Why do Objectivists Attack Austrians?

Miscellaneous General
61

But certainly we must put them into some more specific categories! If I push you down for fun (making my interaction with you involuntary), surely we shouldn’t condone for you to retaliate by attacking we with a hunting knife (making your interaction with me involuntary!). Of course we need to say what a “reasonable” response would be, and we wouldn’t be prepared to do with if we don’t see anything but that you may make your interaction with me involuntary if I make my interaction with you involuntary first. Unquestionably we have to be more particular than that! Otherwise we would see absolute atrocities (like killing a 12 year old boy because he tripped you for fun), and find them as totally “justified”.

Okay, let’s see why.

Alright, let’s see where it’s hiding.

So it’s irrelevant, and we should look for the contradiction elsewhere.

So the claim itself is irrelevant, and we again should look for the contradiction somewhere else.

Okay, but that’s just a re-statement of your thesis, so I’m still awaiting the answer.

But that’s just another re-statement of your thesis.

Why not get back to the specific example that I gave? Where’s the contradiction in him defending himself from the police?

62

DD5,

“How does it establish its “jurisdiction” without violating its own “mandate”? Do you envision a unanimous consent among all individuals always and everywhere? Can you resolve this logical contradiction, …”

What contradiction?

The government’s mandate is to exclusively use physical force to guarantee that all interrelationships be voluntary. Any group of people who are capable may impose that upon the occupants off anyplace in the universe they can manage to impose and sustain it. It is never a violation of anyone’s rights to use force against them to stop their interference by physical force or the threat thereof whether they consent to it or not.

The concept “consent of the governed” does not and never has referred to any action that required unanimity. It only refers to the fact that a government must obey the will of the populace that established it as defined by the usual democratic procedures that are never necessarily unanimous.

You cannot establish an individual political right by consent. Rights are relationships necessitated by the nature of human beings. You can take a stab at institutionalizing such rights by consent. But if consent is given to misidentifications of those rights, that will be wrong with or without consent, and if they are correctly identified and implemented, that will be right with or without consent.

“he government is charged with protecting the moral claim of men to their autonomy.”

By whatever group establishes and sustains the government.

63

i do not agree there michael

64

" Okay, let’s see why.

Michael M:

The contradiction is implicit.

Alright, let’s see where it’s hiding.

Michael M:

It is in virtually all cases safe to assume that a perpetrator still holds that others have no right to take values from them.

So it’s irrelevant, and we should look for the contradiction elsewhere."

No. Holding they have no right IS the contradiction.

Michael M:

" But even in the case of someone who blows up a building full of people in protest and turns himself in to die as a martyr (making no claim), the government may execute him whether or not the contradiction is concretized by him or his lawyers into the form of a claim

So the claim itself is irrelevant, and we again should look for the contradiction somewhere else."

No, the contradiction is there in principle implicitly. It is merely not concretized.

Michael M:

" because it is inherently impossible for a claim to be made that would not constitute a contradiction.

Alright, that’s just a re-statement of your thesis, so I’m still awaiting the answer.

No. It is conclusion after showing you that all of the above involve the same contradiction, as would any other such instance. It is a statement that the contradiction is unavoidable."

Michael M:

" Ultimately the contradiction is inherent in the act of taking, withholding, damaging or destroying a value of another person involuntarily.

But that’s just another re-statement of your thesis."

No. I am merely pointing out here that all of the potential variations on the contradiction are already implicit in this act.

65

This one

That tyranny of the majority is not compatible with your own individual political rights doctrine.

66

Michael,

What exactly does the word “contradiction” refer to in this situation?

67

And can we just go back to the specific example?

Where is the specific contradiction in the example that I gave a while ago?

68

DD5,

For there to be a tyranny of the majority, the majority has to violate the rights of those that are governed by the government they sustain.

That does not apply to an Objectivist capitalist government because the majority may only protect individual rights and not violate them. That is to say the only thing an Objectivist government may impose on the people is to refrain from using force against their fellow man. That imposition does not qualify to be tyranny.

69

I. Ryan,

The word “contradiction” in our discussion refers to the assertion of a right, explicitly or implicitly, in one action, while denying it in another.

70

Okay, but where would that happen in the scenario that I outlined?

71

I. Ryan,

No we cannot go back to that example. It was so overladen with non-essentials that I lost my way and all incentive to look for it half way through. You may formulate another much more compact one and I will reply to it, contrary to my better judgment that says hypotheticals are a horrible way to try to understand principles, since there are always a wealth of unmentioned unknowns. And if they are mentioned, they take way more time to decipher than they are worth. If you come up with a good, efficient example, I will make an exception.

72

How could I avoid making it overladen with non-essentials, considering I still have no idea what you’re talking about?

How about you just come up with a good, efficient example, instead of relying on me, considering I’m still completely confused about what you’re talking about?

73

But the majority does violate them.

Leaving aside the problem of government finance for the moment, you have still established a territorial monopoly on services such as police and arbitration of disputes. How do you deprive me from seeking protection from an alternative police department or defense agency without resorting to coercion? How do you deprive me and my business partner from seeking the services of a private arbitration agency in the case that a dispute arises between us, without using coercion to maintain your monopoly?

The US postal service is still a coercive monopoly even if you choose not to ever use its services because the last person that attempted to compete with it ended up in jail. Do you agree?

74

Yes, that is the point, if one cannot open up shop in competition with some Objectivist Government by the law of that government, you have it be a rights violator; if one can compete, you have described PDA’s under Anarcho-capitalism.

75

that was remarkably lucid.

76

Ancaps aren’t talking about a “free market in force”, they are talking about a free market in defence (i.e. the means of restitution) . As others have said, either I can choose who defends me or I am forced under the threat of violence to have only one option of my ‘defender’. The former can exist in a free market (since there is no coercion), while the latter cannot, as it relies on the use of coercion. To support this latter use of coercion is to do away with the free market.

77

DD5,

You must have come into this thread without reading the preceding posts—not a good idea!

An Objectivist government does not do anything but guarantee that force will not be exercised arbitrarily. It only protects individual rights, which means that it protects all voluntary human actions. If you had applied this principle that has been stated umpteen times already in this thread, you would not have conjured up the false assumption that arbitration agencies would be prohibited. That is a contractual arrangement in its every instance, and the government would guarantee that the outcome would be complied with.

As to private police forces, even today, every major corporation has one. I am also all for subcontracting government services, and for the government not being allowed to own anything—everything must be contractually leased. Those all contribute to the checks and balances on government.

Governments may not perform any other service other than guaranteeing that all interrelationships be voluntary. No postal service, no education, no healthcare, no taxation, no anything.

The territorial monopoly the government must have is only over the objectification of the principles, laws, and procedures of enforcement so that they will be known or knowable to all subject to them in advance, in order to preclude the arbitrary exercise of force. No anarchy can provide that service.

78

nirgrahamUK,

Thanks. When I explained the inherent contradiction of the anarcho’s market in force, I forgot to warn you that “competition” for the services of exercising defensive force are equally absurd. Competition is a term that only applies to the FREE exchange of goods. Without an institution having already removed force from the market, there can be no free exchange and hence no competition. Yet another stolen concept.

79

And what makes you believe that it would be in the best interest of any supplier of force to allow you to freely make that choice?

Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation in Anarchy

Z.

80

Aristippus,

“Ancaps aren’t talking about a “free market in force”, they are talking about a free market in defence (i.e. the means of restitution)”

There is no such thing as defense without force. But if you can figure out how to defend yourself without exercising force, no Objectivist government is going to prohibit it.

The only force the Objectivist government would interfere with is arbitrary force.

[I am fairly sure that this was extensively dealt with in previous posts. Please go back and find them (or correct me … I have been on a marathon this week working three threads also containing this subject off and on and as big as this one simultaneously]