Brazil go to a Nike factory in Viet Nam to meet shoelaces made in El Salvador from cotton grown in Egypt.

NEO-CONSERVATIVES are people who want there to be one legal system for the whole world. That much might be nice, but they do not actually state what that system will be.

TWO
Do I have a right to hire a guard? Does my neighbor have a right to hire a guard? If my neighbor accuses me of stealing his wallet and we each call our guards, do they have a right to work it out or are they required to kill each other for the amusement of Objectivists?

I have worked for five guard agencies since 2002. In every case, the prime directive is to avoid conflict. In several cases the first work rule said: "When confronted, you will retreat." Property is not worth killing or dying for.

I know that seems odd to those who want other people to kill and die for their property. They are muscle mystics who give "spiritual" meaning to material objects. They totemize goods and services and sacrifice people to them in order to petition the gods of plenty.

Such people are NEO-CONSERVATIVES.

THREE
Airplanes are dangerous. Cars are dangerous. Should the government put a policeman in every car to avoid the 40,000 deaths (2.7 million injuries) a year from automobiles? In 2005, 1400 people were killed by their domestic partners, more than three a day. Should we put police in every home? Why are airlines the special province of the goverment police, but shopping malls are not? When Gulf War II broke out, I was placed under contract to a railroad to help guard a large yard.The railroads have long had their own security and bums -- literal bums -- who sang of a paradise with cigarette trees and lakes of whiskey complained because the "bulls" would not let them hitch free rides in boxcars, turning rolling stock into rolling hotels for vagrants.

Ever since the first hijackings to Cuba in the early 1960s, passengers have been passive. We are all acculturated to this from kindergarten. So, it took 9/11 to bring people out of their stupor. If passengers, i.e., YOU, assumed responsibility for their context, none of this would be under discussion now. Can you take someone out with a rolled up magazine? A pencil? Do you carry the kind of weapon than can be used in a jet? (There are bullets that do not exit what they hit.) Would you fly knowing that everyone else was armed, too?

Post 39

Wednesday, February 13 - 7:23am

Link

Edit

Michael -- great post. Sanctioned it.

Dennis, re: this statement:

" 'Anarcho-capitalism' is, of course, a contradiction in terms, since capitalism requires a government to ban physical force before the free market can function. It is silly to suggest this floating abstraction as a practical way of dealing with the security issue in the midst of the war on terror. I have better things to do with my time than argue that nonsense. Can we please try to stay serious?"

My response:

Capitalism requires some agent or agents to ban physical aggression against their property and other rights before the free market can function. You have not advanced any arguments that I find compelling as to why that ban on physical force must be provided solely by a corrupt government-run monopoly controlled by politicians interested in advanced their careers and appeasing special interest groups, not in actually serving the public's interest at their own expense. Or are you implying that politicians act altruistically and sacrifice their political advancement to further the interests of their subjects? Are you saying that private security forces are incapable of guarding a capitalist's property and preventing theft or fraud or other initiations of force? How do you respond to Michael's contention that multinational corporations in fact act anarcho-capitalistically?

It could be perceived as a bit insulting to imply that anyone who does not accept a government monopoly on force is not a serious person. If you don't care to take the time to defend unsupported assertions, that's fine -- we all have time constraints -- but please try to keep it civil and don't summarily dismiss those of us who hold differing views and are trying to outline why we feel such monopolistic behavior by a government is not the best and only imaginable way of providing security so the free market can work.

Neo-Conservative: a heuristic (operational) definition