The concept of politicals rights are so new to the world that they are not well understood. I'd like to go over this rich kernel of Rand's book Virtue of Selfishness which deals with what rights are, from whence they come, and what they mean.
Also quite interesting is her description of how the left is attempting to destroy the concept of rights via a switch of rights from the political to the economic realm, in essence "inflating" rights.
Lastly, this passage constitutes a death blow to anarchism, providing a valid justification for the existence of a state, in line with the NAP. It's a great read:
Ayn Rand, Virtue of Selfishness:(From Chapter 12, Man's Rights) “The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product ofhis work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” ... The Declaration of Independence laid down the principle that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence. Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from criminals—and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government—as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power. ... The “gimmick” was the switch of the concept of rights from the political to the economic realm. The Democratic Party platform of 1960 summarizes the switch boldly and explicitly... Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of “rights” when you read the list which that platform offers: “1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation. “2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation. “3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living. “4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad. “5. The right of every family to a decent home. “6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. “7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment. “8. The right to a good education.”
“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product ofhis work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” ...
The Declaration of Independence laid down the principle that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence. Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from criminals—and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government—as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power. ... The “gimmick” was the switch of the concept of rights from the political to the economic realm. The Democratic Party platform of 1960 summarizes the switch boldly and explicitly... Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of “rights” when you read the list which that platform offers:
“1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
“2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
“3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
“4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.
“5. The right of every family to a decent home.
“6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
“7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.
“8. The right to a good education.”
((hopefully that will be minimal enough to fall within you 3 paragraph rule, mod; will fix if not))
Summary:
- Rights descend from the nature of man, that is from reality, abstracted as the law of identity.
- The proper role of government is to protect man's rights within society and use coercion only to end aggression.
- There can be no such thing as an economic right, such is perversion of the concept of rights. A right can never inflict an obligation on another.
These concepts, especially the latter, must be understood and disseminated if our current political culture is to be kept from going off the deep end.
The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State. - Murray Rothbard
Ayn Rand loved copyright, which is why her works are not in creative commons, and so you cannot post more than 3 paragraphs (a safe rule I made up).
Make of that what you want, but don't put Mises I in jeopardy.
Anemone, I personally currently agree with you that rights descend from the nature of man (probably because I am ignorant on these matters and have not read enough). Yet see here:
Now that we realize that we have some natural rights, we'd like these rights respected. How do we do this? We create some sort of system.
Yet we must at all times keep in mind that no system will be perfect. People will violate the system. It will not work 100% of the time, for we are men and not angels.
So our options:
1) Create a government
2) Not create a government, perhaps some other system.
How do we define government? A monopoly on the initiation of aggression. Furthermore, government must almost necessarily also be characterized by taxes. Hence, government is a power to establish and collect taxes and use force on people.
What is collection of taxes? Taking of people's property. Since we agree that property rights exist, we see that taxes are a clear violation of property, of rights, and hence, of human nature. Furthermore, taxation involves even more aggression, this time personal, if a person refuses to let others take his property. He will be handcuffed at the point of a gun and imprisoned. In fact, for a long time (13 years).
So to protect our rights you argue that we must violate them. And not simply randomly, but in an institutionalized and systematic manner. We legislate that we are allowed to violate rights. Violation of rights becomes our morality.
We come to believe it is just to take people's lawful property from them and to kidnap them to put them into prison. This is the government option.
But what is the alternative?
The alternative is a voluntary system where people create the institutions that protect their rights. This does not institutionalize violence. In fact, it takes advantage of the free market's innovation and motivation (that governments do not have).
Simply because a society is free does not mean that it is stupid. Free people appreciate protection too, you know. There would still be police.
Nielsio:Ayn Rand loved copyright, which is why her works are not in creative commons, and so you cannot post more than 3 paragraphs (a safe rule I made up).Make of that what you want, but don't put Mises I in jeopardy.
Ah well. I wish you'd left the Kindle reference in place at least, so people could've looked it up. Let's see... I referenced Chapter 12, "Man's Rights," from Virtue of Selfishness, Kindle Location 1642 - 1740.
Wesker1982:The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State. - Murray Rothbard
This does not constitute much of an assertion. While small communities can effectively shun aggressors and self-police, large-scale communities cannot and need law and order.
If you agree with the NAP, then you agree that coercion used to stop aggression is both ethical and good. A limited government empowered only to protect rights against aggressors must by extension be a good thing.
Wheylous:Anemone, I personally currently agree with you that rights descend from the nature of man (probably because I am ignorant on these matters and have not read enough). Yet see here:
Sure, sure, let's meditate on the subject :)
Wheylous:How do we define government? A monopoly on the initiation of aggression.
No, that would be a terrible government! In fact, that's what every oligarchy possesses. I say terrible because you use the phrase "monopoly on aggression," meaning you'd allow the government to aggress (aggression meaning initiation of coercion). But there's two kinds of coercion, the initiation of coercion and coercion used in response to an initiation to -stop- that initiation. While the former is unethical and bad, the latter is ethical and good. We need a government strictly limited to responsive coercion used to protect rights, and legally incapable of initiating aggression.
What government has is a monopoly on the use of force in society, but how it uses that forces is all-important. It must use it only to defend rights, and to resolve disputes among members of society. All other human relations within society must have force banished from them. This creates a civil society.
Wheylous:Furthermore, government must almost necessarily also be characterized by taxes. Hence, government is a power to establish and collect taxes and use force on people.
I disagree. The idea that a government must necessarily be financed by taxation is not set in stone. Rand herself advocated a "pay for use" model of government where, for instance, judges would be paid by those seeking government oversight of contracts. Thus, rather than everyone having access to legal courts on a free basis, you'd pay to have your contract enforced by the law courts, before the fact, almost like insurance. This has the secondary benefit of encouraging a market for justice, meaning one could easily switch loyalty to a private court should one prefer it, binding arbitration and the like. Though any remedy requiring the use of coercion would likely need to involve a government court (things like wage garnishment and the like, or compelling somone to appear).
Wheylous: What is collection of taxes? Taking of people's property. Since we agree that property rights exist, we see that taxes are a clear violation of property, of rights, and hence, of human nature. Furthermore, taxation involves even more aggression, this time personal, if a person refuses to let others take his property. He will be handcuffed at the point of a gun and imprisoned. In fact, for a long time (13 years). So to protect our rights you argue that we must violate them. And not simply randomly, but in an institutionalized and systematic manner. We legislate that we are allowed to violate rights. Violation of rights becomes our morality. We come to believe it is just to take people's lawful property from them and to kidnap them to put them into prison. This is the government option. But what is the alternative? The alternative is a voluntary system where people create the institutions that protect their rights. This does not institutionalize violence. In fact, it takes advantage of the free market's innovation and motivation (that governments do not have). Simply because a society is free does not mean that it is stupid. Free people appreciate protection too, you know. There would still be police.
I cannot respond, because you've assumed a position that I do not take. I do not assume taxation at the point of a gun as a matter of course for a state :P I agree with everythng you've said about such a system, but taxation is not an essential feature of the state, eg: the articles of confederation contained no wage tax. For that matter, we didn't get one under the Constitution until approximately the Civil War and then WWII when it went mainstream :P
I seek a minimal state allowing voluntary everything, until someone comes around trying to aggress, and that person will be coerced to end their aggression. That is a perfect society.
Alrighty then.
Is a monopoly in court better than competing courts? If yes, how do you enforce this monopoly?
The idea that a government must necessarily be financed by taxation is not set in stone. Rand herself advocated a "pay for use" model of government where, for instance, judges would be paid by those seeking government oversight of contracts.
You mean like a private court?
Welcome to anarchy.
Wheylous: Alrighty then. Is a monopoly in court better than competing courts? If yes, how do you enforce this monopoly? The idea that a government must necessarily be financed by taxation is not set in stone. Rand herself advocated a "pay for use" model of government where, for instance, judges would be paid by those seeking government oversight of contracts. You mean like a private court? Welcome to anarchy.
Assuming that we have a government which is limited to responsive coercion, and has a monopoly on coercion within society, as all law must have by nature, then let's discuss the court system of such a society.
Since we're trying to maximize freedom, no one would be prevented from dealing with conflict via private courts.
However, since the law has a monopoly on the use of force in society, able to use coercion only to rectify aggressions, those conflicts where a party to the conflict will not willingly come to the court (thus the private courts would be useless, as they cannot compel attendance), the government court must be involved to compel attendance, as well as for any solution where a coercion is necessary to achieve justice (such as recovering stolen money in a bank account, etc.)
A private court does not necessitate anarchy--we have them even now. Neither does have a gov-court prohibit private courts.
Of course, in anarchy you could only have voluntary courts, and compelling a party to come to the table would be impossible without taking up force of arms. Suddenly, guns.
Once again, anarchy leads to rule by the strong man. You must be stronger than another in anarchy to compel them to respect you. This is not a civilized way to live, but rather a return to tribalism. And tribalism is exactly what would result.
http://mises.org/daily/1874/Possibility-of-private-law
Also, http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
I think the punishment of being excluded from society is dire enough to prevent people from avoiding court. Note that in the current system, it wouldn't happen or it would be "discrimination." In fact, many free market restraints do not exist today. For example, I see a court case coming up if Bernanke is denied food at a grocery store. Yet in a free society, people would be free to punish the counterfeiters :P
How to compel a murderer to come to court? Simple. Private property. If he is on my property, I may have him arrested. If he is on a private road and is a criminal (having signed a contract that if there is criminal activity he must be involved in a court case before he may use the roads) and fails to show up to court, he may be arrested. Ultimately, a web of contracts in society create a system where anyone who is accused of a crime must be cleared by a court (either being convicted or acquitted) before using any service.
Bam. Free market wins.
Wheylous: "Is a monopoly in court better than competing courts? If yes, how do you enforce this monopoly?"
What does it mean to even compete with the night watchman state from the very beginning? The government enforce laws protecting individual rights, what would the competitive advantage of a private court be, towards the state, if not the violation individual rights? To compete with the night watchman state in practice means that you aim to not follow the laws which are protecting individual rights.
What does it mean to even compete with the night watchman state from the very beginning?
Is that supposed to debunk all of AnCap?
Let's break it down:
What does it mean to even compete
Provide the same service
The government enforce laws protecting individual rights, what would the competitive advantage of a private court be,
What would the advantage of any private institution to a government one be?
what would the competitive advantage of a private court be
More efficient law enforcement. Not arresting people at your whim. Having a choice so that if the government is corrupt/inefficient you can switch company. Don't simply try to perplex your opponents with "difficult" questions. Try to place yourself within the system and envision solutions. That's why statists despise liberty. They don't want to try to make it work. Letting yourself free from the mindset of the state opens up your mind to how a voluntary society would actually work.
To compete with the night watchman state in practice means that you aim to not follow the laws which are protecting individual rights.
I can do it too, watch: "To compete with doctors in practice means that you aim to not heal sick people."
Competition doesn't mean you want a different overall result. Microsoft's competitor, Apple, still wants to sell their computers. It's not like Apple wants no computers sold. They just say that their computers are better, faster, and look nicer.
Competition in the courts could likely lead to new technologies for the analysis of evidence. If a court wants to be used, it will try its best to come up with new technology that helps investigations. This technology will be certified by licensing companies to show that it indeed works and is not phony.
The competition you're talking about is already allowed and exists, you can contract with another part to go to a private court if you want, these things goes on all the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration As long as you don't infringe on other people's rights, a night watchman state won't interfere with your business. The only competition that would be forbidden is the competition in definitive enactment (law).
What gives your night watchman state more legitimacy than my private night watchman institution?
Its laws are based on the objective moral principles of individual rights, rather than the subjectivity of the market forces.
wait wait wait... where is the difference exactly?
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
I'm curious, do objectivists believe in voting in order to derive consent for this night-watchman state?
Why does the government magically achieve objectivity but not the market? Democracy?
@Johannes and Anenome:
If you are truly curious and open-minded and would like to give the system a chance and learn more about how it would work, watch this whole video: