The Founding Father understood well that no man must be allowed to be the sole arbitrator of a dispute in which he is involved. The Objectivist defense of the state is merely a more consistent and philosophically grounded defense of that position.
Suppose I declare sovereignty over a well-defined geographical area (my neighborhood), and come up with my own set of objective laws and procedures, that governs the use of retaliatory force that protect the rights of my citizens, and defines the personnel empowered to carry out these procedures (me). I have now installed, by the Yaron definition, a "proper government."
Yaron would argue that my actions violate the laws of the "LEGITIMATE proper government" (that of the United States). But I never agreed to grant the United States government permission to define the use of retaliatory force over my domain. There was no social contract of which I signed on the dotted line. Why is the United States government LEGITIMATE in addition to being proper?
I think the argument Yaron must make is as follows:
(1) A "proper" governemnt is a monopoly over the definition of, and retaliatory force required to enforce, rights-protecting laws.
(2) Individual property owners could unanimously agree to grant some instiution X such a monopoly over the combination G of their respective geographical domains. Such a grant makes X legitimate over the domain G, and makes alternatives Y illegitimate inside G, even if they are "proper".
(2 - Corollary) Individuals who wish to be inside this geographical domain G are voluntarily consenting to live under the monopoly of retaliatory force owned by X for as long as they remain inside G.
(3) The governments of America today, or Canada, or Germany, or Sweden, or Japan, or South Korea are actually examples of X (???)
(4) To the extent that the governments of America today, or Canada, or Germany, or Sweden, or Japan, or South Korea follow the objective laws, they are both proper and legitimate governments.
It’s not the “granting of a monopoly” that makes a govt legitimate, it’s the establishment of an objective DUE process to define when force has been initiated and when it is for self defense.
If some rebel group within a relatively free country were to make a declaration that its process is more objective and threaten violence if defied then it would HAVE to be considered the same as if someone waived a gun around demanding money or the like. Both are objective threats to all because of the arbitrariness of their actions.
In a semi free country that still has the rights of free speech and voting the path forward is via persuasion through the process until that process ceases to exist.
What makes the establishment of a particular objective due process over a particular geographic domain not arbitary?
You say that some rebel group making a declaration, or someone waving a gun around demanding money, is an "objective threat to all," because their actions are "arbitrary." On what grounds are their actions arbitrary, but the actions of the United States government waving its guns around demanding money, not arbitrary? In all three cases, I gave the same amount of consent: zero.
What makes it not arbitrary is when it is protecting individual rights. Whenever it is going beyond that it is arbitrary and a threat no different than rebel group or the guy with a gun.
I could start my own government that protected your individual rights, through the use of retaliatory force (governed by objective laws and procedures) against anyone who threatened said rights. This was the standard operating practice of the Mafia for many years (although their objective procedures may not have been written down). But you can see that whether I protect individual rights or not, the monopoly on the use of retaliatory force is arbitrary.
I'm not trying to be deliberately dishonest. The similarity is as follows.
The government has objective laws that enshrine certain individual rights, and exercises "retaliatory force" in the process of enforcing such laws. Of course, the government must collect revenues to build the capacity needed to successfully enforce the laws, so it uses force to violate your property rights (taxation); but since the force exercised to violate your property rights is in the service of protecting your individual rights as a whole, Yaron would also deem this property-rights-violating force "retaliatory," and consistent with "proper" government.
A mafia also has objective laws that enshrine certain individual rights: no criminals, hoodlums, other mafiosos etc. can mess with you or your business. The mafia must also collect revenues to build the capacity needed to successfully enforce the laws, so it exercises "retaliatory" force to take money from you or your business. In this sense, a mafia fits the Yaron criteria for "proper" government.
So my question is, what makes some "proper" governments legitimate and others not legitimate? Yaron says that the Mafia "proper" government is violating the rules of the United States "proper" government, but this is just transparently begging the question, as noted by G Oliver.
You just make the same problem over again don't you? First you need everyone within your HOA governing area to agree, but then if someone is born there and won't sign on the dotted line, you are in the same situation (they can deny your authority). Plus, American citizens have an implicit right to travel within US borders and not be either blocked or subject to arbitrary new laws from HOA governments (e.g. death by firing squad for accidental trespass).
I'm not saying I agree with this argument (hence the ???), I'm saying this argument is required to make the Yaron refutation of Huemer coherent. But let me continue to steelman.
(A) Everyone within your HOA governing area DOES have to agree, as stated by Premise (2).
(B) If someone is born there and doesn't agree, they have freedom of exit, as indicated by (2 - Corllary).
(C) Premise (2) occurs in a state of nature, so there would be no American citizens with implicit rights because there would be no American government to grant them such rights.
(D) Presumably "death by firing squad for accidental trespass" would violate human rights in a way that is not commensurate with the Yaron vision of reataliatory force, so an HOA government with such a law would not be "proper," although it would be legitimate.
(C - Restated) I think your point might be (correct me if I'm wrong) that HUMAN BEINGS have a NATURAL RIGHT to travel and not be either blocked or subject to arbitrary laws from HOA governments. But this seems in conflict with a natural rights conception of property rights.
All I meant to say was that a hard libertarian or ancap vision where people ought to be allowed to break away into their own government - based on the notion that "I didn't agree to this" - will likewise cause their own little governing region to break down quickly if held to the same standard. People can leave the US if they don't like the rules too. As a practical matter, it's easier to leave small jurisdictions, but this is a practical argument not a "rights" based thing like we're discussing here.
My bit about the right to travel within the US was a bit tangential. It's simply to say that the current status quo is that I have the right to travel to Texas and California and Alaska, and any secession style ideas must reckon with the fact that they are hoping to strip me of that right if they succeed.
I am not an ancap, but I have argued against the "geographic" nature of the state. There is no reason it should be defined by geography. I should be able to leave the USA and join another country as I see fit, and take my property with me. So even if all my neighbors are in America, I could be Swiss or whatever.
The weakest part of the argument is the "legitimate" government part. If a breakaway rebel government does a better job of protecting rights, doesn't that make it even more legitimate than the US government?
It's pretty impractical to have people you live next to or interact with have different laws applying to them. In many ways it defeats the purpose. A great many laws, perhaps the vast majority, are specifically about how I can behave in public or treat other people. Also, tax revenue is used to fund infrastructure and other things. Does the local government still get to tax you even if you declared yourself a citizen of Ancapistan?
I like this. “The rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness name our fundamental rights. But these rights are too abstract to provide us with all the knowledge we need to function in a society.”
These people, to be frank, are not intellectually serious. They have misunderstood and distorted anarchocapitalist views since Roy wrote his open letter.
I like this paragraph. “If it is right that the individual seek to preserve his life, then we should organize society so that each individual is free to preserve his life. If it is right that the individual think, then we should organize society so that each individual has the liberty to exercise his own judgment. If it is right that the individual produce, then we should organize society so that each individual is free to earn and use property. If it is right that the individual seek his own happiness, then we should organize society so that each individual is free to pursue his own happiness. The rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness form the guiding principles for creating a free society.”
Footnote 11 seems a bit contradictory to his thesis? I find most Ancaps, myself included, to be hopeful, not hubristic. No matter, moving towards the ideal seems worth the risk at this point in our evolution, especially in light of the Space Opera authoritarian alternative.
"A free society is not a society where you can do whatever you want—it is a society that subordinates might to right."
This definition isn't anything like the common use of the word freedom. It's like North Korea claiming to be the wealthiest country, because true wealth doesn't lie in material possessions, a truly wealthy society is one that follows the teachings of Juche.
If one defines freedom as “the satisfaction of any desire” then no, no social system does that. Nor can it. Reality does not adjust itself to one’s whims or wishes.
“On our view, anarchy does not lead to anything like freedom: it means and has to mean the rule of brute force.”
If there is any kind of “rule”, then it would seem that there is no anarchy (etymologically: no rule or rulers). But perhaps the main error here is in presupposing that libertarians think that any anarchy is sufficient for libertarianism to spontaneously appear. That is a false presupposition: a libertarian culture is also necessary. https://jclester.substack.com/p/anarchy-and-libertarianism
Brook and Watkins have a curious conception of what constitutes "objective control" over retaliatory force. Objectivity is something that is available to any rational mind that chooses to focus on the problem at hand; objectivity is not something that is unilaterally "defined" exclusively by a particular authority. The latter principle constitutes *subjective* control over the use of force, not objective control.
The obvious danger of such subjectivism is that those who control the state will skew their legal procedures and their decisions about the use of force to favor their own personal interests and/or pursue non-objective values at the expense of the objective interests of those within the territory lacking such control. Objective control is sacrificed in the interests of generating wealth transfers, privileges, and immunities that selectively favor rulers over their subjects, or that dissipate the wealth of their subjects in pursuit of non-objective whims. Precisely because a state has a monopoly over its territory, it doesn't have to worry about losing customers to competitors whenever it strays from serving the objective self-interest of its subjects. Rand's fantasies about voluntary support for the state stand in stark contrast to the reality of taxation, conscription, restrictions, etc. that inevitably follows from permitting rulers to be the sole judges of their own conduct.
A ruling class might also risk expanding their state's territory (or at least the reach of particular exactions, privileges, and immunities) at the expense of weaker states and at the expense of non-state territories by going to war, knowing that the costs of waging wars of aggression are borne by their subjects and by innocent bystanders in the areas they attack, while the spoils of victory accrue to the rulers. Again, a state doesn't lose "customers" such as taxpayers, draftees, etc. by spurning their objective self-interest by going to war in the interests of rulers.
The only way to truly achieve objective control over anything is for the costs and benefits of pursuing the value in question to be internalized by the person acting to gain/keep it, and for that person to choose to focus when selecting their values. Objectivity is a matter of *recognizing* reality; objective control over force is possible only when everyone who wields force rejects self-serving assertions of authority in favor of the impartial adjudication and enforcement of objective law. Geographical exclusivity adds nothing to the impartiality and objectivity of a given judge, policeman, or warrior; it only insulates them from accountability for their lack of impartiality and objectivity.
I think this is pretty well reasoned. However the examples of countries that successfully defend individual liberty falls rather flat since 2020. Events since then seem to rather well support the counterpoint that governments can not in fact be trusted to protect individual liberty.
I would need more time with this to respond fully, but I do want to applaud the challenge to those who think that libertarianism and anarchism have much - or anything - to do with each other. Anarchism is a philosophy of opposition to the existence of government. Libertarianism, in great contrast, is a philosophy to guide good government. They're radically different. They perhaps get confused because a libertarian government will be rather focused and therefore relatively small; and somehow people who are actually anarchists think libertarianism is therefore a kind of "anarchism lite" and that it will be more socially acceptable to call themselves libertarians.
Libertarianism is no more "anarchism lite" than free market advocacy is "fascism lite"; they're qualitatively different things.
Well thought out and written. Very specific, but the ideas have been mulled about for years although never entered as a credo such as this one. Spot on.
Too many confuse Anarchists, Nihilists, Monarchists and Facists as being to the Right on the political spectrum when they do philosophical hair splitting, but they are obviuously to the Left when one looks at their actions and daily beliefs. They think Monarchists and Marxists , Facists and Communists, and Anarchists and Socialists are opposites. Not so. Monarchists and Marxists both belief in the authoritarian state whose validity is based on a higher power. Facists and Communists are siblings of the same DNA -socialism. Nihilists and Anarchists may be labeled as not believing in government but they want an authoritaruian one to supposedly achieve that end.. I think the idea to make these groups opposite started when some groups of far Left political figures and academics realized that the only physically violent groups were on the Left. So they created a spin that Communists and Nihilists were to the Left while Fascists, KKK, and Anarchists were to the Right when all these peas belong in the same pod.. All were violent they said , but some were to the Left , others to the Right. Good try but no cigar. All come from the same brood and march shoulder to shoulder through life espousing quite similar beliefs. There's no sibling rivalry, each just slices the sausage with a little different technique.
This seems too simplistic. “There is only one way to violate these rights: the initiation of physical force.” There is actually a whole spectrum of force, between polite requests and murder that can lead to rights violations. These come in varying degrees of social pressure. Cancel culture. Condemnation. Shaming. Humiliation. Threats. Stern reprimands. Simple eye contact. These can have the same effect as physical force. I’m not sure why we would limit rights violations to cases in which physical force is used. Where’s the nuance?
If your definition of force is the equivalent to “the frustration of any desire” then your examples of force would be correct. Fortunately, that’s not what most ppl mean by force. Force is physical (or its threat) so there is no spectrum but a line that can be crossed and objectively defined and determined and a degree (theft vs murder) that can establish severity.
Watkins makes the case eloquently and convincingly. I've never understood how anarchy is not the same thing as civil war.
The Founding Father understood well that no man must be allowed to be the sole arbitrator of a dispute in which he is involved. The Objectivist defense of the state is merely a more consistent and philosophically grounded defense of that position.
Suppose I declare sovereignty over a well-defined geographical area (my neighborhood), and come up with my own set of objective laws and procedures, that governs the use of retaliatory force that protect the rights of my citizens, and defines the personnel empowered to carry out these procedures (me). I have now installed, by the Yaron definition, a "proper government."
Yaron would argue that my actions violate the laws of the "LEGITIMATE proper government" (that of the United States). But I never agreed to grant the United States government permission to define the use of retaliatory force over my domain. There was no social contract of which I signed on the dotted line. Why is the United States government LEGITIMATE in addition to being proper?
I think the argument Yaron must make is as follows:
(1) A "proper" governemnt is a monopoly over the definition of, and retaliatory force required to enforce, rights-protecting laws.
(2) Individual property owners could unanimously agree to grant some instiution X such a monopoly over the combination G of their respective geographical domains. Such a grant makes X legitimate over the domain G, and makes alternatives Y illegitimate inside G, even if they are "proper".
(2 - Corollary) Individuals who wish to be inside this geographical domain G are voluntarily consenting to live under the monopoly of retaliatory force owned by X for as long as they remain inside G.
(3) The governments of America today, or Canada, or Germany, or Sweden, or Japan, or South Korea are actually examples of X (???)
(4) To the extent that the governments of America today, or Canada, or Germany, or Sweden, or Japan, or South Korea follow the objective laws, they are both proper and legitimate governments.
It’s not the “granting of a monopoly” that makes a govt legitimate, it’s the establishment of an objective DUE process to define when force has been initiated and when it is for self defense.
If some rebel group within a relatively free country were to make a declaration that its process is more objective and threaten violence if defied then it would HAVE to be considered the same as if someone waived a gun around demanding money or the like. Both are objective threats to all because of the arbitrariness of their actions.
In a semi free country that still has the rights of free speech and voting the path forward is via persuasion through the process until that process ceases to exist.
What makes the establishment of a particular objective due process over a particular geographic domain not arbitary?
You say that some rebel group making a declaration, or someone waving a gun around demanding money, is an "objective threat to all," because their actions are "arbitrary." On what grounds are their actions arbitrary, but the actions of the United States government waving its guns around demanding money, not arbitrary? In all three cases, I gave the same amount of consent: zero.
What makes it not arbitrary is when it is protecting individual rights. Whenever it is going beyond that it is arbitrary and a threat no different than rebel group or the guy with a gun.
I could start my own government that protected your individual rights, through the use of retaliatory force (governed by objective laws and procedures) against anyone who threatened said rights. This was the standard operating practice of the Mafia for many years (although their objective procedures may not have been written down). But you can see that whether I protect individual rights or not, the monopoly on the use of retaliatory force is arbitrary.
To compare what the mafia does to protecting rights is either deliberately dishonest or inexcusably ignorant. They are not the same.
I'm not trying to be deliberately dishonest. The similarity is as follows.
The government has objective laws that enshrine certain individual rights, and exercises "retaliatory force" in the process of enforcing such laws. Of course, the government must collect revenues to build the capacity needed to successfully enforce the laws, so it uses force to violate your property rights (taxation); but since the force exercised to violate your property rights is in the service of protecting your individual rights as a whole, Yaron would also deem this property-rights-violating force "retaliatory," and consistent with "proper" government.
A mafia also has objective laws that enshrine certain individual rights: no criminals, hoodlums, other mafiosos etc. can mess with you or your business. The mafia must also collect revenues to build the capacity needed to successfully enforce the laws, so it exercises "retaliatory" force to take money from you or your business. In this sense, a mafia fits the Yaron criteria for "proper" government.
So my question is, what makes some "proper" governments legitimate and others not legitimate? Yaron says that the Mafia "proper" government is violating the rules of the United States "proper" government, but this is just transparently begging the question, as noted by G Oliver.
You just make the same problem over again don't you? First you need everyone within your HOA governing area to agree, but then if someone is born there and won't sign on the dotted line, you are in the same situation (they can deny your authority). Plus, American citizens have an implicit right to travel within US borders and not be either blocked or subject to arbitrary new laws from HOA governments (e.g. death by firing squad for accidental trespass).
I'm not saying I agree with this argument (hence the ???), I'm saying this argument is required to make the Yaron refutation of Huemer coherent. But let me continue to steelman.
(A) Everyone within your HOA governing area DOES have to agree, as stated by Premise (2).
(B) If someone is born there and doesn't agree, they have freedom of exit, as indicated by (2 - Corllary).
(C) Premise (2) occurs in a state of nature, so there would be no American citizens with implicit rights because there would be no American government to grant them such rights.
(D) Presumably "death by firing squad for accidental trespass" would violate human rights in a way that is not commensurate with the Yaron vision of reataliatory force, so an HOA government with such a law would not be "proper," although it would be legitimate.
(C - Restated) I think your point might be (correct me if I'm wrong) that HUMAN BEINGS have a NATURAL RIGHT to travel and not be either blocked or subject to arbitrary laws from HOA governments. But this seems in conflict with a natural rights conception of property rights.
All I meant to say was that a hard libertarian or ancap vision where people ought to be allowed to break away into their own government - based on the notion that "I didn't agree to this" - will likewise cause their own little governing region to break down quickly if held to the same standard. People can leave the US if they don't like the rules too. As a practical matter, it's easier to leave small jurisdictions, but this is a practical argument not a "rights" based thing like we're discussing here.
My bit about the right to travel within the US was a bit tangential. It's simply to say that the current status quo is that I have the right to travel to Texas and California and Alaska, and any secession style ideas must reckon with the fact that they are hoping to strip me of that right if they succeed.
I am not an ancap, but I have argued against the "geographic" nature of the state. There is no reason it should be defined by geography. I should be able to leave the USA and join another country as I see fit, and take my property with me. So even if all my neighbors are in America, I could be Swiss or whatever.
The weakest part of the argument is the "legitimate" government part. If a breakaway rebel government does a better job of protecting rights, doesn't that make it even more legitimate than the US government?
It's pretty impractical to have people you live next to or interact with have different laws applying to them. In many ways it defeats the purpose. A great many laws, perhaps the vast majority, are specifically about how I can behave in public or treat other people. Also, tax revenue is used to fund infrastructure and other things. Does the local government still get to tax you even if you declared yourself a citizen of Ancapistan?
"Also, tax revenue is used to fund infrastructure"
But it shouldnt be.
I interact with people on 2-3 websites far more than I interact with my neighbor, so why shouldnt I be in the same state as them?
I like this. “The rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness name our fundamental rights. But these rights are too abstract to provide us with all the knowledge we need to function in a society.”
These people, to be frank, are not intellectually serious. They have misunderstood and distorted anarchocapitalist views since Roy wrote his open letter.
I like this paragraph. “If it is right that the individual seek to preserve his life, then we should organize society so that each individual is free to preserve his life. If it is right that the individual think, then we should organize society so that each individual has the liberty to exercise his own judgment. If it is right that the individual produce, then we should organize society so that each individual is free to earn and use property. If it is right that the individual seek his own happiness, then we should organize society so that each individual is free to pursue his own happiness. The rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness form the guiding principles for creating a free society.”
Footnote 11 seems a bit contradictory to his thesis? I find most Ancaps, myself included, to be hopeful, not hubristic. No matter, moving towards the ideal seems worth the risk at this point in our evolution, especially in light of the Space Opera authoritarian alternative.
"A free society is not a society where you can do whatever you want—it is a society that subordinates might to right."
This definition isn't anything like the common use of the word freedom. It's like North Korea claiming to be the wealthiest country, because true wealth doesn't lie in material possessions, a truly wealthy society is one that follows the teachings of Juche.
If use a reasonable definition of freedom, there's not much difference between capitalist societies and the supposedly less free ones. https://claycubeomnibus.substack.com/p/the-free-world-isnt-especial-free
If one defines freedom as “the satisfaction of any desire” then no, no social system does that. Nor can it. Reality does not adjust itself to one’s whims or wishes.
I agree with the article in general, and am not an ancap, however I also think no government should be larger than Dunbar's number in size.
On a somewhat related note, was Snow Crash (not the plot, but the world in which the plot was set) utopian or dystopian?
“On our view, anarchy does not lead to anything like freedom: it means and has to mean the rule of brute force.”
If there is any kind of “rule”, then it would seem that there is no anarchy (etymologically: no rule or rulers). But perhaps the main error here is in presupposing that libertarians think that any anarchy is sufficient for libertarianism to spontaneously appear. That is a false presupposition: a libertarian culture is also necessary. https://jclester.substack.com/p/anarchy-and-libertarianism
Brook and Watkins have a curious conception of what constitutes "objective control" over retaliatory force. Objectivity is something that is available to any rational mind that chooses to focus on the problem at hand; objectivity is not something that is unilaterally "defined" exclusively by a particular authority. The latter principle constitutes *subjective* control over the use of force, not objective control.
The obvious danger of such subjectivism is that those who control the state will skew their legal procedures and their decisions about the use of force to favor their own personal interests and/or pursue non-objective values at the expense of the objective interests of those within the territory lacking such control. Objective control is sacrificed in the interests of generating wealth transfers, privileges, and immunities that selectively favor rulers over their subjects, or that dissipate the wealth of their subjects in pursuit of non-objective whims. Precisely because a state has a monopoly over its territory, it doesn't have to worry about losing customers to competitors whenever it strays from serving the objective self-interest of its subjects. Rand's fantasies about voluntary support for the state stand in stark contrast to the reality of taxation, conscription, restrictions, etc. that inevitably follows from permitting rulers to be the sole judges of their own conduct.
A ruling class might also risk expanding their state's territory (or at least the reach of particular exactions, privileges, and immunities) at the expense of weaker states and at the expense of non-state territories by going to war, knowing that the costs of waging wars of aggression are borne by their subjects and by innocent bystanders in the areas they attack, while the spoils of victory accrue to the rulers. Again, a state doesn't lose "customers" such as taxpayers, draftees, etc. by spurning their objective self-interest by going to war in the interests of rulers.
The only way to truly achieve objective control over anything is for the costs and benefits of pursuing the value in question to be internalized by the person acting to gain/keep it, and for that person to choose to focus when selecting their values. Objectivity is a matter of *recognizing* reality; objective control over force is possible only when everyone who wields force rejects self-serving assertions of authority in favor of the impartial adjudication and enforcement of objective law. Geographical exclusivity adds nothing to the impartiality and objectivity of a given judge, policeman, or warrior; it only insulates them from accountability for their lack of impartiality and objectivity.
I think this is pretty well reasoned. However the examples of countries that successfully defend individual liberty falls rather flat since 2020. Events since then seem to rather well support the counterpoint that governments can not in fact be trusted to protect individual liberty.
I would need more time with this to respond fully, but I do want to applaud the challenge to those who think that libertarianism and anarchism have much - or anything - to do with each other. Anarchism is a philosophy of opposition to the existence of government. Libertarianism, in great contrast, is a philosophy to guide good government. They're radically different. They perhaps get confused because a libertarian government will be rather focused and therefore relatively small; and somehow people who are actually anarchists think libertarianism is therefore a kind of "anarchism lite" and that it will be more socially acceptable to call themselves libertarians.
Libertarianism is no more "anarchism lite" than free market advocacy is "fascism lite"; they're qualitatively different things.
Well thought out and written. Very specific, but the ideas have been mulled about for years although never entered as a credo such as this one. Spot on.
Too many confuse Anarchists, Nihilists, Monarchists and Facists as being to the Right on the political spectrum when they do philosophical hair splitting, but they are obviuously to the Left when one looks at their actions and daily beliefs. They think Monarchists and Marxists , Facists and Communists, and Anarchists and Socialists are opposites. Not so. Monarchists and Marxists both belief in the authoritarian state whose validity is based on a higher power. Facists and Communists are siblings of the same DNA -socialism. Nihilists and Anarchists may be labeled as not believing in government but they want an authoritaruian one to supposedly achieve that end.. I think the idea to make these groups opposite started when some groups of far Left political figures and academics realized that the only physically violent groups were on the Left. So they created a spin that Communists and Nihilists were to the Left while Fascists, KKK, and Anarchists were to the Right when all these peas belong in the same pod.. All were violent they said , but some were to the Left , others to the Right. Good try but no cigar. All come from the same brood and march shoulder to shoulder through life espousing quite similar beliefs. There's no sibling rivalry, each just slices the sausage with a little different technique.
Again too simplistic. “In Rand’s formulation:
It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use.” What is your definition of force here?
This seems too simplistic. “There is only one way to violate these rights: the initiation of physical force.” There is actually a whole spectrum of force, between polite requests and murder that can lead to rights violations. These come in varying degrees of social pressure. Cancel culture. Condemnation. Shaming. Humiliation. Threats. Stern reprimands. Simple eye contact. These can have the same effect as physical force. I’m not sure why we would limit rights violations to cases in which physical force is used. Where’s the nuance?
If your definition of force is the equivalent to “the frustration of any desire” then your examples of force would be correct. Fortunately, that’s not what most ppl mean by force. Force is physical (or its threat) so there is no spectrum but a line that can be crossed and objectively defined and determined and a degree (theft vs murder) that can establish severity.
Okay, so what is a good name for the actions we take to bring about certain outcomes such as order, productivity, and respect?
That word would be virtue or justice
I see. You might be right. And if so, I’m surprised I didn’t know it.
https://open.substack.com/pub/scottgibb/p/why-do-we-shield-our-fellow-man-from?r=nb3bl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Try this one, especially the second entry where AR derives and defines the concept of justice. It is brilliant imo.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/justice.html
Thanks. I’ll take a look.
Book recommendations on this topic please?