Market vs. Government

Steve Wolfer addresing M. Marrotta:

...I have yet to hear an explanation for a workable system without a single set of rules to refer to, or a way to have a single set of rules without government.

...and addressing me:

You said the logical requirement that there be only one set of rules has nothing to do with government. Government is the mechanism we are using to create and maintain those rules. You can't have competing agencies that create rules without having multiple sets of rules.
Do you have an alternative that supports the single set of rules?

...and again:

You mention a set of "common" laws that competing agencies enforce. Two questions:
1) Where do they come from?
2) How do they get to be, and to stay, common?

One of the first questions is, how do you define a government? It can't be just an entity that creates and enforces rules. My employer does that. So do many other organizations. One thing that differentiates between the two is that I consent to the rules that my employer creates, whereas I do not have the option of consenting to the rules a government creates. It has been said that by remaining within a country, consent is implied. But this could only be true if the government owned all the property within the area where it enforced its laws. So it would seem that force is a defining characteristic of a government.

Imagine a group of people stranded on a deserted island. What would give one of them, or a group of them the right to exclusively adminster justice? I cannot think of a good reason. If X has the right to prevent A from committing a crime, then Y must have the same right.

On the same thread, John Armaos remarked:

To say too that we have one group as the government is a misnomer. Our government (the US) is not static and it is not one group, individuals within that government come and go and most have term limits, it is seperated into competing powers to make sure not one branch of government has ultimate control over the other. Any individual can choose to enter government. Anyone has the right to free speech and government redress to have laws changed. There is not one group but multiple groups in government that are tasked with the duty of protecting individual rights. No one individual or one group in government is held accountable to just himself so it is fallacious to say only one group of people is in charge of it. We are all in charge of it.

On another thread he argued that a monopoly government was necessary to administer justice...

There can be only one army, one police, one set of laws over a geographical area.

But before the topic of taxation can be discussed and debated, we would both have to come to an agreement that a monopoly government is necessary to administer justice.

This is confusing to me, as I have always understood a monopoly to mean one group (or firm) providing a good or service. But even ignoring this apparent contradiction, the argument that we do not have one group as the government seems to make the case that our governmental system is a half-baked attempt at anarchy...

We are all in charge of it.

It may be true that no "one branch of government has ultimate control over the other" (i.e. they exist in anarchy amongst each other), but when they choose to work together they have control over individuals.

"Governmentalists" are fond of decrying "majority rule", but is "minority rule" any better?

Getting back to Steve's question on how a "common" set of laws would come to be...

The questions is hard to answer. One cannot account for each one of the millions of consumer preferences that drive individual markets, but one can point to examples of common standards that have arisen without government decree.

The most obvious example would be the English language, which has its own set of standards (i.e. grammar) which is the result of, well, people.

Drawing from my own professional experience (I am in the electrical industry), perhaps a more pertinent example would be the National Electrical Code (NEC).

From Wikipedia...

The National Electrical Code (NEC), or NFPA 70, is a standard for the safe installation of electrical wiring and equipment. It is part of the National Fire Codes series published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). While the NEC is not itself a U.S. law, NEC use is commonly mandated by state or local law, as well as in jurisdictions outside of the United States. The NEC codifies the requirements for safe electrical installations into a single, standardized source.

Many NEC requirements refer to "listed" or "labeled" devices and appliances, and this means that the item has been designed, manufactured and marked in accordance with requirements of the listing agency. To be listed, the device has to meet the testing and other requirements set by a listing agency such as Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or Canadian Standards Association (CSA), with reference to appropriate testing standards. Only a listed device can carry the listing brand of the listing agency. Upon payment of an Investigation Fee to determine suitability, an investigation is started. To be labeled as fit for a particular purpose (e.g., "wet locations", "domestic range") a device must be tested for that specific use by the listing agency and then the appropriate label applied to the device. A fee is paid to the listing agency for each item so labeled, that is, for each label. Because of the reputation of these listing agencies, the "Authority Having Jurisdiction" usually will quickly accept any device, appliance, or piece of equipment having such a label.

Underwriters Laboratories (Inc.) is a well-known laboratory with headquarters in Northbrook, Illinois that develops standards and test procedures for materials, components, assemblies, tools, equipment and procedures, chiefly dealing with product safety and utility.

The National Fire Protection Association (established 1896) is an independent, voluntary-membership, nonprofit (tax-exempt) organization. Incorporated in 1930 under laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, NFPA�s mission is to reduce the worldwide burden of fire and other hazards on the quality of life by providing and advocating scientifically-based consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education. NFPA�s international headquarters is located in Quincy, Massachusetts, USA. A board of directors has general charge of the affairs of the Association.

NFPA Vision "NFPA is the premier source worldwide for the development and dissemination of knowledge about fire and life safety."

NFPA Mission "Our mission is to reduce the worldwide burden of fire and other hazards on the quality of life by providing and advocating consensus codes and standards, research, training and education."

All NFPA consensus codes and standards are developed under the procedures of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

ANSI is another private standards organization. And yet another is...

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association or NEMA is a U.S.-based association, which was created on September 1, 1926, when the Associated Manufacturers of Electrical Supplies and the Electric Power Club merged. It is headquartered in Rosslyn, Virginia. It sets many common standards used in electrical products among its over 400 members.

NEMA has established a range of standards for electrical equipment enclosures. For more detailed and complete information, see the NEMA Standards Publication 250.

If I tell a supplier I need a NEMA 3R rated disconnect, I can rest assured I will receive a disconnect suiteable for use in a wet location.

If I order a 2" EMT coupling, I know that it will couple two pieces of 2" EMT, whether it is a Thomas & Betts, Appleton, or OZ-Gedney coupling etc., regardless of whether the EMT is manufactured by Allied, Wheatland, etc.

So to answer your question, I cannot tell you exactly how all of these standards came to be, but I do know that it is possible to have a common set of standard without government.

Post 1

Sunday, March 4, 2007 - 12:47am

Jonathan,

I agree that a defining characteristic of a government lies with the use of force. There is no disagreement there.

Please note that I did NOT say that a government is defined solely by of the action of making rules. I used the word 'rules' to stand-in for the word 'laws' because the word 'law' presupposes a government which is what our discussion was about. It should also be clear from the context that I was not confusing your company or any other organization with a government.

You talked about a difference between a government and your company (in this regard) being that you voluntarily stay with your company and follow their rules - not so with a government. I agree with that distinction and it goes to the heart of why a government is needed.

If a person chooses not to follow a rule/law that says you can't kill people and take their stuff are you happy to leave that choice of theirs as okay? I assume you see that kind of decision as not being in the same category as choosing to obey the various rules at your company.

Rules/laws that prohibit the initiation of violence, threat to initiate violence, engage in fraud or theft are different because those actions violate the capacity to choose and therefore can't be validly chosen.

That is why there can only be one set of rules/laws. But that is only the first requirement. (No one said there would only be one requirement.) All of the rules/laws must only be about things that violate the capacity to choose (force and its variants). They have to be located with a government, because they are about force and there must be a government to maintain that one set of rules.

If you point at any government on earth today you will see flagrant examples of violating the purpose of government as I've described it - but that doesn't invalidate the need - it just says we aren't there yet.

No one could object to a government that only has rules/laws that prohibit the violation of individual rights while still claiming to be in favor of individual rights.

You said,

"Imagine a group of people stranded on a deserted island. What would give one of them, or a group of them the right to exclusively adminster justice? I cannot think of a good reason. If X has the right to prevent A from committing a crime, then Y must have the same right."

If an action is truly just then anyone would have the right to perform that action. But that wouldn't be the most sensible implementation of a social order. We understand that specialization gives better performance - not just more efficient. So start with the thought that you would want this task performed by a specialist rather than not performed and rather than performed by someone with no training, guidance, oversight, accountabilityh, checks or balances, etc. The question then becomes, "what is the best way to select and control the that person or group?"

You ask why would one person or group have an exclusive right? If they made some sort of agreement resulting in one person or group doing that on behalf of others. That would be a government. And that would be a kind of exclusive right held by the others and granted to the 'government' to perform on their behalf. What if just one person doesn't agree to this government? Well, if it is a government that opposes individual rights that person is a hero. If it is a government whose only laws are based upon individual rights that person is wrong.

Of course if they made no such agreement at all then they could fight - even to the death - over that or anything else - because they would be an anarchy with the possibility of anyone or everyone making up their own rules/laws.

Or if some of them decided that killing an islander was no different kind of decision than deciding what time of day to eat lunch and they used were successful in forcing the imposition of that kind of set of rules you would have a bad government.

Your scheme rests upon a marketplace coming up with a single set of rules regarding the use of force and you say you don't know how that would happen. You point at the various standards that exist voluntarily in areas that have nothing to do with initiation of force.

Here is the crux of the argument - the market we are discussing is the initiation of force - you don't want choice in this area - you want none of it. This isn't like shoes, or electrical standards or languages. Those all have to do with choice between alternatives. That is what creates your standards and what makes the current version of language what it is - the combined choices over time. But initiatory force is the one thing that makes choice impossible. It doesn't lead to it's own extinction. It just leads to death and the destruction of values.

Post 2

Sunday, March 4, 2007 - 10:44am

Please note that I did NOT say that a government is defined solely by of the action of making rules. I used the word 'rules' to stand-in for the word 'laws' because the word 'law' presupposes a government which is what our discussion was about.

I'm confused. Are you saying government is defined by the ability to make laws? You also say that 'law' presupposes a government. Isn't this circular reasoning? It would help if you clearly defined government.

You talked about a difference between a government and your company (in this regard) being that you voluntarily stay with your company and follow their rules - not so with a government. I agree with that distinction and it goes to the heart of why a government is needed.

If a person chooses not to follow a rule/law that says you can't kill people and take their stuff are you happy to leave that choice of theirs as okay? I assume you see that kind of decision as not being in the same category as choosing to obey the various rules at your company.

You are correct. My intent was simply to get us thinking about what seperates government from other entities.

They have to be located with a government, because they are about force and there must be a government to maintain that one set of rules.

I've already given examples of rules that are maintained without a government mandate. You never proved that there must be a government to maintain these rules, you merely stated it.

If an action is truly just then anyone would have the right to perform that action. But that wouldn't be the most sensible implementation of a social order.

Are you saying that while it is moral to allow competing agencies to administer justice, it is not practical?

We understand that specialization gives better performance - not just more efficient. So start with the thought that you would want this task performed by a specialist rather than not performed and rather than performed by someone with no training, guidance, oversight, accountabilityh, checks or balances, etc. The question then becomes, "what is the best way to select and control that person or group?"

I don't see where you ever answered the question... What is the best way to select and control that person or group? You seem to imply that without government law enforcement, we would not have specialists, but this doesn't make sense.

You ask why would one person or group have an exclusive right? If they made some sort of agreement resulting in one person or group doing that on behalf of others. That would be a government.

So I guess I must have missed the day when we all signed that agreement, right?

Your scheme rests upon a marketplace coming up with a single set of rules regarding the use of force and you say you don't know how that would happen. You point at the various standards that exist voluntarily in areas that have nothing to do with initiation of force.

Concepts, concepts, concepts...

Here is the crux of the argument - the market we are discussing is the initiation of force - you don't want choice in this area - you want none of it. This isn't like shoes, or electrical standards or languages. Those all have to do with choice between alternatives. That is what creates your standards and what makes the current version of language what it is - the combined choices over time. But initiatory force is the one thing that makes choice impossible. It doesn't lead to it's own extinction. It just leads to death and the destruction of values.

I believe you have missed the mark Steve. You think that we are debating whether or not the initiation of force should be acceptable. But we both agree that it is not, and should not be acceptable. Gotta run, more later...

Post 3

Sunday, March 4, 2007 - 1:06pm

Jonathan,

I asked,

"If a person chooses not to follow a rule/law that says you can't kill people and take their stuff are you happy to leave that choice of theirs as okay?"

You didn't answer.

You want me to define government - why? I don't believe you are actually confused about what government is. That is just a rhetorical ploy that brings no value to the discussion.

I pointed out that rules prohibiting the initiation of force - rules that are enforced by force - are different from the rules in your company and different from the standards the market place generates like your examples on electrical wiring.

I said, "

Your scheme rests upon a marketplace coming up with a single set of rules regarding the use of force and you say you don't know how that would happen. You point at the various standards that exist voluntarily in areas that have nothing to do with initiation of force.

Your reply, was in effect an abandonment of the discussion:

Concepts, concepts, concepts...

You agree that the initiation of force is wrong but refuse to say what would take the place of a government that would maintain and enforce any rules against the initiation of force.

You don't explain how a single set of rules would arise in the absence of a government, since the marketplace can not do it (the example of standards you gave wouldn't work for several reasons, one of which is that of competing standards - no single set of rules. look at the common screw thread - the standards include ISO, UTS, BSW, BA, Pg, United Special for microphone stands, and many, many non-standards - i.e., whole marketplaces that choose to not accept any of the competing standards. If this were the case in rules defining the use of force we'd be truly screwed).

You don't answer the statement that rules about force are in an entirely different category than other rules, like those about electrical codes. We are talking about a set of rules about physical force that would not be voluntarily accepted by everyone but would need to be enforced against even those violaters that didn't agree. Your company can't force people to follow their rules. You admitted that some standards you listed are now enforced by government - they are no longer voluntary standards.

You don't present an explanation of why a government based solely upon rules against the initiation of force would be wrong.

You didn't reply to my statement as to why such a government would be objected to by someone who recognizes individual rights.

I'm sorry, Jonathan, but your reply was not an attempt to unearth principles or find rational answers. It was a collection of attacks on the words I used and an exercise in avoiding any answer to the tough questions. I was willing to make a few exchanges of ideas, to see what your position is, but to go any further is to grant anarchy equal status with limited government - I won't do that.

Anarchy is as unsound a concept as religious cosmology and it is as foolish to think that Objectivist Anarchist is any less a contradiction in terms than Objectivist Christian. It is blatantly irrational to claim that civilization could exist without a single set of rules or that a single set of rules would exist without a government. Limited government is not an optional component of Objectivism.

Feel free to take the last word, because I have no more to say.

Post 4

Sunday, March 4, 2007 - 6:30pm

I didn't get a chance to really polish the post since I was in a rush to go somewhere. I was hoping to spark some talking points, guess not...

Post 5

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 7:00am

Jonathan this is really a very duplicitous statement:

Imagine a group of people stranded on a deserted island. What would give one of them, or a group of them the right to exclusively adminster justice? I cannot think of a good reason. If X has the right to prevent A from committing a crime, then Y must have the same right.

Why? Well it gets one to thinking a deserted island and I am stranded - so that is what a few dozen people? No need for government there, right? Well that does not exactly apply to 250 million people now does it? Things are harder to control when you don't know everyone, and they can go where they please for the most part. Desert Island scenarios are disingenuous.

Post 6

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 11:32am

It is a rather silly hypothetical. Reality is not a deserted island. But It also assumes only one group would govern another group all of the time on this non-existent deserted island of people. Why can't they vote on who governs first, and then rotate based on term limits, and then all vote on a uniform set of laws. I mean come on, give us a break here. The characterization "one group rules over another" is nothing but a classic marxist argument of class struggle. It's begging the question. Instead for the anarchist the bourgeoisie is the aristocracy that governs through force. Same in concept but different in name.

(Edited by John Armaos on 3/05, 11:53am)

Post 7

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 8:08pm

The Crusoe Concept is a valid tool in economics. We imagine Robison Crusoe making economic decisions. Then, we enter Friday into the equation and see what changes.

To deny the desert island is to deny a valid tool of free market economics.

Now, John Aramaos is stranded with 12 people and he wants a constitution with term limits.. Now, Jonathan Fauth and Aaron and I decide that Aramaos is a conservative control freak, so we walk off toward the top of the hill. In fact, I have convinced a woman that I know where the orchids and mangoes are, so I am not walking off alone... About one-third of the way uphill, they go their ways and we go ours. Well, time passes and about two-thirds of the way uphill, Fauth and I keep bumping into each other in our search for mangoes. Well, it's civil to start, but this is getting annoying... So, I say, "Let's ask Aaron to settle it." We each draw our proposed maps of the territories and we give them to Aaron, along with some orchids and mangoes for his time and he renders his decision and we paint some trees as markers.

Along comes the Aramaos States of Islandia demanding that we adhere to their constitutional government.

Aaron's reputation as a Solomon brings him other clients. People living in the ASI actually prefer to hire a professional adjudicator whose reputation is his best asset, rather than rely on the luck of the draw under the ASI constitution.

The problem is this:
In a free market society, do you not have the right to hire a protection agency, and/or an insurance company, and/or an adjudicator?

Time and time again here on RoR, I have pointed to just exactly these businesses. This is how the real world actually works -- within (and across) national borders.

Time and again, the governmentalists have ignored the facts of reality and posited that private protection agencies would blow up abortion clinics for a price and other such paranoid delusional fantasies of governmentalism. In fact, in my abnormal psychology class tonight, we labeled this "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder -- Personality Disorder: OCD PD." and I wrote that in my notebook, OCD PD, and underlined PD and showed it to the cop on my left who chuckled because it is true: police types suffer from a personality disorder which has been institutionalized: govern-mentality.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/05, 8:13pm)

Post 8

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 11:14pm

I must be governmentally unstable, governmentally ill, or perhaps governmentally retarded; because what Steve (and John A.) have said here -- makes perfect sense to me ...

================
Anarchist:
Folks do best when left entirely free in all of their endeavors (i.e., personal lawsuits -- rather than objectively codified law -- would be the best way to handle interpersonal disputes that involve rights violations).

Minarchist:
There are some rules of conduct that can be known in advance (because of the kind of creatures we are).

Anarchist:
Well, that's true, humans ARE one type of creature (and not any other type of creature). But even though objective rules can be laid out for how humans ought live together in society, I still think that folks who haven't taken a bunch of time to ruminate on these objective ways to coexist peacefully -- ought to be made to pay for their lack of rumination (by ultimately-unjust, but never-the-less expropriative, lawsuits).

Minarchist:
You're saying that it's okay to (transiently) act unjustly in totally free societies, because it will then cause the victims of unjust litigations to either wisen up, or die trying?

Anarchist:
Yep. Survival of the Fittest. No different from the jungle. Folks who fall victim to unjust litigation had better take their "medicine" and learn to pull themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps. Folks who don't think as long or as hard as others have thought -- about the personal gains achievable within a given and entirely subjective context -- deserve objectively unjust treatment. In nature, there is no good or evil, there are only consequences.

Minarchist:
There are also consequences to running roughshod against another 'nature' -- human nature.

Anarchist:
Ehh? We don't know enough about human nature to make objective law. The best we can hope for -- in our woefully sorry state of ignorance of what it means to be a human being -- is for the Free Market to sort it all out.

Minarchist:
But that's being a social-metaphysician, not a truth-seeker.

Anarchist:
I don't care (enough).
================

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/05, 11:16pm)

Post 9

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 5:10am

The free market is social-metaphysicianing??????

Post 10

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 5:56am

A "Free Market" applied to law is.

Post 11

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 7:07am

The resident anarchist Maiacahaaeal Ea. Maaraoatataa said:

Now, John Aramaos is stranded with 12 people and he wants a constitution with term limits.. Now, Jonathan Fauth and Aaron and I decide that Aramaos is a conservative control freak, so we walk off toward the top of the hill. In fact, I have convinced a woman that I know where the orchids and mangoes are, so I am not walking off alone... About one-third of the way uphill, they go their ways and we go ours. Well, time passes and about two-thirds of the way uphill, Fauth and I keep bumping into each other in our search for mangoes. Well, it's civil to start, but this is getting annoying... So, I say, "Let's ask Aaron to settle it." We each draw our proposed maps of the territories and we give them to Aaron, along with some orchids and mangoes for his time and he renders his decision and we paint some trees as markers.

Well since we're making up hypothetical situations that have no bearing on reality, how about instead Fauth says "No, I don't want to be civil and have Aaron settle it, there's nothing to settle you are stealing my fruit. Now back off and let me get my fruit"

Now what?

Not so much the island paradise anymore is it?

In a free market society, do you not have the right to hire a protection agency, and/or an insurance company, and/or an adjudicator?

You know asking this question a million times on this forum Maaaraotataa will get you the same answer a million times over. Yes you have these rights but only under a uniform objective code of law. You cannot hire a protection agency that can have it's own set of laws different from another protection agency. If you feel that they can, how do you reconcile differences (which would be the point to settling a dispute) that would be objectively irreconcilable under contradictory laws? Laws would be subjective not objective without agreed upon set of rules. This is the definition of anarchy.

But really why bother Maaaraotataaa. Obviously you are not interested in the truth but promulgating your own anarchist propaganda on this forum.

By the way it's time we don't give even the illusion anarchy is an intellectual philosophy by calling it "Market Anarchy" or "Anarcho-Capitalism". This is an attempt by anarchists to make their philosophy appear intellectual. But under the surface of this facade it's an utterly disgusting philosophy. There is no such thing as "Anarcho-Capitalism" or "Market Anarchy" it is simply "Anarchy". Only these guys wear suits whereas the others who call themselves "Socialist Anarchists" are snot-nosed punks sipping a latte in between WTO protests. But sadly intellectually, they're both a complete mess.

The resident anarchist continues with his typical arm-chair psycho-babble that he reverts to when he can't answer the simple basic refutations to anarchism:

In fact, in my abnormal psychology class tonight, we labeled this "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder -- Personality Disorder: OCD PD." and I wrote that in my notebook, OCD PD, and underlined PD and showed it to the cop on my left who chuckled because it is true: police types suffer from a personality disorder which has been institutionalized: govern-mentality.

In my psychology class, we studied individuals who consistently ignore what's going on around them and have trouble concentrating or have inattentive personalities. Much like anarchists who ignore refutations to anarchism. We labeled it Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or ADHD. I underlined it and showed it to an anarchist sitting next to me and said it stood for "Anarchists Definitely Have Dementia"

Post 12

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 8:00pm

Within Objectivism, the governmentalists admit that no objective code of laws has ever existed. In the 50 years of Objectivism, no Objectivist legal scholar has ever even outlined, let alone forumlated such a thing.

It is obvious that humans have a specific nature. Just what that nature is has not been defined beyond some simple and broad assertions that:
1. man is a rational animal
2. therefore humans have rights.

Just what "rights" humans have is not clear beyond:
1. Life, liberty and the pursuit of property; or perhaps:
2. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
(Where is it written in the stars that you have a right to speedy trial? I understand the reluctance to let the government drag things out, but at the same time, I point out that one definition of a kangaroo court is one where "justice proceeds by leaps and bounds." I might assert my natural right to a slow and deliberate process.)

Some objectivist governmentalist have drafted proposed constitutions for Atlantis and other alternative communities. To my awareness none has won widespread endorsement for its obvious superiority, allowing as we might for some technical discussions. In other words, no one has come close to this target.

The idea of an "objective code of law" is compelling prima facie. However, none has ever been proposed or suggested beyond the broad claim that no one is allowed to initiate force.

Even within that framework, some Objectivists assert that no individuals would be allowed to find their own (private) adjudicators unless such a (non-existent) code of objective law were enforced. In other words, no one in this ideal world would be allowed to find their own agreements without approval of the government.

So, the classic problem of "12 sheep for 12 pence" would depend on the "objective code of law" of the objectivist government, but no objectivist has decided the 12 for 12 problem. Tougher problems like polygamy, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc., would have to wait.

One the other hand, in the free market as it actually works here and now in the real world of dollars and cents:

"In responding to and resolving the criminal behavior of employees, organizations routinely choose options other than criminal prosecution, for example, suspension without pay, transfer, job reassignment, job redesign (eliminating some job duties), civil restitution, and dismissal...
While on the surface, it appears that organizations opt for less severe sanctions than would be imposed by the criminal justice system, in reality, the organizational sanctions may have greater impact... In addition, the private systems of criminal justice are not always subject to principles of exclusionary evidence, fairness, and defendant rights which characterize the public criminal justice systems. The level of position, the amount of power, and socio-economic standing of the employee in the company may greatly influence the formality and type of company sanctions. In general, private justice systems are characterized by informal negotiations and outcomes, and nonuniform standards and procedures among organizations and crime types."
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0910_3.shtml

So-called "objective" codes of law are actually a priori Kantian imperatives which people are supposed to follow regardless of whether they are appropriate, necessary, or practical. The fact is that like the "best pizza in town" the market offers a plethora of solutions. As noted:

"... the standards include ISO, UTS, BSW, BA, Pg, United Special for microphone stands, and many, many non-standards - i.e., whole marketplaces that choose to not accept any of the competing standards. ..."

And yet, people are able to live with this -- and to do so without recourse to competing armies seeking to enforce their differing codes of laws... It is perhaps miraculous that concerts are actually held without the armies of NEDA and ISO wasting the audience to enforce their standards.

The fact that General Motors has never bombed Ford Motor Company -- despite their easy proximity -- is attributed to the existence of a non-objective, semi-free, mixed-economy government which somehow suggests that until and unless an "objective code of law" is agreed to by all that we are living on the thin edge of open warfare.

No matter what real world examples of justice via the market are cited, the governmentalists can always hold up the rape of Nanking, the gulags, the holocaust, Palestine, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Darfoor, and a long litany, as examples of what might happen if there were no governments.

Post 13

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 12:41am

quote

Michael M.,

Within Objectivism, the governmentalists admit that no objective code of laws has ever existed. In the 50 years of Objectivism, no Objectivist legal scholar has ever even outlined, let alone forumlated such a thing.

Okay, but there's a sense of life issue here -- rather than the issue being so simple as one of us merely being "realistic" and the other one "idealistic." That issue is: Is that I don't look around me -- to find out what's possible. Here's Gotthelf (in On Ayn Rand) on the subject ...

... good people sometimes fail to reach the view of ... human possibility ... because, on the issue of life's possibilities, they have insufficient trust in their own judgment and their own souls. They base their view of what's possible--in the building of one's character, in love relationships, in life in general--on what they see in the people around them and not on what they see in their own souls as possible to man and to themselves. As a result, they miss out on so much in life.

Add to that the telling quote (from Thomas Carlyle):

The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss.

... and now you are cooking with oil!

;-)

Just what "rights" humans have is not clear beyond:
1. Life, liberty and the pursuit of property; or perhaps:
2. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

How about Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, and Pursuit of Property? Do you see the superiority there? And this is really a telling point in my thesis: Do you think most Objectivists would (see the superiority of something being better than its alternative)? Explicit mention of property, while vile to socialist swine, is a step up from the present outlay of Individual Rights as expressed in our current Declaration of Independence. This betterment. This better way of wording things. This better way of doing things -- is knowable by rational and intellectually honest men. That's my point. That better ways are known and knowable. It's a pretty persuasive point (if you first give it a chance to sink in).

Where is it written in the stars that you have a right to speedy trial?

Okay. You make a good point about slow trials. But, and perhaps I'm here being facetious, how about leaving it up to the suspect to 'choose' among options regarding the speed of their trial. Is that better? Better yet, is that 'objectively' better? Best yet, is it "knowable" among honest, rational thinkers -- whether that option is indeed better, and on principle, no doubt?

The idea of an "objective code of law" is compelling prima facie. However, none has ever been proposed or suggested beyond the broad claim that no one is allowed to initiate force.

Those kooks in that cult (Neo-Tech) had a pretty good 'constitution' written up, once. It said more than our Declaration does, and it was worded pretty well, too. The point is, we most definitely can go farther than NIOF -- simply by cross-examination of its corollaries (our task is to do better -- not to do 'perfect').

Even within that framework, some Objectivists assert that no individuals would be allowed to find their own (private) adjudicators unless such a (non-existent) code of objective law were enforced. In other words, no one in this ideal world would be allowed to find their own agreements without approval of the government.

??? Can you be more clear here? It really sounds like you're building a straw man case here. I could be totally wrong about that, but I'm telling you what it sounds like TO ME. Individuals' agreements seem to be beyond government's scope, even in minarchy, but please show me -- if you can -- how I could be wrong about that.

So, the classic problem of "12 sheep for 12 pence" would depend on the "objective code of law" of the objectivist government, but no objectivist has decided the 12 for 12 problem. Tougher problems like polygamy, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc., would have to wait.

This looks like a 'slippery slope' argument (on its face). Perhaps it's not, and I'd reverse my opinion upon effective rebuttal. 12 for 12 sounds like an economy issue -- something that, according to Obectivism proper, government should not have its hands in. The other issues seem to include more than mere economics (i.e., free trading).

So-called "objective" codes of law are actually a priori Kantian imperatives which people are supposed to follow regardless of whether they are appropriate, necessary, or practical.

Well, first of all, even codes of law might have exceptions. Hell, even NIOF! But that doesn't stop them from being objectively just as principles to govern ourselves by.

The fact that General Motors has never bombed Ford Motor Company -- despite their easy proximity -- is attributed to the existence of a non-objective, semi-free, mixed-economy government which somehow suggests that until and unless an "objective code of law" is agreed to by all that we are living on the thin edge of open warfare.

Okay. Now, THAT'S a straw man. The reason that this evaluation of your argument is true -- is because there isn't some necessary dichotomy of "trade vs. all-out war." Need proof? Just look to the U.S. in the last century. Mixed economies are just that -- a partial trade with folks, and a partial "war" with them.

And I'll not, here and now, comment on your examples of some negative possible outcomes of anarchy, as that might detract from my concerned points above.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/07, 12:42am)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/07, 12:45am)

Post 14

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 2:54am

Ed, What the imaginary anarchists have to say does not interest me. That whole post was basically a straw man.

Post 15

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 7:10am

Jonathan, I didn't use "imagination" to come up with this logically-consistent argument for anarchy, I used memory and logic.

Ed

Post 16

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 7:26pm

Ed, thank you for your lengthly, thoughtful, and thought-provoking reply. I will check out the Neo-Techs. I will also reply to any specific points I hav missed which you consider definitive. Allow me to start here:

But, and perhaps I'm here being facetious, how about leaving it up to the suspect to 'choose' among options regarding the speed of their trial. Is that better? Better yet, is that 'objectively' better? Best yet, is it "knowable" among honest, rational thinkers -- whether that option is indeed better, and on principle, no doubt?

OK, I can accept that as a valid question. Aristotle said that tradition is stronger than law, so perhaps a culture in which the accused can decide how to engage the state would be appropriate. Once, with an unfair speeding ticket -- aren't they all? -- I thought, heck, how about trial by combat? We could set up a two-player shoot out and see who racks up the most points... It occured to me -- in line with questions about abortion -- that for cases of capital punishment versus life if your Mother can pull the switch, then you would be toast, otherwise, you get life. Seems fair; hard on Mom, but abortion is.

I agree in the main on the sense of life. I agree 100% that we can imagine better and should therefore seek it. I agree that looking at the world around us can be limiting. Nevertheless, do you not appreciate that the existence of a market for service X tautologically shows the existence of a market for service X? Whether some Y might be better is valid, but X exists.

MEM: attributed to the existence of a non-objective, semi-free, mixed-economy government which somehow
ET: Okay. Now, THAT'S a straw man. The reason that ... mixed economies are just that -- a partial trade with folks, and a partial "war" with them.

It is a common miniarchist assertion that in the absence of government, it would be the war of all against all, but I assert that businesses generally have shown little interest in this. World War II was not started because Opel canceled its contract with GM and signed one with Ford. Generall, market entities do not resort to power initiatives. Since a philosophic change is necessary before a social change, it would seem that the realization that we are all market entities would mitigate (if not eliminate) that war of all against all.

MEM: Even within that framework, some Objectivists assert that no individuals would be allowed to find their own (private) adjudicators unless ...
ET: ??? Can you be more clear here? It really sounds like you're building a straw man ...

Ed, see this exchange above:

Marotta: In a free market society, do you not have the right to hire a protection agency, and/or an insurance company, and/or an adjudicator?
Armaos: Yes you have these rights but only under a uniform objective code of law. You cannot hire a protection agency that can have it's own set of laws different from another protection agency. If you feel that they can, how do you reconcile differences (which would be the point to settling a dispute) that would be objectively irreconcilable under contradictory laws? Laws would be subjective not objective without agreed upon set of rules. This is the definition of anarchy.

As I have repeatedly shown, adjudicators do resolve disputes dispite differing codes. They have to reconcile those codes first. The American Arbitration Association has Ireland as one of its key markets, from which its hundreds of jurists from all over the world, apply general principles of law, derived from many traditions. This is not unique to the marketplace. In point of fact, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia attends conferences of his peers from around the world, held in Salzburg. Then, he and Justice Kennedy excoriate each other for citing the "wrong" precedent from some other government. IN other words -- in case no one has noticed -- the political conservative on the SCOTUS are helping to build international law by incorporating case law from other nations in their opinions, while at the same time, influencing other nations. Is this "objective" law? I don't know enough to say, but is surely an example of jurists with different codes coming together. Again, the AAA and the SCOTUS are both doing this, so it is real, both via the market and via the Constitution. Ergo: we may indeed require by our nature "objective" laws, but that does not mean absolute laws. Ergo, there is nothing wrong with competing agencies resolving conflicts based on differing codes.

Post 17

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 7:49pm

"Ergo, there is nothing wrong with competing agencies resolving conflicts based on differing codes."

Note, the premise here is not justice.

It is conflict resolution.

The idea that competing agencies would resolve conflicts based on "differing codes" means -- at the fundamental moral level -- that one party or the other would be required to compromise on or surrender fundamental principles.

I could provide examples from abortion to western vs. sharia law. But the hour is late, and I need to hit the sack.

Post 18

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 10:43pm

Michael, thanks for engaging me further. Here are points on which I feel the need for more expounding ...

Nevertheless, do you not appreciate that the existence of a market for service X tautologically shows the existence of a market for service X? Whether some Y might be better is valid, but X exists.

My rebuttal (if not refutation) is to remind you of how it's the producers (not the "consumers") that REALLY drive the market. Rand talked about how productive geniuses often intentionally raise the consumers' expectations. The fact that there's something currently sought out by many willing customers, doesn't mean it doesn't have to be gone -- supplanted by something produced that is superior to it -- by tomorrow morning.

If news broke out about a compact and affordable "generator" -- capable of meeting all of the energy needs (lights, heat, etc) of an entire house, for only pennies a month -- what proportion of folks would continue to pay their utility bills? Close to zero of them would. Because of the inherent (i.e., objective) superiority of running a household at 1 one-hundredth of the previous costs. In the marketplace of ideas then, we merely need a few founding producers of a compact and affordable "generator" (of previously-unrealized freedom, individualism, reason, and justice).

It is a common miniarchist assertion that in the absence of government, it would be the war of all against all, but I assert that businesses generally have shown little interest in this.

Well, it's not THIS minarchist's assertion! Have you ever seen the justification of Natural, Individual Rights to which I commonly make a link? Most folks wouldn't dare violate others' rights (unless sanctioned by "The State" to do this). It's precisely because the majority of all men don't naturally make war with each other, that having a government protect our rights made so much sense. If most men don't want war -- but some (i.e., the criminal minority) do -- then 'proper' government is the solution to this problem of the Tragedy of the Common Man. It's about the eventual, objective punishment of the intentionally unproductive (and, therefore, potentially destructive) among us.

In contrast, anarchy -- in being more subjective than minarchy is (regarding justice and punishment) -- would allow for more leniency (for violators who held much economic "power"), and for more punishment (for violators who were "relatively" inconsequential, economically).

... it would seem that the realization that we are all market entities would mitigate (if not eliminate) that war of all against all.

Right!

Ergo: we may indeed require by our nature "objective" laws, but that does not mean absolute laws. Ergo, there is nothing wrong with competing agencies resolving conflicts based on differing codes.

Well, in my view, Bidinotto (see directly above) did "justice" to this premise.

Ed

Post 19

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 8:13am