/liberty/ - Liberty

Since this place is mostly politics-focused, here a more in-depth view of the politics component:

The primary purpose of a government is the protect the individual rights of its inhabitants.

Moral rights are metaphysical activity-entitlements that are necessary for each human to live the human life.

Political rights are a government's sanction to carry out those activities (and punish anyone who prevents others from carrying them out).

In other words, the primary purpose of government is to punish people who seek to prevent others from living the human life as they see fit.

This rights protection requirement exists both internally (courts/police) and externally (military).

The only secondary purpose of government is to settle trade disputes objectively.

"Taxation" ought to be voluntary if this is at all practically possible.

>>89875

If you value free market capitalism, why do you stop at defense and arbitration? Shouldn't people be free to to participate in the market of these goods instead of being compelled to use the state monopoly? Why does the state have the right to initiate violence when no one else does?

>>89874

I do enjoy her work

>>89874

What differentiates Ayn Rand's Objectivism from Murray Rothbard's own beliefs, I hear that they are philosophically incompatible but I don't really know why.

>>89877

Nobody may initiate force - not even the state.

The only moral (and political) use of force is in retaliation.

If you are in a life-or-death emergency situation - you may retaliate with force to protect yourself. If not, use your retaliation-agent (the government) to take care of it.

As to why ONLY the government may usually retaliate with force:

Objectivism holds that there is only one 'way that things are'.

Reality is the way it is and cannot be otherwise.

Human nature is as it is.

There is only one possible correct implementation of justice.

Ideally, a government would constantly rid itself of unjust law and very seldomly (and very carefully) write a new law (which is as clearly written and delimited that its context and consequences are obvious to everyone).

Apart from it being proper - it is also practical.

Imagine everyone had their own laws.

One guy says 'if you run on my lawn, I get to shoot you, even if you're a child'.

The next guy says 'if you play music too loud, I get to punch you in the face - since I have a right not to be disturbed'.

Now a child blasting loud music walks over one lawn - nothing happens.

Walks over the next lawn - gets shot at.

Walks around the corner - gets punched in the face.

There ought to be ONE law that is understood by all.

The above example is just on the most concrete level.

This has very broad implications in trade etc.

>>89895

I don't know a lot about Rothbard.

To my understanding, he ripped Rand off and never gave her credit - then made fun of her.

He strikes me as an unlikable character.

Since I don't know much about his views - feel free to disregard my entire comment.

>>89897

>Nobody may initiate force - not even the state.

Then what's the difference between the state and everyone else? Why even bother calling it the state?

>The only moral (and political) use of force is in retaliation.

This might just be semantics, but it's generally not called force if done in self-defense.

>Objectivism holds that there is only one 'way that things are'.

And why is the existence of a state part of the "way that things are"? Why is taxation not a part of this if the state is? You can't make an absolute declaration like that without justifying it.

>There is only one possible correct implementation of justice.

You have to define what you think justice is, and why you think there's only one possible implementation. E.g., if justice is completely

absolute why bother with judges at all? Why not have a computerized algorithm determine the "correct" sentence for every possible crime and ignore circumstances in their entirety? The way I see it justice is just conflict resolution–there are two parties with a disagreement, either a wronged party and one who did wrong, or occasionally two parties who each maintain that he has been wronged. The purpose of justice is to give restitute to the wronged and decide upon a resolution to the disagreement between the two parties. Since the end goal is resolution, and for any given situation there's usually more than one way to achieve that resolution, you can't really call justice absolute, even when it's based on objectively correct moral and ethical principles.

>Ideally, a government would constantly rid itself of unjust law and very seldomly (and very carefully) write a new law (which is as clearly written and delimited that its context and consequences are obvious to everyone).

You'll get no argument from me there. However, simple incentive structure shows that the government has zero reason to behave "ideally," and practical experience shows it is fundamentally incapable of it. If anyone could guarantee that their minarchist state wouldn't violate rights, wouldn't seize more power for itself, and wouldn't try to impose a compulsory monopoly, then I'd be fine with it. But you can't guarantee that a state will act against the very nature of states and neither can anyone else, so…

>Imagine everyone had their own laws.

I do imagine it. Your property, your rules, that's how it should be, provided you're not breaking the NAP.

>One guy says…

>There ought to be ONE law that is understood by all

Why? Your own example shows that people have radically different expectations of what is and is not allowed on their property. It also shows that people have radically different expectations of what appropriate retribution is. With these givens, there is no point to some kind of "universal" law because we can objectively see that it does not meet the needs of the end user. Again, for justice to be done all that truly matters is that the conflict be resolved, that both parties agree the judge they hired performed his duty and to accept him as an arbitrator. Two Arabs living in Saudi Arabia would be perfectly fine resolving their conflict under Sharia law. I wouldn't be okay with that, so I don't employ judges that use Sharia law, it's as simple as that.

All that being said, however, the market would likely lend itself to the various arbitration firms, police agencies, insurance companies, etc., agreeing on a universal set of standards when the client of one firm comes into conflict with that of another. This gives us all the practical benefit of "one law that is understood by all" without trying to tailor every possible bit of legislation to every single person on Earth.

>This has very broad implications in trade etc.

See above, if there is an incentive to integrate and cooperate firms will take it.

>>89898

>To my understanding, he ripped Rand off and never gave her credit - then made fun of her.

That's really not true. Rothbard had a similar end goal compared to Rand–freedom–but he came up with it largely on his own, and you can tell, because while the end goal is similar, the approach the two take are radically different. Rand for instance takes a lot of inspiration from Aristotelian virtue-ethics–she believed men should have freedom so that they could more easily perfect themselves. To that end, she made a lot of normative statements about human behavior, and how people ought to act beyond the strict legal sense. Rothbard by contrast was more about freedom for freedom's sake–he saw freedom as the right of all men, and as such a worthy goal in and of itself. While he certainly had strong personal opinions about what is and isn't preferable behavior (e.g. he valued tradition), he didn't construct these as normative statements within his philosophy or treatises.

Because of their similar views, Rothbard was briefly a receiver of The Objectivist Newsletter and joined the club that surrounded it. This is where his disagreements with Rand come in. Rothbard left the club and wrote a scathing criticism of it, deriding the whole thing as an emotionally-fuelled cult. You might not agree with it but I personally think it's worth a read, it's a great example of how talented Murray can be when he wants to BTFO someone: (https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/understanding-ayn-randianism/). After this, Rand chose to take the calm and measured response of saying libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism were just the same thing as communism and that Rothbard himself was a commie for disagreeing with her.

>>89899

I'm not a fan of these 'comment on every sentence' type conversations, so I'll give most holistic answers:

The state has the monopoly of force. No other entity may use force (except in those emergency situations).

It's a unique entity. It is the agent to whom you delegate your retaliation against rights violators.

It's not that the 'existence of the state' is 'the way things are'.

Human nature is as it is. Politics ought to aim for building THE system in which humans may live as human beings (as opposed to, say, being strapped to a life support device).

Since human nature is a particular way - it implies exactly one set of requirements necessary to live the human life - with other humans.

Taxation is a type of initiation of force (i.e. "give me your money, or else".

As noted before, the only moral (and properly: legal) use of force ought to be in retaliation.

If the purpose of government is to retaliate against rights violators - it cannot become a rights-violator itself (by initiating force - via taxation).

>Why bother with judges if there's only one justice

This is an epistemological problem. Humans are not omniscient - AND they are fallible.

Oists call the relevant concept 'the spiral of knowledge'. People approximate the most abstract truths over time by exposing themselves to certain contexts - but at any one point in time, they may be wrong.

Consequently, laws may mistakenly (or unfortunately: intentionally) unjust.

It is the job of the legislators (and by extension: the voters - and the intellectuals) to identify injustices in the justice system - and fight against them.

One should basically strive towards a perfect justice system - however since one must take human nature into account - that justice system is infinitely evolving.

If one generation fails to uphold freedom, the next generation must pick up the pace.

There will always be a constant struggle against tyranny. There is no other way.

>Why not have computers define justice

Because new social contexts require new laws - and computers can't understand contexts (but I won't go into that).

E.g. suddenly computers are around. Is software intellectual property? Is there such a thing as cyber bullying - and should the law consider this case?

New contexts require new laws.

>there are many correct judgments, so justice isn't absolute

When I say 'justice is absolute', the philosophical/practical problem shows itself:

Philosophically, justice is absolute.

However, it is not easy AT ALL to apply those correct principles to reality without fail.

Legislation is one of the most difficult human disciplines there are.

Legislators ought to always approximate the ideal - in all their judgments.

That may well be the best they can do.

>incentives show government is inefficent

It is. As noted above, each generation must fight tyranny again. It never stops.

If government grows too large, people should have finally learned their lesson after it happened again and again in history.

It is somewhat similar to the 'job entitlement' mindset:

"I have a job, therefore I am entitled to keep it and be taken care of by my employer".

similarly:

"I have a government, I am entitled for it to be just"

The problem is that you are not entitled to anything. Having and keeping a job takes effort.

Having and keeping a government also takes effort.

One does not get a just government for free.

>multiple simultaneous law systems are fine

I personally think this is one of those points that are extremely hard to change someone's mind over - similar to free will vs. determinism.

I'll try it nonetheless:

There is human nature.

It has certain necessary requirements - no matter who agrees or disagrees. It just is how it is.

You need to breathe to survive.

You need to acquire/own/keep/dispose of property to survive, etc.

Just like you can't build a motor with 'your interpretation of thermodynamics' - you can't build a peaceful, prosperous non-tyrannical political system with 'your interpretation of human nature'.

The studies of human nature and politics ought to both be treated like a proper empirical science.

Just as one may find 'flat earthers' ridiculous, one ought to find 'Of course I can shoot kids on my lawn, but it's okay if you don't' people ridiculous.

There ARE certain rights that are implicit in human nature. One cannot wish them away.

Every human requires a sanction to carry out those rights - everything else amounts to a rights violation.

What will you do if the Muslim who favors Sharia Law tries to kill you for being an infidel - and you want to drag him to your court - but he wants to drag him to his court?

There are so many conflicts of this type in my head, I don't know how this makes sense to anyone (no offense)

>>89898

He didn't disagree with everything she thought. He ripped nothing off of her. He wasn't new to Aristotle himself. None of the ideas he had came from her. He liked her because they agreed on some matters. He also liked Atlas Shrugged a lot, though we don't know if it was all of it or only some aspects.

>He strikes me as an unlikable character.

He's was a fairly casual and welcoming guy. It takes a lot to alienate someone who's worked with all varieties of Lefitsts and religious Right Wing Conservatives throughout the years. He was anti-war, she was always in support of it. They agreed on almost everything else besides Law and The State.

To sum up his views real quick- privatize EVERYTHING. Objective ethics and morality. Agreed with Thomas Kuhn's non-linear historical theory. Also uses the Nichomachean Ethics as a basis for his ethical/legal theory.

>>89900

She said Anarchists are even worse than commies. According to that, Stalin would be preferable company to her over Rothbard. Rothbard's response was rough mostly because when she had to give her reasoning as to why you need a monopoly on force, she only gave assertions. He probably felt hurt that someone who talked so much about objectivity would do this. Mises, much alike Rand, also only ever gave assertions against Anarchy, but never directly attacked Rothbard for it.

Where did all of our Objectivist bros go?

>>89914

I'm sorta new here, so I don't know.

(Is there a way for me to change my symbol?)

>>89875

The state can never be more effective at resolving individual disputes than the individuals themselves are. Even if you have a pretty straightforward law like "don't murder people," you're putting limits on individuals' ability to protect themselves, since they'll have to stop and think about how this will look when the cops arrive instead of just instantly doing what it takes to ensure their survival. Eventually, all of the people predisposed to violence will be weeded out, since they're a minority in the population, and if you just go around shooting people it's just a matter of time before a victim manages to shoot you first.

There's reasons to have private investigators that take over many of the functions of the police, and independent mediators that take over many of the functions of the courts, but as soon as anyone starts taking tax money and enforcing arbitrary laws on others' behalf without their consent, everything starts going horribly wrong.

>>89965

Would you not say that the same justice should be applied to all similar cases?

E.g. a guy flips someone off

One 'individual' catches the guy and judges that proper punishment consists in him being enslaved to him forever

Another 'individual' catches a similar offender and judges that he may torture him to death for this

This system would be unlivable. Anyone could arbitrarily judge that you should be killed for things that you view as absolute non-offenses.

To mitigate this, you want an objective standard of justice - codified for all common cases and ever growing to encapsulate new cases.

It's not even just about criminals:

Imagine you trade with someone and order 500 steel beams.

The other guy simply doesn't deliver - because he doesn't like your sexual orientation.

You go bankrupt.

This basically boils down to "whoever has the biggest guns gets their personal idea of justice".

Arbitrary/chaotic initiation of force.

>>89971

The objective standard is the relationship between reality and human nature.

Human nature is objective:

All humans have the same basic needs.

Reality is objective:

Everything has a particular nature - and can only act in accordance with that nature.

"Nature to be commanded must be obeyed"

-Bacon

To fulfill your wants or needs - you need to obey the laws of nature - INCLUDING your own human nature.

You can't escape either - and both are objective.

It's not subjective that 'all men are mortal', 'one needs to sleep/eat/drink etc. to survive' etc.

>>89973

There may be an objective reality when before the individual exists, but once he does, he determines what to do in a way that is someone else cannot link to the world around. Anyone can, however, know that he is doing what is best for himself within those limits without standards being imposed upon him.

>>89973

>All humans have the same basic needs.

Beyond the most basic needs humans can have very different needs based on them having different values.

>>89976

>>89981

I don't see the conflict between what I say and these two comments.

>>89970

>One 'individual' catches the guy and judges that proper punishment consists in him being enslaved to him forever

Retribution out of proportion to the offense is a violation of the NAP. If I flip someone off and then he attempts to enslave me, he becomes a threat to my liberty (read: my life), and I would be justified in defending myself from him. Maybe I don't succeed, but the next guy will manage to kill him, or the one after that. Threatening peoples' lives in a free (and therefore armed) society is bad business, because it's only a matter of time before it catches up to you. What use is a six or seven figure paycheck when your life expectancy can be counted on your hands?

>This system would be unlivable. Anyone could arbitrarily judge that you should be killed for things that you view as absolute non-offenses.

I can already be killed for arbitrary non-offenses, like refusing to pay taxes. The thing is, there currently exists this thing called restorative justice: you sit the aggressor and the victim down in a room with an independent mediator, and then have the victim explain what happened and how it harmed them and the aggressor explain their circumstances and why they did what they did. The victim them gets to decide on a suitable punishment. The result practically every single time is that the punishment is significantly more lenient than would have been assigned by the courts, and the aggressor actually agrees with his or her punishment and endures it willingly. Imagine a state of affairs where violent criminals went to prisons on their own and willingly signed their freedom away for a period of time. The only thing standing between you and this fantasy land is your fixation on the state.

>It's not even just about criminals:

>Imagine you trade with someone and order 500 steel beams.

>The other guy simply doesn't deliver - because he doesn't like your sexual orientation.

>You go bankrupt.

So he took my money and didn't deliver the product? It doesn't matter what his personal views are; theft is never justifiable. On the other hand, if he refused my business, I'd just take my money elsewhere. Monopoly is a result of the state, so in a free society there will always be multiple sources for any product.

>>89973

>It's not subjective that 'all men are mortal'

This is a nonsensical tautology unless you have personally observed all men to be mortal. What if you came across a person that meets every single one of your criteria to be called a man, except that he's immortal? What would you call him? And then once you've created this category for immortal men, how would you know whether any given person is classified as a "man" or an "immortal man"?

Isn't it currently who has the most guns makes the rules?

>>90004

>Retribution out of proportion to the offense is a violation of the NAP

Not really. Breaking NAP is breaking NAP, there is only one line. You can resolve conflicts through compensation, but only within certain jurisdictional system, and only if you follow its rules. Otherwise, or before the system is in place you have no rights and will not be protected if you try something.

>I would be justified in defending myself from him

Definitely not, you started it when the victim resisted you start attacking again along with some moral weaseling.

>The victim them gets to decide on a suitable punishment

The victim gets compensation, if we're talking about an ancap legal system, nothing more. If there is no legal system then you either have a state to force people into such room and do explaining, or if it is ancap and the force decides and not your stupid bullshit.

>assigned by the courts

Courts do not decide punishment in ancap, they only explore whether the attacker attacked, victim is victim and the amount of property damage. All other things are decided by contracts.

>Imagine a state of affairs where violent criminals went to prisons on their own and willingly signed their freedom away for a period of time.

>The only thing standing between you and this fantasy land is your fixation on the state.

>took my money and didn't deliver the product

It's just theft, especially if you both signed a contract, which you should.

>>90006

No, because multiple groups together can offer more guns than one, even if it is larger than any one of them individually.

>>90006

>Isn't it currently who has the most guns makes the rules?

Nope. If it were, no single gun control law would exist.

>>90000

>>90019

Yeah, you're right. The laws aren't made nor enforced by States who have a monopoly on force, the largest stockpile of weapons and the largest groups of armed men at their disposal. The rules are made by, uh, weak nobodies and everyone follows them because, uh, they feel like it, or something. Maybe god or natural law or something.

>>90034

>States who have a monopoly on force

They don't, otherwise Castle Doctrine wouldn't be a thing.

>the largest stockpile of weapons

Also wrong, unless you're going to jump into the "muh drones" argument, which is to say that argument that states that tanks, drones, bombs, and suchlike could realistically be used to keep a population in check and wouldn't just galvanize more to rebel while also encouraging foriegn nations to lend assistance against a tyrannical government who just so happens to be a competitor to them on the world stage.

>the largest groups of armed men at their disposal

And once again wrong. The military makes up a tiny fraction of the population, and the infantry and other direct combat MOSes make up a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction.

He who has POWER makes the rules, which is why scumbag authoritarian politicians give everything they have to convince people to give up their power voluntarily, via scare tactics and propaganda, because they know for a fact that they cannot take that power by force.

>you live for your own happiness

Its surprising this subhuman morality is still alive for about 3k years.

Different humans live for different reasons. The lower ones persuit happines, the higher ones persuit power.

Any worldview that doesnt differentiate here is wrong.

>>89875

>the govermant is obligated to 3nforce certain laws

>Taxation is voluntary

?

>>90122

But what if power just gives certain people happy? Checkmate athesits

>>90127

Well the persuit of power brings pleasure.

Obviously, but there is no final goal at which this person will say, "ok now I am happy"

>>90161

They have also come up with every excuse to say why they wont let me have sex with donkeys. I didn't pay for it..I didn't buy my own.. the holy ghost said so…aliens…it's not natural…it's equivelant to pedophilia…not now Im having my period… Now they're struggling to create a new element to build a wall to keep me out of donkey pussy called "Nosexwithanimalsium" but all theyre doing is mixing turkey gravy with low grade cocaine. Oh yeah and they're Jews. Thats why they wont let me play with cows because theyre afraid Ill taint the jewfood.

>>90169

I am not sure I understand…

I wasnt talking of jews, but yes rothschilds and related belong to this category.

>>89924

Hit the show post options & limits to change your flag

Philosophy that stands on its own merit doesn’t need some ancap faggot to convince me of anything.