RoR: Forum

Sorry Ed, you're going to have to live without Regi on this forum. I'm not interested in having him back based on his previous behavior. I've deleted his new account as well.

Post 41

Monday, November 6, 2006 - 5:14pm

Your the boss (and site owner/operator), Joe. It's your call -- and I respect that.

Ed

Post 42

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 - 6:41am

I voted a straight ticket (sort of) today. I voted against every candidate that was endorsed by the Austin American-Statesman.

Post 43

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 - 11:59am

Here are my final, last-minute thoughts on this election.

In addition, I have provided links there to the intramural bloodletting occurring within ARI ranks right now, in the aftermath of Leonard Peikoff's insulting and outrageous characterizations of those Objectivists who disagree with his idiotic defense of the Democrats. It appears that a big split is once again in the making within ARI, with long-time loyalists like Jack Wakefield, Stephen and Betsy Speicher, and columnist Robert Tracinski (editor of The Intellectual Activist) being viciously attacked for challenging Peikoff's lunacy.

This is just another example of the kind of irrational tribalism that prompted David Kelley to write The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, and to found an alternative to ARI. I can only hope that after Tracinski, the Speichers, and their allies get over their initial shock, they'll begin to understand the reasons that led so many of us to depart the Peikovian/ARI ranks.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 11/07, 12:28pm)

Post 44

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 - 1:07pm

I realize that Regi is no longer allowed to post here, but I'd like to address his last post, because it constitutes a common misconception among anarchists that government, by its nature, requires the initiation of force by requiring that competing governments not be allowed to operate within the same geographical area. He writes,

The problem is Rand's definition of government, "an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area." [Capitalism the Unknown Ideal - "Appendix: The Nature Of Government"] If you choose not to recognize that institution's "right" to regulate your social conduct, won't it have to force you to do so? If it does not, how can it prevent people from setting up another institution in the same greographical area to enforce rules of social conduct?"

Obviously, as Ed pointed out, it will have to force you to obey its laws by arresting you for violating them. But if the laws are just, the force will be retaliatory or defensive, not initiatory or offensive. Obviously, governments must USE force, but Objectivism makes a distinction between the initiation of force and retaliatory force. I would have thought that anyone familiar enough with Rand to quote her writings on government would be aware of that.

Furthermore, the idea that a government must initiate force in order to prevent a competing government from operating within the same jurisdiction is anarchist nonsense. A competing government will have different laws and by that very fact be at odds with the existing government's own laws, which if they are restricted to the defense of individual rights, cannot be opposed without their opposition constituting the initiation of force. This is so obvious, it's amazing that anarchists sympathetic to Roy Childs' argument against Rand can continue to ignore it.

Bill

Post 45

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 - 1:35pm

Here is the problem that I have with an Objectivist Party. A political party must take positions on concrete issues, like the war in Iraq. Since Objectivists disagree on foreign policy issues, which are a concrete application of Objectivist principles, whatever foreign policy position an Objectivist Party takes will become misleadingly allied with the Objectivist philosophy as such, which takes no position on concrete applications of its general principles.

While a philosophy can guide one's decisions on concrete issues, it cannot incorporate those decisions as part of the philosophy itself. There is no philosophical principle in Objectivism which says that we should have invaded Iraq or abstained from invading Iraq, any more than there is a legal principle in Objectivism which says that Scott Peterson should have been convicted (or acquitted) of murder. The Objectivist politics simply says that retaliatory force is proper. Whether or not to use it or how to use it in a particular situation is a matter for individual judgment.

This is not to say that a political party cannot be based on the principles of Objectivism, any more than it is to say that a political party cannot be based on the principles of logic. But just as you wouldn't call a political party based on the principles of logic the "Logical Party," so you wouldn't call a political party based on the principles of Objectivism the "Objectivist Party." A political party can be an application of an underlying philosophy; it cannot be considered an arm of the philosophy.

- Bill

Post 46

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 - 2:22pm

Excellent points, Bill (both posts).

Ed

Post 47

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 - 4:29pm

Hi Bill,

Despite your important distinction, from post 44, between initiatory and retaliatory force, there is initiatory force in the nature of government. My perfectly moral right to retaliate against my tormentors is forcibly taken from me, by government. I am morally right to retaliate against initiations against me, but the government will put me in prison if I do so. I am forced to relinquish what is my moral right to retaliation to the government, who will retaliate, deter, etc. on my behalf. (I happen to favor the arrangement.)

You write, �But if the laws are just, the force will be retaliatory or defensive, not initiatory or offensive.�

Right. And I want to be sure that the law respond strongly to those who initiate force against me�that they do the job well, which I think they mostly do. Policing is a special service because force is at issue and much is at stake, so I favor government. But it is just a service. If the government was changing the oil in every American�s car, and doing it well�you would still have to confess some force was involved if changing your own was punishable with imprisonment.

Post 48

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 - 5:31pm

Bill -- Good points in post 45! A look at even the most rational Objectivist discussion board shows honest differences over the war and many other policies. That's why I call myself a libertarian with a small "l" when describing my politics. In just about all other countries I'd be a liberal but in America a liberal is a statist on most matters. I could call myself a "classical liberal" but most people would think that's John Kerry listening to opera.

But it is true that a party can be based on general principles, which will distinguish the policies it advocates from other parties. David Kelley has written about the need for as party of modernity, not speaking so much of a political party but of individuals who identity themselves not as pre-modern religionists or post-modern relativists. Such individuals with these attitudes could strongly inform a political party.

In my piece on "The Battle for the Soul of The Republican Party" I maintained that the major factions of the Goldwater/Reagan party -- libertarians and traditional conservatives -- tended to agree on the principles of limited, constitutional government, rule of law and checks and balances. The rise of social conservatives and neocons has resulted in a party guided by the principles of government activism and social engineering from the right.

Post 49

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 - 5:51pm

Bill, Jon's Post 47 has some good points, although I don't wholeheartedly endorse government as he does. You said:

A competing government will have different laws and by that very fact be at odds with the existing government's own laws, which if they are restricted to the defense of individual rights, cannot be opposed without their opposition constituting the initiation of force.

Is this necessarily true? Can competing restaraunts have the same menus? Burger King and McDonalds are in competition, but they both serve burgers. In fact two competing governments (which is kind of a contradiction since monopoly status is implicit in most definitions of government) can have the exact same set of laws. I don't follow you there. At any rate, I think it's worth noting that both sides of this debate both want the same thing, they just argue about the best way to achieve it.

Post 50

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - 12:53am

Jon, you wrote:

Despite your important distinction, from post 44, between initiatory and retaliatory force, there is initiatory force in the nature of government. My perfectly moral right to retaliate against my tormentors is forcibly taken from me, by government. I am morally right to retaliate against initiations against me, but the government will put me in prison if I do so. I am forced to relinquish what is my moral right to retaliation to the government, who will retaliate, deter, etc. on my behalf. (I happen to favor the arrangement.)

Okay. Here's the problem with retaliating on your own, except of course when it's an exigent necessity (to save your life or to prevent imminent bodily harm): Let's say that you believe that I stole your wallet. You discover it missing and find me in possession of it. In retaliation, you meet out Jon Letendre's special brand of punishment: you beat me up. And let's say that the police catch you in the act of assaulting me. Obviously, they are not privy to the particulars of this case, so what are they to do? Permit you to carry on the assault, or arrest you?

If they arrest you, is it your contention that they will be initiating force? I don't think you can draw that conclusion. The only evidence they have at that stage is that you started it. They will have to investigate the matter in order to discover that you were responding to what you thought was an act of theft. I, the alleged thief, on the other hand, will argue that I found the wallet on the street, and was about to turn it in. Obviously, an impartial fact-finding body will have to assess the merits of our respective claims. Since the only evidence the police have at that stage is that you are the aggressor, they will have to arrest you and hold you for trial.

Moreover, even if it is discovered that I did in fact steal your wallet, the government will have to determine that the punishment you delivered was proportional to the offense -- that it was not excessive or brutal -- and that you were therefore perfectly justified in delivering it. In this case, it is unlikely that they would draw that conclusion.

Finally, they will have to determine that your act of retaliation was not precipitous or rash, but was undertaken after a careful and deliberate examination of all the relevant evidence. Otherwise, it will be judged as reckless, prejudicial and therefore inappropriate. Here too, it is unlikely that they would credit you with having acted appropriately by, in this case, conducting a proper and impartial investigation before administering punishment.

To deny you a form of retaliation that the government judges as violating my right to a fair trial is to prevent you from resorting to what is effectively the initiation of force. For initiating force is what you would be doing if you were to retaliate against me in a manner that does not conform to reasonable standards of due process. Rash and ill considered retaliation is tantamount to the initiation of force, and cannot be tolerated by a rational government.

I wrote, "A competing government will have different laws and by that very fact be at odds with the existing government's own laws, which if they are restricted to the defense of individual rights, cannot be opposed without their opposition constituting the initiation of force." Jonathan Fauth replied,

Is this necessarily true? Can competing restaraunts have the same menus? Burger King and McDonalds are in competition, but they both serve burgers. In fact two competing governments (which is kind of a contradiction since monopoly status is implicit in most definitions of government) can have the exact same set of laws. I don't follow you there.

Jonathan, if these governments are independent entities, they will arrive at the same laws only fortuitously. What happens when the laws they arrive at are different and therefore mutually incompatible? To permit the independent, simultaneous operation of different governments within the same area of jurisdiction is to allow for that possibility, and therefore to sanction conflicting rules and regulations. The only way to ensure against this kind of conflict is to establish a legal monopoly.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/08, 1:00am)

Post 51

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - 2:48pm

Bill,

Your point, that grossly disproportionate retaliation is an initiation of its own and therefore rightly not tolerated, is good as far as it goes. But I am disallowed from retaliating on my own even in a form that meets the standards for due process and proportionality. I am prevented from seeing any lesser retaliation, as well. Consider if I wanted you, the wallet thief, to get a warning only. Even though I am your one and only victim in the case, and even though I alone should be concerned with punishment and deterrence employed in my defense, my wishes would be overturned. A response greater than what I wish to see would be meted out and I could do nothing to stop it because it would be carried out with the full force of the government.

As I said, I favor the arrangement, so I am playing Devil�s Advocate ultimately. There is initiatory force involved in the creation of government in the form of collective relinquishment of the right to retaliation. Government has no rights that individuals can�t have. So prior (logically) to government, the individual has the right to use force in retaliation. Government comes to possess this right by having it delegated to it by individuals. But there is no form to sign up for this; the right is �delegated� by force.

Post 52

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 10:47am

Jon, you wrote:

Your point, that grossly disproportionate retaliation is an initiation of its own and therefore rightly not tolerated, is good as far as it goes. But I am disallowed from retaliating on my own even in a form that meets the standards for due process and proportionality. I am prevented from seeing any lesser retaliation, as well. Consider if I wanted you, the wallet thief, to get a warning only. Even though I am your one and only victim in the case, and even though I alone should be concerned with punishment and deterrence employed in my defense, my wishes would be overturned. A response greater than what I wish to see would be meted out and I could do nothing to stop it because it would be carried out with the full force of the government.

But the fact that you choose not to exact just punishment against a convicted criminal doesn't mean that the government has no right to do so. If the punishment is just, then you have no right to interfere with it. Nor can you be allowed to decide what is proportional punishment and what isn't, since your decision will almost certainly conflict with the government's. If the government were to allow you to make that decision, then it would be abdicating its own right to decide what is proportional punishment, in which case you, not the government, would be the authority on such matters. One cannot have two governing authorities, each independently determining what is appropriate retaliation, within the same jurisdiction.

As I said, I favor the arrangement, so I am playing Devil�s Advocate ultimately. There is initiatory force involved in the creation of government in the form of collective relinquishment of the right to retaliation. Government has no rights that individuals can�t have. So prior (logically) to government, the individual has the right to use force in retaliation. Government comes to possess this right by having it delegated to it by individuals. But there is no form to sign up for this; the right is �delegated� by force.

I agree that government has no rights that individuals don't have, but here's the problem. To say that every individual has the right simultaneously to decide what is just retaliation and punishment entails a contradiction, because implied in that right is also the right to prevent other individuals from enforcing their decision on the matter, if it disagrees with yours. So, the concept of universal and simultaneous decision-making authority on the proper use of retaliatory force is self-invalidating. If I have the right to decide what is just retaliation and punishment, then you cannot simultaneously have that right, and vice-versa. You can certainly have it in place of my having it, and I can have it in place of your having it. But we cannot both have it at the same time. That's why government by its very nature is monopolistic. Competing governments, which is what anarchism implies, is a contradiction in terms.

When you "delegate" your right of retaliation to the government, what you are doing is simply allowing someone else to exercise a right that you yourself would be entitled to exercise if you were in a similar position. Since you recognize that it is either/or -- either you must exercise that right or someone else must exercise it -- you agree on a procedure whereby some particular agent is vested with the authority to do so. It is in this respect that he or she can be considered your delegate or representative.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/09, 11:10am)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/09, 3:16pm)

Post 53

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 2:04pm

Bill,

You are dancing around it. I do understand your reluctance�giving one�s nod to any type of initiatory force is uncomfortable. You ended with,

�When you "delegate" your right of retaliation to the government, what you are doing is simply allowing someone else to exercise a right that you yourself would be entitled to exercise if you were in a similar position. Since you recognize that it is either/or -- either you must exercise that right or someone else must exercise it -- you agree on a procedure whereby some particular agent is vested with the authority to do so. It is in this respect that he or she can be considered your delegate or representative.�

�simply allowing someone else�� Allowing?
��you agree on a procedure�� Agree?

The fact is there is no agreement to the delegation. The government usurps the right, by force.

Post 54

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 3:26pm

I wrote, �When you 'delegate' your right of retaliation to the government, what you are doing is simply allowing someone else to exercise a right that you yourself would be entitled to exercise if you were in a similar position. Since you recognize that it is either/or -- either you must exercise that right or someone else must exercise it -- you agree on a procedure whereby some particular agent is vested with the authority to do so. It is in this respect that he or she can be considered your delegate or representative.�

Jon replied,

�simply allowing someone else�� Allowing?
�you agree on a procedure�� Agree?

The fact is there is no agreement to the delegation. The government usurps the right, by force.

When I said "allow" and "agree," I was referring to the attitude of a rational individual who understands the importance of a government and of an objective and dispassionate system of jurisprudence.

Obviously, a lynch mob that wants to mete out its own brand of justice will not have agreed to delegate its right of retaliation to the government. But that doesn't mean that if the government prevents it from carrying out the lynching, the government is initiating force against it. Stopping the lynch mob is an act of retaliatory force on behalf of the accused and of his right to a fair trial. It does not constitute the initiation of force.

- Bill

Post 55

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 3:42pm

Jon,

Who is really doing the "dancing around" here?

Bill Dwyer rightly points this out:

To say that every individual has the right simultaneously to decide what is just retaliation and punishment entails a contradiction, because implied in that right is also the right to prevent other individuals from enforcing their decision on the matter, if it disagrees with yours. So, the concept of universal and simultaneous decision-making authority on the proper use of retaliatory force is self-invalidating. If I have the right to decide what is just retaliation and punishment, then you cannot simultaneously have that right, and vice-versa. You can certainly have it in place of my having it, and I can have it in place of your having it. But we cannot both have it at the same time. That's why government by its very nature is monopolistic. Competing governments, which is what anarchism implies, is a contradiction in terms.

Exactly. What Bill here demonstrates is that there is no such thing as a "right" to unilateral, subjective "right of retaliation." It doesn't exist.

Why? Because (1) no one can claim a "right" to employ force arbitrarily, in any situation and to any degree he feels like; and, equally important, (2) no one can claim a "right" logically inconsistent with the equal "right" of anyone else.

As to (1), to declare that any individual retains the unilateral "right" to employ force without having to validate and justify that use to the rest of society, according to objective standards, is to claim a carte blanche to any use of force and violence. In the absence of objective, enforceable standards applicable all, who is to limit Letendre or Dwyer or Bidinotto in their respective use of violence -- and in the name of what?

As to (2), by what logic can Bidinotto's claimed "right" to use force clash with the equal "rights" of Letendre or Dwyer?

Suppose a drunk driver kills somebody. Bidinotto, the brother of the victim, believes in literal "eye for an eye" justice, and intends that the drunk driver be put to death. Dwyer, however, is the brother of the convicted drunk driver; he believes the death penalty would be a grossly disproportionate miscarriage of justice, and thus will defend his brother's life with violence if necessary. Meanwhile, Letendre -- a cousin of the victim -- is an anarchist who does not believe in any government laws, executions, or prisons; he demands instead financial restitution for himself and his family, enforced by hired private agencies; and he is prepared to assert his "rightful claims" with violence, if necessary.

Under anarchism, who is acting within his "rights" here? If each of us acts on his own "standards" of interpreting "rights," then which of us would be committing an "initiation of force"? And if we tried to protect ourselves against each other's interpretation, which of us would be violating rights, and which of us would be merely engaging in rightful self-defense?

Jon, you anarchists simply can't "dance around" the logical dilemmas of anarchism. "Rights" can only exist when there is a single standard of their definition and interpretation, enforceable by some final arbiter of disputed claims. In the absence of some ultimate objective law, and a final arbiter having the power to enforce resolutions of conflicts, your claimed interpretations of your "rights" will clash constantly with mine and mine with Dwyer's.

And Jon: If even we on this site, who argue from similar philosophical principles, can't agree on such things, what happens when your anarchistic notions are adopted by non-Objectivists and non-libertarians? In the absence of government and unitary constitutional law, what happens when we, a tiny intellectual minority, have to face an armed population of millions who don't even share our philosophy?

Even as imperfect, inconsistent, and scary as government is today, right now it is the only force protecting Jon Letendre, Bill Dwyer, and Robert Bidinotto from being slaughtered by their neighbors. Frankly, I'll take my chances trying to reform a constitutionally limited and institutionally constrained government, rather than face the inevitable gang warfare of my neighbors.

If you want a real-life preview of America if its government institutions were to be toppled and its laws to become toothless, look no farther than Iraq. That nation is the real model of anarchism.

In fact, it's ironic that so many anarchists claim that Iraq today has become much more violent and worse off after the U.S. toppled dictator Saddam. Don't they realize that this argument undermines their own argument against government?
(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 11/10, 7:43am)

Post 56

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 9:57pm

Commentary from the side-lines:

Just a short defense of Jon L.'s character -- the man DID say that he's playing a devil's advocate (ie. Jon L. is no anarchist).

Now, both Bill and Robert have the logical upper hand here (they're making great points) and, if Jon L. doesn't 'bite the bullet' on this one soon then, if I were you guys, I'd politely ask him to generously restate your arguments back to you (as this will prove to you whether or not he understands what it is that you are saying).

Ed

Post 57

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 10:08pm

It's amazing how often the ideas of market anarchism are brought up on this forum. I don't get why is has such an appeal considering it's flawed inconsistent logic.

BTW as always great posts by Bill Dwyer and Robert Bidinotto.

Post 58

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 2:38pm

Thanks, Ed. No anarchist is right. In fact, I have been known to make excuses for state powers such as eminent domain and arguments for compulsory taxation (the latter position being one John Armaos agrees with me about.)

I do believe the anarchists have a solid point about force in the creation of government. If you begin with the premise of banishing initiatory force absolutely, they have a point that such precludes getting any government off the ground in the first place. Government can have no rights that individuals cannot have; yet government possesses the right to retaliatory force. So where does the government get the right? From individuals. And no consent is obtained; it is forced from them. I just don�t see any way out of this. I agree with Bill and Robert�s well-reasoned arguments why it should be done anyway, but I see no way of denying the nature of what�s done.

I think it only reasonable that if this takeover of the right is to happen that part of the bargain must be that individuals are guaranteed a competent defense. (This becomes important regarding foreign threats, especially. The Cold War cost trillions of dollars. Like medical science, military defense gets increasingly high-tech and more expensive every year. If fundamentalist Islamists gain control of the Muslim world, including the majority of the world oil supply, then we�ll really be in for it.) Because of the free-rider problem, I don�t see how a proper defense could be funded voluntarily. Perhaps someday the world will be a rational, peaceful place and defense will cost no more than internal police and courts, and then it could be done voluntarily. Until then, my right to retaliation�the implementation of which is usurped from me by force�still yet entitles me to the taxation of all in furtherance of a competent defense from threats. Here again the anarchists have a point. The initial force; namely the taking of the right to retaliation, begets more force; namely the potential and likely, if not guaranteed, requirement for compulsory taxation. As Ed reminded, I am for the entire package. I just don�t see any way around conceding these points to the anarchists.

There is a flaw in the argument that �the concept of universal and simultaneous decision-making authority on the proper use of retaliatory force is self-invalidating.� This implies that there really is no individual right to the use of retaliatory force. But if we accept both the premise that government possesses no rights that individuals can�t have, and the premise that government has such a right, then it must be so that individuals really do have that right�otherwise, from where could government obtain it?

Post 59

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 6:36pm