Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 5 months ago
    Note to self: Should I see someone you don't know tied-up in a yard and calling for help, do nothing but call 911.
    The tied-up person should really be wanting to see the cops if innocent instead of guilty.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by peterchunt 9 years, 5 months ago
    I am glad that a measly thief didn’t cause him to be late for work. Need more folks like him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by jabuttrick 9 years, 5 months ago
      OK. I like this story as much as everyone else, but I have a serious question. What would happen to this burglar subsequent to his capture in an Objectivist society? Would the homeowner get to exact whatever punishment he wanted? How does the broken window get paid for? Is there a court system used to adjudicate this matter? How are its judgments enforced? Does Mr. Cole get a jury trial if he wants? Who pays for that? Would it have been permissible to simply shoot and kill Mr. Cole (after all, the homeowner was late for work)? Does the wife get some recompense for being half scared to death during the incident? If, as is highly likely, Mr. Cole is penniless, who makes the victims whole? Insurance? Whose? Cole's or the homeowner's? What would those premiums be like? In other words, how would an Objectivist legal system deal with this incident, if at all?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by mckenziecalhoun 9 years, 5 months ago
        Cost should be three times the cost of the crime, police salaries and costs NOT thrown in (to avoid corruption and inflation).
        The government gets 1/3.
        The victims get 2/3.
        The criminal - if they don't have enough to pay, go to jail, and work it off. In jail they have to pay for their room and board. Don't work, don't get paid, don't get room and board, don't go free until done paying it off.
        NO crime in jail gets you more time; it just gets you more unpleasant work and fewer choices (thus avoiding it becoming slavery).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ pixelate 9 years, 5 months ago
        These are all good questions. One of my favorite living economists is Walter Block - he professes anarcho-libertarianism and often addresses these sorts of issues. I recently listened to his speech concerning "Who would build the roads?" in context of how private design and development of infrastructure would be superior to that currently "provided" by government. I will, later today, take a look at his lecture regarding "Who will defend the indefensible?" Based on the title, I suspect it may answer a number of your questions. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6njGqRzM...
        Cheers.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by khalling 9 years, 5 months ago
          If anything is enforceable then it is a government. Objectivism does not recognize an anti-concept like anarcho-capitalism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 5 months ago
            Anarcho-capitalism is not an anti-concept. It is the same social system that Ayn Rand proposed, when she said payments for government services should be voluntary. Once payments are voluntary, and there is no monopoly on services, we will have innovation and find new ways to deal with crime and property rights. Once payments are voluntary, government employees are truly public servants, rather than "rulers." (Anarchy means literally "no rulers," not "no rules.")

            Anarcho-capitalists do recognize private property, based on the fact that you own your self, thus you own the product of your work. Some are in favor of copyright and patent, and some are in favor of copyright alone, even for physical works. There are arguments that patents go too far today, encroaching into the protection of ideas. And, of course, there is huge corruption in the system, as it is government run, funded by forced taxation, and completely unaccountable to the general public. Are you 100% satisfied with the system as it is?

            I disagree that "if anything is enforceable then it is government." Contracts could easily be enforceable by competing private entities as well, if we didn't have the government monopoly.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by khalling 9 years, 5 months ago
              if they can enforce it, they are acting as a government. period. why don't you get this? Competing private "governments" will end up warring. The biggest will win.

              "and some are in favor of copyright alone, even for physical works." how is that logical if you own yourself? We are not talking about our current system. We do not practice capitalism and certainly not freedom. Capitalism REQUIRES enforcement of property rights. Rand on point (insert "anarcho-capialism" for "competing governments"):

              "A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

              Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

              One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there."-Virtue of Selfishness
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 5 months ago
                "Why don't [I] get this?" Would you also like me to be more personally antagonistic, or should we constrain ourselves to addressing facts?

                You say that competing private governments will end up warring, and the biggest will win. I'm sorry, my magic eight ball said to ask again later, so I'm unable to similarly predict the future. ;) On a more serious note, this argument amounts to saying, "We can't try having smaller, competing governments, because we will eventually end up with the big, bullying government we have now."

                The fact that people own themselves does not necessarily dictate that one can hold a patent on an idea. The problem some people have asserted is that the second, innocent inventor who comes up with the idea for an invention independently, can be deprived of his or her work and effort merely because of losing the race to file the patent. Does the second inventor not also own his or her self? I don't have a firm opinion on this issue yet, but I do think there are questions of fairness to be addressed.

                Taking into account the quote you cited, it seems Ayn Rand's opinion is that payment for government is only nominally voluntary... but our only choice would be to pay the one and only properly monopolistic Government, or else go without services. That doesn't make sense to me. I can only assume that she understood voluntary payment would open up the services to competition, as that's the only rational conclusion. Therefore, her two statements appear contradictory to me. Perhaps she changed her mind at some point.

                I'm not sure that I agree with her that a Government monopoly on forcible restraint is preferable to "a competition in forcible restraint." If Rand is correct on this, we should all hand over our guns, right?

                In my mind, the right of using force stems from that same ownership of self I previously mentioned. In other words, government has no rights in and of itself. I have the right to defend myself, and I should be able to delegate that right to whomever I choose. That, of course, is not the case with government; they usurp our rights of self defense with no consent needed.

                Government to me implies rulers; they are the ones who make and enforce the laws, and throughout history this power has been abused. Anarcho-capitalism (and, again, Rand's proposal that government should be voluntarily funded) turn that relationship upside down, so that the people who possess the rights are in control, and the government employees are actually public servants. Yes, our government-controlled schools and media have us convinced that "anarchy" is a scary word, but if you watch some material from people like James Corbett and Larkin Rose, it may make you consider whether it is actually the most moral and practical system available.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 9 years, 5 months ago
        You can set up different procedural scenarios which practically handle these kinds of cases. 1. You do need to pay into a police /judicial system. There are many ways to handle that. But it would be voluntary. If you did not pay, then other contractual arrangements you have may be with held because you did not. For instance, your homeowner's policy may require that you have paid for police/justice system. The US already has procedural rules in place for acts of self defense-I don't see that needing to be much different. But the thief just paying for a broken window is not enough deterrent against future theft, in my opinion. I see insurance making the victim whole in this case. I see all of these arrangements as being performed by private institutions. Other than privatizing much of government function, why do you see there would need to be a huge shift in how these functions are performed?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo