Anarchism is Anti-Freedom, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Life

I published the following on my blog, andrergsanchez.com. As a result, a guy I used to know online commented saying it was stupid. I asked him to explain exactly why, and he told me he would preffer discussing this here. So... let's hear it Putty (and allies).

My post:

Freedom is not based on the lack of state oppression. It is based on the tradition, first of respecting your neighbor's rights, and second of defending your neighbor's rights against those who have abandoned or never followed the first tradition. Important here, it is not -your- defense or -your- rights that is of primary importance. When both traditions are destroyed, that is, when they become too weak to bear the weight of the responsibility, and the traditional institutions built on such premises colapse, we call that anarchism. Society ceases to exist, and in it's place, there is an "each for himself" mentality that ensures the complete lack of freedom. The world reverts to dog eat dog, with luck, "gang" connections and strenght being the only things keeping anybody safe. Of course it is a matter of degree and not a complete change in quality, as it is impossible to completely abolish either one. The strenghtening of tradition is the only means by which freedom can be strenghtened. It is not through the abolition of government policies that freedom is strenghtened. Confusing the means with the result is dangerous. And ultimately, while respect is the primary factor, it is through violence, and only through violence, that freedom is defended.

If this tradition of freedom is broadly spread, then democracy will work, and in fact it will be the natural form of government in a society. This is an incredibly positive state, not because of democracy, but because of the type of society that exists as the foundation of this democracy. Such is, or at least was, to a high though certainly not perfect degree, the state of America, and the greatness of America. If this tradition is concentrated, with the broader society being closer towards anarchism or some other type of tradition than towards freedom, then democracy will not work, and a dictatorial regime maintained by those who follow the tradition of liberty, is the only means to secure freedom. It is not the vote that counts. Political power does not make people better.

Yep, that was me naturally...
Glad to see you made it safely over...
Right now I'm flat out, but as soon as I can, I'll address your article.
_________________
Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, OZschwitz Contraband
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner
"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann

Also, I sent you a PM...

Gotta run...
_________________
Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, OZschwitz Contraband
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner
"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann

First, welcome to the forum. :cheers:
I hope you have a swell time!

Freedom is not based on the lack of state oppression. It is based on the tradition, first of respecting your neighbor's rights, and second of defending your neighbor's rights against those who have abandoned or never followed the first tradition.
What is your definition of 'freedom'? What are 'rights' based on?

Important here, it is not -your- defense or -your- rights that is of primary importance. When both traditions are destroyed, that is, when they become too weak to bear the weight of the responsibility, and the traditional institutions built on such premises colapse, we call that anarchism.
Actually we don't; we call a society operating without rulers anarchy. Do you have any evidence that the 'traditional institutions' were, in fact, based on the premises of freedom?

Society ceases to exist, and in it's place, there is an "each for himself" mentality that ensures the complete lack of freedom.
:?: What is your definition of 'society'?

The world reverts to dog eat dog, with luck, "gang" connections and strenght being the only things keeping anybody safe.
That sounds very much like how governments operate to me. Either that or 'wolf eat sheep.'

Confusing the means with the result is dangerous. And ultimately, while respect is the primary factor, it is through violence, and only through violence, that freedom is defended.
If so, why must it be government (monopoly) violence? We know how well monopolies serve their customers. People who honestly want to defend your freedom wouldn't be the first to take it away in order to do so.
Why can't private agencies defend freedom?

If this tradition of freedom is broadly spread, then democracy will work, and in fact it will be the natural form of government in a society.
What is your definition of 'democracy'? A wide variety of governments label themselves so.

This is an incredibly positive state, not because of democracy, but because of the type of society that exists as the foundation of this democracy. Such is, or at least was, to a high though certainly not perfect degree, the state of America, and the greatness of America.
Strictly speaking, America was founded as a republic, not a democracy. And in fact the USA is currently a theocratic police state.

If this tradition is concentrated, with the broader society being closer towards anarchism or some other type of tradition than towards freedom, then democracy will not work, and a dictatorial regime maintained by those who follow the tradition of liberty, is the only means to secure freedom. It is not the vote that counts. Political power does not make people better.
How do you propose to prevent a benevolent dictatorship from going bad, given the empirically established fact (see the Stanford prison experiment), that power of almost any type, turns the masters into tyrants?
_________________
Anarcho Capitalists Retail , OZschwitz Downunder BoutiqueAnarcho-Capitalists,AnCaps Forum,Anti-State,Anti-Statist,Inalienable Rights Defenders,Non-Aggression Principle,Non-Initiation of Force Principle,Rothbardians,Anarchist,Capitalist,objectivism,Ayn Rand,Anarcho-Capitalism,Anarcho-Capitalist,politics,libertarianism,Ancap Forum,Anarchist Forum,Vulgar Libertarians,Hippies of The Right,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalist,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalists,Forum for AnCap,Forum for AnCaps,Libertarian,Anarcho-Objectivist,Freedom, Laissez Faire, Free Trade, Black Market, Randroid, Randroids, Rothbardian, AynArchist, Anarcho-Capitalist Forum, Anarchism, Anarchy, Free Market Anarchism, Free Market Anarchy, Market Anarchy
Anarchism is Anti-Freedom, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Life PgkowJT

Anarchism is Anti-Freedom, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Life PgkowJT

Nemo wrote:: What is your definition of 'freedom'? What are 'rights' based on?

Freedom is, to put it shortly, absence of compulsion. I follow the objectivist line on this matter, which I imagine you are familiar with and so I do not need to explain. The right to life, liberty, and -property- are all essential. Every human being is capable of compulsion.

Quote :: Actually we don't; we call a society operating without rulers anarchy.

Define "rulers". At it's core, a ruler is one who gives and/or enforces rules. Such as the rule not to use compulsion. The fact of the matter is that "anarchy" is indeed a society operating "without rulers", it is a society without rules. It is based on the arbitrary use of force.

If however, you define "ruler" as "anyone who uses coercion", then "a society without rulers" is a utopian mirage. Utopias are anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-life, for the simple fact they distract human beings away from reality. To seek utopia is like trying to make a living planting gold trees. You will starve to death.

Quote :: Do you have any evidence that the 'traditional institutions' were, in fact, based on the premises of freedom?

That is a strawman.

Quote :: :?: What is your definition of 'society'?

A cohesive social network. For example, the Coca-Cola Company is a cohesive, voluntary, social network. People obviously seek their own self-interest, but they do so within the social framework of the Coca-Cola Company. If you catch a co-worker stealing a thousand bottles of coke, you stop him. If Coca-Cola employes did not act in such a way, Coca-Cola would colapse. The same can be said for larger social networks.

Quote :: That sounds very much like how governments operate to me. Either that or 'wolf eat sheep.'

That is a strawman.

Quote :: If so, why must it be government (monopoly) violence?

Government is -not- monopoly violence. There is no such thing as a monopoly on the use of violence. What government has, is supremacy.

Quote :: We know how well monopolies serve their customers. People who honestly want to defend your freedom wouldn't be the first to take it away in order to do so.

States are subject to all the market forces that other institutions are. That is why they often colapse. If your view was correct, states would be cemented in place for all eternity. Thankfully, it is not.

Quote :: Why can't private agencies defend freedom?

Why do you think "states" are not "private agencies"?

Quote :: What is your definition of 'democracy'? A wide variety of governments label themselves so.

Rule by majority. The exact framework is irrelevant. I will stress that I am not a fan of democracy.

Quote :: Strictly speaking, America was founded as a republic, not a democracy. And in fact the USA is currently a theocratic police state.

The state of american society, that allowed the USA to prosper, was that of a widespread tradition of liberty. That is all I said.

No it isn't a theocratic police state.

Quote :: How do you propose to prevent a benevolent dictatorship from going bad, given the empirically established fact (see the Stanford prison experiment), that power of almost any type, turns the masters into tyrants?

By force. It's not a question of what I "propose", it's the reality of the matter. Do you believe in free will?

Freedom is, to put it shortly, absence of compulsion. The right to life, liberty, and -property- are all essential.
Guess what. Government requires compulsion in the form of taxes. Freedom is thus incompatible with government.

Define "rulers". At it's core, a ruler is one who gives and/or enforces rules.
Yes, rules that are imposed on others on a compulsory basis, like what governments do by definition. What makes these government people so special that it is right for them to do this, but not right for the rest of us?

The fact of the matter is that "anarchy" is indeed a society operating "without rulers", it is a society without rules. It is based on the arbitrary use of force.
It is not without rules. The rules derive from facts and reason, not from any one group of people. And the arbitrary use of force is thus forbidden, since it is irrational.
Government is based on the legitimacy of the use of force by an arbitrary group of people. That is irrational.

I am not interested in Utopia, where everyone is a good little robot. I only desire justice.

Quote :: Do you have any evidence that the 'traditional institutions' were, in fact, based on the premises of freedom?

That is a strawman.
Ah, they were never based on freedom, were they? Just one gang imposing their will on everyone else, although sometimes under the guise of consent.

A cohesive social network. For example, the Coca-Cola Company is a cohesive, voluntary, social network. People obviously seek their own self-interest, but they do so within the social framework of the Coca-Cola Company. If you catch a co-worker stealing a thousand bottles of coke, you stop him. If Coca-Cola employes did not act in such a way, Coca-Cola would colapse. The same can be said for larger social networks.
Well then, your previous statement that society would 'cease to exist' is a non-sequitur. Observe how cohesive the insurgents in Iraq are; they have no government direction. Or how about eBay? Or the worldwide black markets?

Quote :: That sounds very much like how governments operate to me. Either that or 'wolf eat sheep.'

That is a strawman.
I just used your argument against you. :)

Quote :: If so, why must it be government (monopoly) violence?

Government is -not- monopoly violence. There is no such thing as a monopoly on the use of violence. What government has, is supremacy.
It is a monopoly because they ban private agencies from competing in the market for protection.

States are subject to all the market forces that other institutions are. That is why they often colapse. If your view was correct, states would be cemented in place for all eternity. Thankfully, it is not.
Monopolies are subject to all the market forces that other institutions are. That is why they often colapse. If your view was correct, monopolies would be cemented in place for all eternity. Thankfully, it is not.
Buddy, you really need to find some arguments that can't be turned around and used against you.

Quote :: Why can't private agencies defend freedom?

Why do you think "states" are not "private agencies"?
By private I mean organizations that don't do business at the barrel of a gun.

Quote :: Strictly speaking, America was founded as a republic, not a democracy. And in fact the USA is currently a theocratic police state.

No it [the U.S.A] isn't a theocratic police state.
Sure it is. And it's been a plutarchy (i.e. not democratic) since since the beginning of the 20th century when it started experimenting with brainwashing (the polite term is propaganda) of workers.

Quote :: How do you propose to prevent a benevolent dictatorship from going bad, given the empirically established fact (see the Stanford prison experiment), that power of almost any type, turns the masters into tyrants?

By force. It's not a question of what I "propose", it's the reality of the matter. Do you believe in free will?
WTF is "free will" exactly?
_________________
Anarcho Capitalists Retail , OZschwitz Downunder BoutiqueAnarcho-Capitalists,AnCaps Forum,Anti-State,Anti-Statist,Inalienable Rights Defenders,Non-Aggression Principle,Non-Initiation of Force Principle,Rothbardians,Anarchist,Capitalist,objectivism,Ayn Rand,Anarcho-Capitalism,Anarcho-Capitalist,politics,libertarianism,Ancap Forum,Anarchist Forum,Vulgar Libertarians,Hippies of The Right,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalist,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalists,Forum for AnCap,Forum for AnCaps,Libertarian,Anarcho-Objectivist,Freedom, Laissez Faire, Free Trade, Black Market, Randroid, Randroids, Rothbardian, AynArchist, Anarcho-Capitalist Forum, Anarchism, Anarchy, Free Market Anarchism, Free Market Anarchy, Market Anarchy
Anarchism is Anti-Freedom, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Life PgkowJT

Free will is the phenomenon of being able to direct and choose one's thoughts and actions. It is the ability of the human consciousness to interfere in the causal chain of reactions of physics. To put it in plainer, more practical language, it is the ability to not turn into a tyrant simply because you have power. It is the ability to not steal your neighbors car or rape his daughter simply because you can.

Quote :: By private I mean organizations that don't do business at the barrel of a gun.

For starters, the protection business is based on the barrel of a gun. What you mean, I hope, is organizations that don't violate your standards of law. See, you are a ruler now, intending to impose your will upon others.

Quote :: It is a monopoly because they ban private agencies from competing in the market for protection.

Not really. There are more private security agents in South Africa than there are soldiers and policemen. In most (excepting places like North Korea) countries, private protection firms are given considerable freedom to operate. What they are not given, is the right to put themselves above the law.

However, let's look at what really matters here. How exactly is it that a company unable to defend itself against the specific state banning it, can be an effective "protection agency"? The pre-condition to being a player in this field is being able to protect. If they can be subdued, they have failed as a business.

Quote :: Well then, your previous statement that society would 'cease to exist' is a non-sequitur. Observe how cohesive the insurgents in Iraq are; they have no government direction. Or how about eBay? Or the worldwide black markets?

Strawman.

Quote :: It is not without rules. The rules derive from facts and reason, not from any one group of people. And the arbitrary use of force is thus forbidden, since it is irrational.

Who forbids it? Or rather, who enforces your prohibition against the arbitrary use of force?

Quote :: Government is based on the legitimacy of the use of force by an arbitrary group of people. That is irrational.

No, it is not.

Quote :: I am not interested in Utopia, where everyone is a good little robot. I only desire justice.

I don't believe you do.

Quote :: Yes, rules that are imposed on others on a compulsory basis, like what governments do by definition. What makes these government people so special that it is right for them to do this, but not right for the rest of us?

Excuse me, but don't -you- impose rules on others on a compulsory basis? You are not quite as effective at enforcing them as the guys in uniform, but still.

Free will is the phenomenon of being able to direct and choose one's thoughts and actions. It is the ability of the human consciousness to interfere in the causal chain of reactions of physics. To put it in plainer, more practical language, it is the ability to not turn into a tyrant simply because you have power. It is the ability to not steal your neighbors car or rape his daughter simply because you can.
It has been scientifically proven that when people have power and know they can pretty much do whatever they like, they choose to abuse this power. Or would you choose to rely on faith rather than evidence?

Quote :: By private I mean organizations that don't do business at the barrel of a gun.

For starters, the protection business is based on the barrel of a gun. What you mean, I hope, is organizations that don't violate your standards of law. See, you are a ruler now, intending to impose your will upon others.
No, I am referring to how they offer their service, which is on a voluntary basis. With governments it's: "pay for this service (schools, hospitals, protection) or you go to jail, and get shot if you resist being taken to jail."

Quote :: It is a monopoly because they ban private agencies from competing in the market for protection.

Not really. There are more private security agents in South Africa than there are soldiers and policemen. In most (excepting places like North Korea) countries, private protection firms are given considerable freedom to operate. What they are not given, is the right to put themselves above the law.
Granted there is some private security. But they are still forced to pay for a police force, courts and army etc. It's still a monopoly in many aspects.

However, let's look at what really matters here. How exactly is it that a company unable to defend itself against the specific state banning it, can be an effective "protection agency"? The pre-condition to being a player in this field is being able to protect. If they can be subdued, they have failed as a business.
Because, as you said, the state is supreme.

Quote :: Well then, your previous statement that society would 'cease to exist' is a non-sequitur. Observe how cohesive the insurgents in Iraq are; they have no government direction. Or how about eBay? Or the worldwide black markets?

Strawman.
Society doesn't need a government in order to exist. Period.

Quote :: It is not without rules. The rules derive from facts and reason, not from any one group of people. And the arbitrary use of force is thus forbidden, since it is irrational.

Who forbids it? Or rather, who enforces your prohibition against the arbitrary use of force?
A voluntary agency of my choice.

Quote :: Government is based on the legitimacy of the use of force by an arbitrary group of people. That is irrational.

No, it is not.
Then can I or anyone else decide to form a government? Why not?

Quote :: I am not interested in Utopia, where everyone is a good little robot. I only desire justice.

I don't believe you do.
Why?

Quote :: Yes, rules that are imposed on others on a compulsory basis, like what governments do by definition. What makes these government people so special that it is right for them to do this, but not right for the rest of us?

Excuse me, but don't -you- impose rules on others on a compulsory basis?
No I don’t. I defend myself from the arbitrary initiation of force, fraud and coercion, and I accept others right to defend themselves against me.
_________________
Anarcho Capitalists Retail , OZschwitz Downunder BoutiqueAnarcho-Capitalists,AnCaps Forum,Anti-State,Anti-Statist,Inalienable Rights Defenders,Non-Aggression Principle,Non-Initiation of Force Principle,Rothbardians,Anarchist,Capitalist,objectivism,Ayn Rand,Anarcho-Capitalism,Anarcho-Capitalist,politics,libertarianism,Ancap Forum,Anarchist Forum,Vulgar Libertarians,Hippies of The Right,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalist,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalists,Forum for AnCap,Forum for AnCaps,Libertarian,Anarcho-Objectivist,Freedom, Laissez Faire, Free Trade, Black Market, Randroid, Randroids, Rothbardian, AynArchist, Anarcho-Capitalist Forum, Anarchism, Anarchy, Free Market Anarchism, Free Market Anarchy, Market Anarchy
Anarchism is Anti-Freedom, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Life PgkowJT

Nemo wrote:: Free will is the phenomenon of being able to direct and choose one's thoughts and actions. It is the ability of the human consciousness to interfere in the causal chain of reactions of physics. To put it in plainer, more practical language, it is the ability to not turn into a tyrant simply because you have power. It is the ability to not steal your neighbors car or rape his daughter simply because you can.
It has been scientifically proven that when people have power and know they can pretty much do whatever they like, they choose to abuse this power. Or would you choose to rely on faith rather than evidence?

Funny.

1. No, it hasn't.
2. I suppose that means "no, I don't believe in free will".

You seem to exhibit traditional objectivist ignorance regarding the idea of faith. Let's clear something up here. Faith denotes trust. The word does not specify what you trust, or why you trust it. Scientists have faith, quite literaly, in something called "the laws of physics". More fundamentaly than that, they have faith in the idea that the universe behaves in a way that is fundamentaly rational, that it can at least in part, be understood. Evidence is based on faith. Now, faith can be misplaced. It can be blind. It seems to me that you have blind faith in this idea that "science has proven that power corrupts". Blind faith is almost always a mistake.

Quote :: By private I mean organizations that don't do business at the barrel of a gun.

For starters, the protection business is based on the barrel of a gun. What you mean, I hope, is organizations that don't violate your standards of law. See, you are a ruler now, intending to impose your will upon others.
No, I am referring to how they offer their service, which is on a voluntary basis. With governments it's: "pay for this service (schools, hospitals, protection) or you go to jail, and get shot if you resist being taken to jail."[/quote]

Exactly. Of course a protection service the likes of which you describe would also shoot people who resisted, possibly put them in jail. The difference is, they would be following your standard of law in doing so. It is not the use of force which you object to, but the manner in which force is used. You have a code of law, which you do not believe anyone has the right to violate. Is that not so?

Quote :: Granted there is some private security. But they are still forced to pay for a police force, courts and army etc. It's still a monopoly in many aspects.

A monopoly is not when you are forced to pay. A monopoly is when you are forced to use a particular service provider. Being forced to pay is called extortion.

Quote :: However, let's look at what really matters here. How exactly is it that a company unable to defend itself against the specific state banning it, can be an effective "protection agency"? The pre-condition to being a player in this field is being able to protect. If they can be subdued, they have failed as a business.
Because, as you said, the state is supreme.

Yea. Any private entity unable to defend against the state, is by definition unfit as a defense agency. Fuck, even states have trouble defending themselves against the state. Some states have trouble defending themselves against the very people they rule over. If a private company cannot protect itself against it, how can it claim to be seriously in the business of defense?

Quote :: Society doesn't need a government in order to exist. Period.

You cannot separate the two. Government, and by this I do not mean necessarily the State, is a part of society. It is not so much that government creates "society", but that a society naturaly -has- government. When it doesn't, it's because it's no longer a "society", but merely a collection of individuals with no allegiance to one another.

Quote :: Who forbids it? Or rather, who enforces your prohibition against the arbitrary use of force?
A voluntary agency of my choice.

You don't seem to understand that I am not attacking the idea of voluntary defense. Quite the contrary, if you read the article carefuly, you will see I am explaining that without a tradition of voluntary defense, of loyalty to other people, there can be no freedom.

Quote :: Then can I or anyone else decide to form a government? Why not?

Yes, you can.

Quote :

That is a rule. Several rules in fact. More than that, a very complex system of law is necessary to fill in the gaps.

Dear me... this thread is well advanced, so now I'll never catch up...

But just quickly, re:

Quote :: You seem to exhibit traditional objectivist ignorance regarding the idea of faith. Let's clear something up here. Faith denotes trust. The word does not specify what you trust, or why you trust it. Scientists have faith, quite literaly, in something called "the laws of physics". More fundamentaly than that, they have faith in the idea that the universe behaves in a way that is fundamentaly rational, that it can at least in part, be understood. Evidence is based on faith. Now, faith can be misplaced. It can be blind. It seems to me that you have blind faith in this idea that "science has proven that power corrupts". Blind faith is almost always a mistake.

Not so by a long shot! The essence of faith is the belief in an idea, without any rational basis or evidence. Hence scientists most certainly do not have faith in scientific principles, which are actually based on empirical evidence.
Faith and reason are opposites. Scientists have valid reasons for believing in "scientific laws" when they are based on the correspondence theory of truth. All this is covered in Objectivism thoroughly by Peikoff.
_________________
Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, OZschwitz Contraband
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner
"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann

Also, I repudiate any idea of overarching "Laws," which are to bind millions upon millions of people. The concept has been used for oppression since time immemorial, hence has to be exterminated from the human psyche. As Rand pointed out, a free society is a contractual society between specific individuals and within a specific context, hence no "Laws" are needed.
I could take us all sailing for a few months and all of us would just deal with each other as we agree to deal with each other... again, no "Laws" are required for us to cooperate as individuals. Presumably, it's self evident that the non aggression principle is applicable, since without it, civilized rational behavior is impossible.
_________________
Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, OZschwitz Contraband
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner
"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann

CovOps wrote:: Not so by a long shot! The essence of faith is the belief in an idea, without any rational basis or evidence.

I'm afraid that is not so. Faith is impossible without reason or evidence. Ever wonder why religious people have holy books? Why these books are generaly full of testimonies of miracles? Why they generaly include prophecies? See, these things exist because they are the rational (though not necessarily correct) basis for the religious faith in question. The belief in God is the conclusion of a rational chain of thought, it is not it's beggining. Of course you have blind believers, just like you have people that trust their abusive partners. It happens. It is not part of its fundamental nature.

Quote :: Hence scientists most certainly do not have faith in scientific principles, which are actually based on empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence itself is based on faith in the senses.

Quote :: Faith and reason are opposites.

Only if you define them that way.

Quote :: Scientists have valid reasons for believing in "scientific laws" when they are based on the correspondence theory of truth. All this is covered in Objectivism thoroughly by Peikoff.

The attack on faith is a recurring theme in Rand's work. It is incorrect. However, I will say she isn't the only one who has made this mistake. Many religious people have done the same. Many people who advocate a twisted sense of romantic love or familial relations have done the same. There is a difference between faith and the surrender of thought.

CovOps wrote:: Also, I repudiate any idea of overarching "Laws," which are to bind millions upon millions of people.

So do I. The laws should bind all people. Right now, assuming no extraterrestrial life and the accuracy of statistics, that is somewhat over 6 billion.

Quote :: The concept has been used for oppression since time immemorial, hence has to be exterminated from the human psyche.

That would be a grave mistake.

Quote :: As Rand pointed out, a free society is a contractual society between specific individuals and within a specific context, hence no "Laws" are needed.

Excuse me, but wasn't Rand in favour of law? Didn't she criticize anarchism, even anarcho-capitalism, as nonsensical? As such, isn't it a bit... well... absurd to quote someone in defense of your case, that doesn't agree with it? Don't you think she understood what she meant in her writings better than you do?

Quote :: I could take us all sailing for a few months and all of us would just deal with each other as we agree to deal with each other... again, no "Laws" are required for us to cooperate as individuals.

What do you think a law is? I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by laws when you attack them in the way you have done.

Quote :: Presumably, it's self evident that the non aggression principle is applicable, since without it, civilized rational behavior is impossible.

The non-agression principle is a legal principle, it is a law. I suppose you could say "the law" is self-evidently applicable.

Quote :: It has been scientifically proven that when people have power and know they can pretty much do whatever they like, they choose to abuse this power. Or would you choose to rely on faith rather than evidence?

1. No, it hasn't.
Sure it has. Have you even researched the Stanford prison experiment?
2. I suppose that means "no, I don't believe in free will".
No, it doesn't.
If the benevolent dictator has free will, then so do the criminals. Why can't they choose not to be criminals? What magical force exempts one group of people (government) but not another?

Quote :: No, I am referring to how they offer their service, which is on a voluntary basis. With governments it's: "pay for this service (schools, hospitals, protection) or you go to jail, and get shot if you resist being taken to jail."

Exactly. Of course a protection service the likes of which you describe would also shoot people who resisted, possibly put them in jail. The difference is, they would be following your standard of law in doing so. It is not the use of force which you object to, but the manner in which force is used. You have a code of law, which you do not believe anyone has the right to violate. Is that not so?
No it is not so. Forget about law. I object to offensive force, not defensive.

Quote :: Granted there is some private security. But they are still forced to pay for a police force, courts and army etc. It's still a monopoly in many aspects.

A monopoly is not when you are forced to pay. A monopoly is when you are forced to use a particular service provider. Being forced to pay is called extortion.
So tax is extortion? What a rare admission! And I notice you never countered my point that freedom is incompatible with government.

Quote :: However, let's look at what really matters here. How exactly is it that a company unable to defend itself against the specific state banning it, can be an effective "protection agency"? The pre-condition to being a player in this field is being able to protect. If they can be subdued, they have failed as a business.
Because, as you said, the state is supreme.

Yea. Any private entity unable to defend against the state, is by definition unfit as a defense agency. Fuck, even states have trouble defending themselves against the state. Some states have trouble defending themselves against the very people they rule over. If a private company cannot protect itself against it, how can it claim to be seriously in the business of defense?
You have set up an impossible standard. Of course no one can compete with the state.

Quote :: Society doesn't need a government in order to exist. Period.

You cannot separate the two. Government, and by this I do not mean necessarily the State, is a part of society. It is not so much that government creates "society", but that a society naturaly -has- government. When it doesn't, it's because it's no longer a "society", but merely a collection of individuals with no allegiance to one another.
Like I said, the insurgents in Iraq, the worldwide black markets and eBay prove you wrong.

Quote :: Then can I or anyone else decide to form a government? Why not?

Yes, you can.
Great! Here's your tax bill for this month. We will use it to construct a jail. Oh and if you don't pay, you go to jail!!

Quote :: No I don’t. I defend myself from the arbitrary initiation of force, fraud and coercion, and I accept others right to defend themselves against me.[/font]

That is a rule. Several rules in fact. More than that, a very complex system of law is necessary to fill in the gaps.
Not really. CovOps covered laws.
_________________
Anarcho Capitalists Retail , OZschwitz Downunder BoutiqueAnarcho-Capitalists,AnCaps Forum,Anti-State,Anti-Statist,Inalienable Rights Defenders,Non-Aggression Principle,Non-Initiation of Force Principle,Rothbardians,Anarchist,Capitalist,objectivism,Ayn Rand,Anarcho-Capitalism,Anarcho-Capitalist,politics,libertarianism,Ancap Forum,Anarchist Forum,Vulgar Libertarians,Hippies of The Right,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalist,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalists,Forum for AnCap,Forum for AnCaps,Libertarian,Anarcho-Objectivist,Freedom, Laissez Faire, Free Trade, Black Market, Randroid, Randroids, Rothbardian, AynArchist, Anarcho-Capitalist Forum, Anarchism, Anarchy, Free Market Anarchism, Free Market Anarchy, Market Anarchy
Anarchism is Anti-Freedom, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Life PgkowJT

Law:

An opinion, written down, backed up by a gun.

_________________
Anarcho Capitalists Retail , OZschwitz Downunder BoutiqueAnarcho-Capitalists,AnCaps Forum,Anti-State,Anti-Statist,Inalienable Rights Defenders,Non-Aggression Principle,Non-Initiation of Force Principle,Rothbardians,Anarchist,Capitalist,objectivism,Ayn Rand,Anarcho-Capitalism,Anarcho-Capitalist,politics,libertarianism,Ancap Forum,Anarchist Forum,Vulgar Libertarians,Hippies of The Right,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalist,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalists,Forum for AnCap,Forum for AnCaps,Libertarian,Anarcho-Objectivist,Freedom, Laissez Faire, Free Trade, Black Market, Randroid, Randroids, Rothbardian, AynArchist, Anarcho-Capitalist Forum, Anarchism, Anarchy, Free Market Anarchism, Free Market Anarchy, Market Anarchy
Anarchism is Anti-Freedom, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Life PgkowJT

Quote :: So do I. The laws should bind all people. Right now, assuming no extraterrestrial life and the accuracy of statistics, that is somewhat over 6 billion.

Huh? I said I repudiate the concept of "Laws," you say you agree then affirm that laws should bind all? Wha?

Quote :: That would be a grave mistake.

Quite the contrary in fact.

Quote :: Excuse me, but wasn't Rand in favour of law? Didn't she criticize anarchism, even anarcho-capitalism, as nonsensical? As such, isn't it a bit... well... absurd to quote someone in defense of your case, that doesn't agree with it?

As a conservative statist, yes. But her position is highly limited to just the protection of rights. That's why it is laissez faire amongst everyone... not just in economic matters, but social as well. While she mistakenly turned feral against anarchism, she did it only for one reason: She couldn't conceive of a solution, to warring private police services, in case of disagreements. She thought that it would just be a shootout, hence she rejected anarchism. It never occurred to her that different police agencies could resolve their differences via private arbitration.

Quote :: What do you think a law is?

Laws are oppressive edicts. They do only two things: They either forbid or they compel. That is their evil essence as promulgated through millennia.

Quote :: The non-agression principle is a legal principle

No, before it is codefied as a "law," it is a moral principle.
_________________
Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, OZschwitz Contraband
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner
"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann

andrergsanchez wrote:

CovOps wrote:: Not so by a long shot! The essence of faith is the belief in an idea, without any rational basis or evidence.

I'm afraid that is not so. Faith is impossible without reason or evidence. Ever wonder why religious people have holy books? Why these books are generaly full of testimonies of miracles? Why they generaly include prophecies? See, these things exist because they are the rational (though not necessarily correct) basis for the religious faith in question. The belief in God is the conclusion of a rational chain of thought, it is not it's beggining. Of course you have blind believers, just like you have people that trust their abusive partners. It happens. It is not part of its fundamental nature.

No, you are epistemologically in error. Faith is anything but based on reason or evidence. First, you have to grasp that religion is based on an intrinsic philosophy. Since philosophical intrinsicism itself is false, its conclusions are false. They end up basing their belief on ideas which are not tied to reality. What objectivism calls irrational floating concepts. Logic proper, must be based on reality. If it isn't, then it isn't logic, but rationalism. And rationalism is ideas not based on reality.

Quote :: Hence scientists most certainly do not have faith in scientific principles, which are actually based on empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence itself is based on faith in the senses.

This is, once again, epistemologically incorrect. Since knowledge begins with the evidence of the senses, they can not be said to be either true or false, but only that they are. Senses integrate into percepts, which in turn get integrated into concepts. This is the fundamental sequence and if anyone were to deny it, they would be involved in a contradiction. ie. They would be wrong. The senses just are. They are the starting point of all knowledge and without them, there wouldn't be any knowledge.

Quote :: Faith and reason are opposites.

Only if you define them that way.

They have been correctly defined based on their essential attributes.

Quote :: Scientists have valid reasons for believing in "scientific laws" when they are based on the correspondence theory of truth. All this is covered in Objectivism thoroughly by Peikoff.

The attack on faith is a recurring theme in Rand's work. It is incorrect. However, I will say she isn't the only one who has made this mistake.

Her attack on faith is epistemologically valid. You simply have to study it again.

_________________
Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, OZschwitz Contraband
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner
"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann

CovOps wrote:

Quote :: So do I. The laws should bind all people. Right now, assuming no extraterrestrial life and the accuracy of statistics, that is somewhat over 6 billion.

Huh? I said I repudiate the concept of "Laws," you say you agree then affirm that laws should bind all? Wha?

I agree that law shouldn't bind millions upon millions. It should bind billions upon billions. Was that not clearly stated? To separate a section of humanity from the law is to make it arbitrary.

Quote :

Quote :: Excuse me, but wasn't Rand in favour of law? Didn't she criticize anarchism, even anarcho-capitalism, as nonsensical? As such, isn't it a bit... well... absurd to quote someone in defense of your case, that doesn't agree with it?

As a conservative statist, yes. But her position is highly limited to just the protection of rights.

Right, so is mine.

Quote :: That's why it is laissez faire amongst everyone... not just in economic matters, but social as well.

Right, so is mine.

Quote :: While she mistakenly turned feral against anarchism, she did it only for one reason: She couldn't conceive of a solution, to warring private police services, in case of disagreements. She thought that it would just be a shootout, hence she rejected anarchism. It never occurred to her that different police agencies could resolve their differences via private arbitration.

You think she was stupid? She rejected anarchism because it is based on the arbitrary use of force. Objectivism favours laws, that is, objective standards for the use of force. These objective standards might be wrong in certain cases, but the idea of objective standards itself is not.

Quote :

Quote :: What do you think a law is?

Laws are oppressive edicts.

That's a value judgment.

Quote :: They do only two things: They either forbid or they compel.

Yea, that is correct.

[quote]That is their evil essence as promulgated through millennia.

There is nothing evil about that "essense".

Quote :

Quote :: The non-agression principle is a legal principle

No, before it is codefied as a "law," it is a moral principle.

Yes and no. Legal principles are a particular type of moral principles. Specificaly, the type involving the use of force. All laws are based on moral principles. The non-agression principle is a law. It forbids the innitiation of force. Then you need to define innitiation of force, thus creating a code of law.

You are wrong regarding faith. But since I am more interested in the actual argument of the article and what you have to say about it, I won't try and debate this with you. I'll just assume we are using different definitions of the word "faith" and be done with it.

I'll quote something from Robert Canup which might help cure Andre's penchant for the rule of law.

Thousands of years ago the good people decided that they needed to create a system to insure that people got what they deserved. Imagine for a second that you were an evil person. How would you react to such a system? I think it would really scare you. After all, if people got what they deserved, you would get boiled in oil!

If you were both evil and clever, wouldn't you do everything in your power to be in charge of that system; to make sure that no real justice ever occurred? Bear in mind that evil people do not wear name tags that say: "Hate me, I'm evil"; they do everything they can to blend into society as a whole. Given this it is not too surprising to see that evil was involved deeply in the formation of the legal system.

Many years ago there was a system of 'justice' called trial by ordeal. An example of trial by ordeal was holding a red hot iron to a defendant's tongue. The plausible lie used to justify this behavior was: if the defendant was telling a lie they would have a dry mouth and would be burned by the iron - while a truthful person would have a moist mouth and would be protected. The implausible, unbelievable truth is that the people who thought that up simply enjoyed holding red hot pokers on peoples tongues! The current legal system is descended from such minds - it is much more clever and simply not as obviously evil as that one was.

The legal system is directly and uniquely concerned with the control of evil - and as such - control of the legal system is of direct and overriding importance to evil. Because of this fact - which is undeniable - the legal system, above and beyond, any other human system needs to be regarded with deep suspicion. Because of the danger to humanity which a legal system controlled and influenced by evil poses - the legal system itself must be regarded as 'Guilty until proven innocent beyond any hint of doubt'.

Let us examine a few particulars of the legal system to see how they bring benefit to evil and work to the detriment of good. If you read what legal theoreticians have to say about the structure of the legal system you will encounter statements like this: "It is a robust system which is designed to survive liars". "We assume that one side is lying one way, and the other is lying the other, and we let the jury find the truth - which will lie somewhere between these two extremes." What a wonderfully plausible lie that is.

But the worst aspect of the legal system is the most hidden part of it. Most people know someone who really needs to have the devil beaten out of them. Why don't you do it then? The answer: because you would get in trouble with the law. Here then we see the worst feature of the law: it is designed to make the world safe for evil people. In effect the law serves to take the horns away from the bulls, while leaving the lions their teeth and claws. Massive, overwhelming, advantage to evil. Indeed, without the legal system insuring their safety, the world would be a much more difficult place for evil people.
_________________
Anarcho Capitalists Retail , OZschwitz Downunder BoutiqueAnarcho-Capitalists,AnCaps Forum,Anti-State,Anti-Statist,Inalienable Rights Defenders,Non-Aggression Principle,Non-Initiation of Force Principle,Rothbardians,Anarchist,Capitalist,objectivism,Ayn Rand,Anarcho-Capitalism,Anarcho-Capitalist,politics,libertarianism,Ancap Forum,Anarchist Forum,Vulgar Libertarians,Hippies of The Right,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalist,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalists,Forum for AnCap,Forum for AnCaps,Libertarian,Anarcho-Objectivist,Freedom, Laissez Faire, Free Trade, Black Market, Randroid, Randroids, Rothbardian, AynArchist, Anarcho-Capitalist Forum, Anarchism, Anarchy, Free Market Anarchism, Free Market Anarchy, Market Anarchy
Anarchism is Anti-Freedom, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Life PgkowJT

Nemo wrote:: [font=Trebuchet MS]I'll quote something from Robert Canup which might help cure Andre's penchant for the rule of law.

"The rule of law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth, and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will."

There can not be freedom without the rule of law. The day I abandon the rule of law, is the day I abandon liberty itself.

Quote :: Thousands of years ago the good people decided that they needed to create a system to insure that people got what they deserved. Imagine for a second that you were an evil person. How would you react to such a system?

I don't think the process is quite like that. I imagine it went more along these lines: people lived in anarchy. This anarchy lead to the establishment of tyrannies, as groups of "evil" people joined together to plunder and enslave others. As time went on people became wiser and realized that, if they continued on the path of anarchy, there was no way out of tyranny. Now, the thing about tyranny, is that it is somewhat as dangerous to those who are evil as it is to those who are not. So it is likely that evil people created a code of law for themselves, in order to stop the in-fighting and ensure their supremacy over those they ruled over. However I'm sure there were cases of good people creating laws to stop evil people from rising to tyranny. Thus, tyrannies became either monarchies, republics, or democracies, depending on how they evolved. That was a step up, not down.

Quote :: Many years ago there was a system of 'justice' called trial by ordeal. An example of trial by ordeal was holding a red hot iron to a defendant's tongue. The plausible lie used to justify this behavior was: if the defendant was telling a lie they would have a dry mouth and would be burned by the iron - while a truthful person would have a moist mouth and would be protected. The implausible, unbelievable truth is that the people who thought that up simply enjoyed holding red hot pokers on peoples tongues! The current legal system is descended from such minds - it is much more clever and simply not as obviously evil as that one was.

The problem is, such things can be used against them. Under the rule of law, they have no more protection from having their tongues burned than anybody else. Bad people generaly do not favour the rule of law and do everything in their power to corrupt it, not by inventing torture techniques, but by corrupting the people involved in enforcing the law.

Aside from that, bad people can also defend the rule of law as a means to restrain the other bad people who might harm them. Bad people can be murdered by bad people just as easily as good people can

Quote :: The legal system is directly and uniquely concerned with the control of evil - and as such - control of the legal system is of direct and overriding importance to evil.

It is also of direct and overriding importance to "good".

Quote :: Because of this fact - which is undeniable - the legal system, above and beyond, any other human system needs to be regarded with deep suspicion.

You are confusing the rule of law with the system of law enforcement. But yes, I suppose. Law is basicaly saying that, under certain conditions, people may use violence against others. Yet you do not always know that these conditions are being met. Because of that, we have developed "due process".

Quote :: Because of the danger to humanity which a legal system controlled and influenced by evil poses - the legal system itself must be regarded as 'Guilty until proven innocent beyond any hint of doubt'.

That would lead to such an absurd cycle that I don't think it's worth talking about. See, guilty until proven innocent, in this context, means that everyone is regarded as guilty. Yet, how do you punish the guilty ones if you yourself become guilty for even considering doing it? It's an absurd and paralyzing cycle leading nowhere.

Quote :: But the worst aspect of the legal system is the most hidden part of it. Most people know someone who really needs to have the devil beaten out of them. Why don't you do it then? The answer: because you would get in trouble with the law.

It's something called "due process". See, if people go around beating up others because they think they deserve it, how do you know that their judgement is trustworthy, that they are not simply commiting an act of aggression? It is to protect the accuser that due process exists. Because if the accuser just beats the other party up, others will quite naturaly assume that he was commiting an act of aggression and punish him accordingly.

Quote :: Here then we see the worst feature of the law: it is designed to make the world safe for evil people.

It is designed to make the world safe for everyone.

Quote :: In effect the law serves to take the horns away from the bulls, while leaving the lions their teeth and claws. Massive, overwhelming, advantage to evil. Indeed, without the legal system insuring their safety, the world would be a much more difficult place for evil people.

Not really. I mean, seriously, that is insanely ignorant of facts.

[quote="andrergsanchez"]

CovOps wrote:

Quote :: So do I. The laws should bind all people. Right now, assuming no extraterrestrial life and the accuracy of statistics, that is somewhat over 6 billion.

Huh? I said I repudiate the concept of "Laws," you say you agree then affirm that laws should bind all? Wha?

I agree that law shouldn't bind millions upon millions. It should bind billions upon billions. Was that not clearly stated? To separate a section of humanity from the law is to make it arbitrary.

You actually DO separate a section of humanity from "law" and indeed make it arbitrary, when you divide the population into two groups: The lawmakers and the lawtakers (that's the slaves which have to obey) This vile, evil instrument, has never once in the history of the world, brought justice to people, not once! Also, amongst other things, for the same reason that Objectivists are against a one world government (which could be taken over/corrupted and then there's really nowhere to run to, in order to save oneself) I am against your oppressive edicts, so called "laws," with which you'd want to bind billions.

Quote :

Quote :: Excuse me, but wasn't Rand in favour of law? Didn't she criticize anarchism, even anarcho-capitalism, as nonsensical? As such, isn't it a bit... well... absurd to quote someone in defense of your case, that doesn't agree with it?

As a conservative statist, yes. But her position is highly limited to just the protection of rights.

Right, so is mine.

Quote :: That's why it is laissez faire amongst everyone... not just in economic matters, but social as well.

Right, so is mine.

Quote :: While she mistakenly turned feral against anarchism, she did it only for one reason: She couldn't conceive of a solution, to warring private police services, in case of disagreements. She thought that it would just be a shootout, hence she rejected anarchism. It never occurred to her that different police agencies could resolve their differences via private arbitration.

You think she was stupid? She rejected anarchism because it is based on the arbitrary use of force.

No, I told you why she rejected it. Warring private police forces. Had she grasped that they too voluntarily enter into arbitration, because it is in their self interest to do so, she never would have rejected anarcho-capitalism and this despite her shitty conservative streak a mile long.

Objectivism favours laws, that is, objective standards for the use of force. These objective standards might be wrong in certain cases, but the idea of objective standards itself is not.

Objectivism favors laws because it fails to grasp the essence of laws and which are oppressive edicts. Given that laws differ in every country on earth, should speak volumes to you, about their supposed "objectivity." A free "society" in fact, can NOT exist, under oppressive edicts, period. Never has and never will.

Quote :

Quote :: What do you think a law is?

Laws are oppressive edicts.

That's a value judgment.

That is a statement of fact, based on the correct identification of the facts of reality. And that is objectivity. Oppressive edicts (laws) seek to bind all into one and as Rand pointed out re collectivism, to get just one neck, ready for just one noose. It's no wonder the collectivists scream that "no one is above the law" because that would mean above oppression... and the ruling "elites," most certainly, do not support that kind of freedom.

Quote :: They do only two things: They either forbid or they compel.

Yea, that is correct.

Quote :

That is their evil essence as promulgated through millennia.

There is nothing evil about that "essense".

The essence is oppression and there is plenty wrong with that, to say the least...

Quote :

Quote :: The non-agression principle is a legal principle

No, before it is codified as a "law," it is a moral principle.

Yes and no. Legal principles are a particular type of moral principles.

No. Oppressive principles are a particular type of immoral principles.

Specificaly, the type involving the use of force.

False. Most laws are not even about the use of force. Commerce, contracts, social, cultural, etc...

All laws are based on moral principles.

No. All oppressive edicts are based on immoral principles.

The non-agression principle is a law. It forbids the innitiation of force. Then you need to define innitiation of force, thus creating a code of law.

Initiation is just who aggressed first. Who, say, punched whom first.

_________________
Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, OZschwitz Contraband
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner
"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann

Last edited by CovOps on Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:39 am; edited 1 time in total

andrergsanchez wrote:: You are wrong regarding faith. But since I am more interested in the actual argument of the article and what you have to say about it, I won't try and debate this with you. I'll just assume we are using different definitions of the word "faith" and be done with it.

No, I am indeed correct.
You have to grasp the following distinction: You have no epistemological right to equate an error of knowledge (faith) with its opposite, ie. the correct identification of facts/reality (reason). To give equal intellectual validity to both, is conceptual corruption. Religionists try to pull that con game all the time, but under analysis, it doesn't stand up.

Oh and I'll just throw in a short quote by Peikoff, free of charge:
The fundamental concept here is "_faith_". "Faith" in this context means
belief in the abscence of evidence. This is the essential that distinguishes
religion from science. A scientist may believe in the entities which he
cannot observe, such as atoms or electrons, but he can do so only if he can
prove their existence logically, by inference from things he does observe.
A religious man, however, believes in some "higher unseen power" which he
cannot observe and cannot logically prove. As the whole story of philosophy
demonstrates, no study of the natural universe can warrant jumping outside it
to a supernatural entity. The five arguments for God offered by the greatest
of all religious thinkers, Thomas Aquinas, are widely recognized by
philosophers to be logically defective; they have each been refuted many times,
and they are the best arguments that have ever been offered on this subject.
_________________
Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, OZschwitz Contraband
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner
"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann

CovOps wrote:: You actually DO separate a section of humanity from "law" and indeed make it arbitrary, when you divide the population into two groups: The lawmakers and the lawtakers

I don't believe in such a division. Every single human being on earth is a lawmaker, or perhaps more accurately, a law judger. It's not that he -should- be one, he -is- one. He decides which laws are valid and which are not. He then acts accordingly. He may submit to unjust laws, as a temporary tactic of war, but he does not accept them. Those who refuse to accept the laws you accept, who refuse a compatible (doesn't have to be exactly equal) system of government, are exterminated. That is not "what I want", it's "what it is". It is the reality of today's world, of tommorow's world, of yesterday's world. Accepting this reality and acting with the full consciousness of it, is what you should do, that is, it is the moral prescription for those who wish to live.

Quote :: (that's the slaves which have to obey)

You have to obey he who is stronger than you, period. That is why becoming stronger than your enemies is the first imperative of life, before even acquiring food and certainly before the building of neat toys.

Quote :: This vile, evil instrument, has never once in the history of the world, brought justice to people, not once!

Indeed, principles do not bring justice to people. People's actions bring justice. The law is a principle of action, but it is not action itself. The spread of objectivism hasn't brought justice to the world. Neither will the spread of law. Only behaviour consistent with it can.

Quote :: Also, amongst other things, for the same reason that Objectivists are against a one world government (which could be taken over/corrupted and then there's really nowhere to run to, in order to save oneself)

You assume Government is God (an evil God, somewhat like Allah apparently). You are wrong. A government is a network of people who are part of this network by choice. Perhaps you won't be able to find a place where you are safe from people who want you harm, but that would really be no different than in a world with a thousand governments. Further, if you are so worried, maybe you should remember that there is nowhere to run on earth, TODAY. Running is not an option anymore. We are in the global age, where even crazy despots can destroy the cities of the greatest empire with barely an effort. Of course, they would likely end up destroyed as well, but still, it's a mere question of choice, and that choice can be made. You only have the illusion of being able to "escape" because there is a sort of world government in place already. Not a unified bureaucracy, but a modus vivendi amongst most nations.

[quote] I am against your oppressive edicts, so called "laws," with which you'd want to bind billions.

Tough. The law is not optional.

Quote :: No, I told you why she rejected it. Warring private police forces. Had she grasped that they too voluntarily enter into arbitration, because it is in their self interest to do so, she never would have rejected anarcho-capitalism and this despite her shitty conservative streak a mile long.

Quote :: Objectivism favors laws because it fails to grasp the essence of laws and which are oppressive edicts. Given that laws differ in every country on earth, should speak volumes to you, about their supposed "objectivity." A free "society" in fact, can NOT exist, under oppressive edicts, period. Never has and never will.

Quote :: That is a statement of fact, based on the correct identification of the facts of reality. And that is objectivity. Oppressive edicts (laws) seek to bind all into one and as Rand pointed out re collectivism, to get just one neck, ready for just one noose. It's no wonder the collectivists scream that "no one is above the law" because that would mean above oppression... and the ruling "elites," most certainly, do not support that kind of freedom.

Quote :: The essence is oppression and there is plenty wrong with that, to say the least...

Quote :: No. Oppressive principles are a particular type of immoral principles.

There is no such thing as an immoral principle. Immoral is simply the negative of moral. It is the violation of a moral principle.

Quote :: Specificaly, the type involving the use of force.

False. Most laws are not even about the use of force. Commerce, contracts, social, cultural, etc...

Are you saying the law in such cases does not engage in the use of force? The law says when it is permissible to use force. It does not say when it is forbidden to do so. The act of forbidding something is simply the acknowledgement that it is permissible to use force against it.

The non-agression principle is a law. It forbids the innitiation of force. Then you need to define innitiation of force, thus creating a code of law.

Quote :: Initiation is just who aggressed first. Who, say, punched whom first.

But you have to define aggression. And to say "no aggression!" is meaningless if you don't also say "or else!". You are not God, reality is not Utopia. You can't command people's freewill. You can only respond to it.

Geezus!

You're equivocating to blue blazes! We won't play linguistic games.
You're rejecting a valid analysis, you're rejecting essential attributes, in other words, you're rejecting reason, so that you may stay wedded to your dogmatic prejudices. Shame...

If you seek justice, law is not the place for it and it never was. It is an instrument of oppression. But since you're not open to reason, here's a suggestion: Anytime you're evaluating any idea, first try and see how it would implement with just you and another person on a desert island. This will give you an inkling into how it will play out in a larger society.

In the case of "Laws" ie. oppressive edicts, it would work out as follows: There's only you and me on this island... and I just decided to implement "laws" which you are obliged to be subservient to... or else! Now, how "just" does that strike you as? I'll be the "lawgiver" and you'll be the "lawtaker." Doesn't sound too good does it? And it doesn't, because it isn't... be it between just us two... or even a few billion people...
_________________
Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, OZschwitz Contraband
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner
"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann

Anarchism is Anti-Freedom, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Life

Anarchism is Anti-Freedom, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Life

Anarcho-Capitalist Intelekchewal Cage-Match

AnCaps: High Octane One on One Debate