Ayn Rand

[Imran Siddiqui]

5 years in a prison is no picnic. The difference between 5 years and life wouldn't matter that much as far as dettering crime except to extreme exceptions.

Bull****. There is a GREAT difference in peoples' perceptions on doing something that would put them in the slammer for 5 years compared to life. People are much more likely to take a chance on doing something that would only put them in jail for a few number of years if they got caught, instead of something that would them away for life.

I said prisons should exist only to protect society from crime, not to carry out a policy of state-sponsored revenge.

What do you think deterrance is? Does that no protect society from crime? Of course it does.

BTW, the states with the highest incarceration rates (i.e. US and Russia) have the highest murder rates. In states with far lesser sentencing penalties (i.e. Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands), you see far, far lower rates.

Perhaps you are comparing the numbers the wrong way. I see it as the countries with the highest murder rates have the highest incarceration rates, while countries with lower murder rates have far lesser sentencing penalties. The less crime, the less harsh the punishments have to be. The more crime, the greater punishemnts have to be in order to lessen the amount of crime.

And btw, murder rates and crime rates aren't the same things.

[Ramo]

I don´t undrestand this at all. Are you really saying that the differences between poor and rich only arise as a result of government intervention?

No, I wrote that the existence of strong government only arises from wealth disparity.

Consider the case of a stone age Libertarian society consisting of Og and his family, and Grog and his family. Og is a good hunter, so his family has lots of meat and fur, and he is rich. Grog is a bad hunter, so his family is poor, and in danger of starvation.
Og decides to hire Grog as a servant to make his life more comfortable, and Grog agrees, since that´s the only way he can get food. So now Og brings in the hides and meat, and Grog tans and cooks them. Capitalism is then born, since Og owns the means of production and Grog works for him. How has government intervention caused this?

Hunter-gatherer societies are extraordinarily egalitarian and democratic. They certainly qualify as socialist. When agricultre was developed, so did wealth disparity, therefore so did an authoritarian government.

If there is no authority, it gets rather difficult to enforce contracts and mediate disputes peacefully. Both of these functions are essential for the rule of law.

1. I didn't say no authority, although some anarchists advocate no authority. I said minimization of authority.
2. And yes, authority is law is force. They're one and the same

It is generally agreed that the person who paid for something owns it.

But why is that the person he bought it from actually owned it? Most modern societies start from the original sin of aristrocratic or bourgeois seizure of peasant land. English capitalism, for instance, developed with the state-siezure of communal peasant lands.

Or do you subscribe to the Marxist idea that workers automatically own the things they work with? With that logic, your mechanic can lay claim to your car, and has the legal right to take it from you.

1. The Marxist (more generally socialist) idea is that the workers own the means of production. So the mechanic would own the equipment he worked with and the store he worked in, but not the thing he was contracted to work on.
2. Yes, I do subscribe to that to a certain extent in societies where workers cannot legally gain the means of production. But in the US, I advocate working within the statist-capitalist system.

Of course workers are able to buy the means of production, if they can raise the money and muster the collective will. But that doesn´t happen too often.

It does happen, and there are movements for it. The problem is that the state has always crushed these movements. I'm fighting for such a movement in the US and the rest of the West, and there's no reason it cannot succeed.

Now, I´d like to jump in on the prison/punishment discussion. Suppose a man discovers his wife with another man, and kills them both. This man has no other history of violence, and vows that he will never marry again. So he will never have a reason to kill any person again. Are you saying that it is entirely immoral for society to put him in prison or punish him in any way, since he now poses no threat to anyone else?

This extreme degree of jealousy warrants extensive state rehabilitation. There's no reason to take him on the promise that he would never marry again or act on some sort of jealousy with violence (even those not sexually related).

[Ramo]

Bull****. There is a GREAT difference in peoples' perceptions on doing something that would put them in the slammer for 5 years compared to life. People are much more likely to take a chance on doing something that would only put them in jail for a few number of years if they got caught, instead of something that would them away for life.

Why do you say that? I wouldn't want to spend a single night in prison. People committ crime without regard to the possible penalties beyond a certain level.

What do you think deterrance is? Does that no protect society from crime? Of course it does.

I didn't say I oppose deterrence. Just not to the degree that it is generally supported.

Perhaps you are comparing the numbers the wrong way. I see it as the countries with the highest murder rates have the highest incarceration rates, while countries with lower murder rates have far lesser sentencing penalties. The less crime, the less harsh the punishments have to be. The more crime, the greater punishemnts have to be in order to lessen the amount of crime.

But you asserted that draconian sentencing penalties lead to less crime.

And btw, murder rates and crime rates aren't the same things.

Yes, but it makes more sense to exclude, for instance, the rates of locking up drug offenders when measuring how violent a society is.

[Az]

Coercion as punishment is ethically reprehensible

Punishment by the state should not be a revenge. It's reeducation, and the deterrance of others.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Ramo
No, I wrote that the existence of strong government only arises from wealth disparity.

OK, that makes a lot more sense. I still don´t agree with it, though. Strong government can arise whenever anyone has motive and opportunity to control other people. Think of the Lord of the Flies situation, not to mention the hierarchies that seem to be endemic in so many cliques and peer groups even though all people have about the same wealth. Although it is true that wealth disparities encourage the trend.

Hunter-gatherer societies are extraordinarily egalitarian and democratic. They certainly qualify as socialist. When agricultre was developed, so did wealth disparity, therefore so did an authoritarian government.

Ah yes, the noble savage ideal. I disagree; traditional societies can be horribly conservative, and cruel to anyone who is different. Individual freedoms tend to be squashed under the doctrine of conformity. But that´s getting way off topic, so I´ll just agree to disagree on this.

But why is that the person he bought it from actually owned it?

Yes, that´s the tricky issue, and it has been brought up before. But it is hardly fair to take away a factory from someone who paid for it with his own money and time just because the factory is built on land that got siezed from peasants by a government 1000 years ago.

[Ramo]

Punishment by the state should not be a revenge. It's reeducation, and the deterrance of others.

Punishment has no connotation of rehabilitation or deterrence. From dictionary.com, I get as a definition: "A penalty imposed for wrongdoing" The idea behind punishment is that if someone does something bad, the state should do something bad to him. In other words, revenge.

OK, that makes a lot more sense. I still don´t agree with it, though. Strong government can arise whenever anyone has motive and opportunity to control other people. Think of the Lord of the Flies situation, not to mention the hierarchies that seem to be endemic in so many cliques and peer groups even though all people have about the same wealth. Although it is true that wealth disparities encourage the trend.

But any such control is very limited. You have to keep in mind that while temporary authority could theoritically be possible, since the societies exist in an egalitarian context, they remain temporary. I again reference hunter-gatherer groups such as the !Kung or the Inuit, which have existed for far longer than civilization has, but have yet to develop a real government.

Ah yes, the noble savage ideal. I disagree; traditional societies can be horribly conservative, and cruel to anyone who is different. Individual freedoms tend to be squashed under the doctrine of conformity. But that´s getting way off topic, so I´ll just agree to disagree on this.

1. Most "traditional societes" aren't hunter-gatherers.
2. This is not the Noble Savage ideal. What you are thinking of is the idea that hunter-gatherers had a leisurely lifestyle devoid of hardship. That is certainly false. But that doesn't mean they develop strong governments.
3. Most anthropological evidence I've seen indicates otherwise. Look at the !Kung, for instance.

Yes, that´s the tricky issue, and it has been brought up before. But it is hardly fair to take away a factory from someone who paid for it with his own money and time just because the factory is built on land that got siezed from peasants by a government 1000 years ago.

1. The England example I brought up (enclosure of communal lands) was occuring only a century and a half ago, not 1000 years ago.
2. What is or what is not fair is a matter of perspective. If we took your advice, the world would still belong to the Habsburgs, Windsors, Hohenzollerns, and Bourbons while everyone lives in their servitude. That doesn't strike me as fair.
3. We're not talking about things that have exclusively happened 1000 years ago or even 150 years ago. Things like this are happening to this day - state coercion of the poor to benefit the rich. In the US, we have coroporate welfare, protectionism, intellectual property, immigration barriers, state bullying of radicals, regressive taxes, the war on drugs, prisons, etc. And the situation is many orders of magnitude worse in most of the world. In nearly every case, state power has existed as tool to disenfranchise the poor in favor of powerful elites.

[Richard Bruns]

Ok, I concede the point about primitive societies not developing strong government. But a bit of government coercion is IMO a small price to pay for indoor plumbing and computers, not to mention a steady supply of food.

Originally posted by Ramo
1. The England example I brought up (enclosure of communal lands) was occuring only a century and a half ago, not 1000 years ago.

The enclosure movement was associated with vast increases in farming productivity. But I´d rather not get into that argument.

2. What is or what is not fair is a matter of perspective. If we took your advice, the world would still belong to the Habsburgs, Windsors, Hohenzollerns, and Bourbons while everyone lives in their servitude. That doesn't strike me as fair.

"The world" would not belong to these people. Parts of Europe might, but that is what emigration is for. Property rights, no matter how strictly enforced, don´t give you the right to keep anyone else on your land.

And I am all in favor of people taking over government property. Since by rights the people control the government, they have a right to control anything that is owned in the name of that government. Private property rights should still be protected, but if someone declares himself to be the government, then his private property can now be considered government property.

3. ... In the US, we have coroporate welfare, protectionism,

and I agree that these should be destroyed ASAP

intellectual property,

Intellectual property is absolutely essential to the development and advancement of mankind. If you take away the ability of inventors to gain from their inventions, nothing will get invented. People should own their own ideas and be rewarded for them. Enforcing a good patent system is one of the most important jobs of government.

immigration barriers,

I agree that these should all be ditched. My grandmother barely got out of Cuba before Castro took over.

state bullying of radicals,

That´s a highly subjective assertion.

regressive taxes,

Our tax structure is quite progressive. Rich people provide the vast majority of government income tax revenue.

the war on drugs, prisons, etc.

The war on drugs is indeed the height of folly. But some system of deterrrence is needed to prevent crime. The threat of revenge tends to be a good deterrent.

And the situation is many orders of magnitude worse in most of the world. In nearly every case, state power has existed as tool to disenfranchise the poor in favor of powerful elites.

Here we have a chicken-or-egg argument. Differences in wealth will of course give the wealthy more power, which they can use to increase those wealth differences. The only way to prevent this is to have some system of rule of law that ensures that all people are treated equally. Governments can be a good way to do this. Anarchy usually leads to despotism, since there is no way to enforce rule of law and powerful people can easily gain more power. It is no coincidence that revolutions that destroy existing institutions almost always lead to despots like Napoleon or Stalin.

[Ramo]

But a bit of government coercion is IMO a small price to pay for indoor plumbing and computers, not to mention a steady supply of food.

1. I accept the existence of government coercion. But only in those cases where such coercion increases net freedom. Again, I advocate the minimization of authority.
2. Just because one form of anarchist society is technologically limited, doesn't make all anarchist societies technologically limited. There have been a number of modern anarchist societies, such as Catalonia and other parts of Spain during the Spanish Civil War (which made great advances in promoting technology, etc.).

"The world" would not belong to these people.

The world belonged to people like them. Include the Romanovs, the Ottomans, etc. if you want.

Parts of Europe might, but that is what emigration is for.

More than Europe. The Windsors owned India, the Bourbons owned most of Latin America, etc.

And I am all in favor of people taking over government property. Since by rights the people control the government, they have a right to control anything that is owned in the name of that government. Private property rights should still be protected, but if someone declares himself to be the government, then his private property can now be considered government property.

That doesn't make any sense. Why should private property be enforced for only people who don't consider themselves the government? Should we confiscate Shrub's private property?

And what about the nobility? They owned plenty of land. Or institutions like the East India Company? Should they still own "their" land?

and I agree that these should be destroyed ASAP

That's nice. But what you want isn't relevant.

Intellectual property is absolutely essential to the development and advancement of mankind. If you take away the ability of inventors to gain from their inventions, nothing will get invented. People should own their own ideas and be rewarded for them. Enforcing a good patent system is one of the most important jobs of government.

I agree that intellectual property should exist. But only in a limited context. It's the height of absurdity and injustice when third-world farmers have to pay Western corporations for the intellectual property rights over seeds they've been using for generations. Intellectual property does more harm than good as is, IMO.

That´s a highly subjective assertion.

No it isn't. State force has been applied to radicals unfairly through the police and other security forces and most of all through the INS.

But some system of deterrrence is needed to prevent crime. The threat of revenge tends to be a good deterrent.

A very minimal deterrence is needed. Again, I criticize prisons not in their ideal, but in practice. They are horrible institutions in the US. It's the worst thing about the country IMO. It always has been.

The only way to prevent this is to have some system of rule of law that ensures that all people are treated equally. Governments can be a good way to do this.

1. My point was that government in general has certainly not done this.
2. Again, I accept the existence of government, and minimal authority given to it.

Anarchy usually leads to despotism, since there is no way to enforce rule of law and powerful people can easily gain more power. It is no coincidence that revolutions that destroy existing institutions almost always lead to despots like Napoleon or Stalin.

Anarchy has never lead to despotism (at least, not directly). Again, you misunderstand the term. Revolution isn't the same thing as anarchy. Chaos isn't the same thing as anarchy. Anarchism is the minimization of authority. Modern anarchist societies have been crushed by overwhelming external force, never by internal collapse.

And the danger of people like Stalin and other authoritarians is the main reason why I don't support violent revolution in the West. Force unfortunately tends to propagate force. It should be avoided where it can be avoided.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Ramo
2. Just because one form of anarchist society is technologically limited, doesn't make all anarchist societies technologically limited.

I never said they were. But I do think that technological growth and prosperity are worth a few sacrifices. I´d rather err on the side of property rights, even if it means an unequal distribution of wealth and power. Moderation, as usual, is the key. If there is too little property rights, you get the tragedy of the commons and no incentive to improve anything. And if property is too concentrated, you get stagnation and repression.

That doesn't make any sense. Why should private property be enforced for only people who don't consider themselves the government? Should we confiscate Shrub's private property?

My position makes more sense than the arbitrary siezure of the property of anyone that can be considered an oppressor. What I am saying is that, after a democratic revolution such as the American colonists´, it is perfectly appropriate to sieze the land that used to belong to the King, because he was the government. But it isn´t right to take land that the king gave to a private individual 100 years ago. Nobility is a bit trickier; it would depend on how closely they were tied to the operation of the overthrown government. It would not be fair to take company property, unless they were an integral part of teh former government.

In a representative government, the leader is not the government. He is a temporary agent of the government.

That's nice. But what you want isn't relevant.

Nothing that we say in this discussion or indeed anywhere on these boards will ever be "relevant." I was simply stating my position for clarity.

I agree that intellectual property should exist. But only in a limited context. It's the height of absurdity and injustice when third-world farmers have to pay Western corporations for the intellectual property rights over seeds they've been using for generations. Intellectual property does more harm than good as is, IMO.

Can you give a concrete example of this? As far as I know, the only seeds that get intellectual property protection are the ones that have been through expensive breeding or genetic engineering programs. Nobody stops them from using the traditional varieties; only the new improved things are protected. Besides, you can´t realistically force anybody to pay for seeds unless you put in terminator technology or make some kind of obvious genetic marker that proves it was engineered. In that case, it is obvious that a lot of money and effort went into the new seed.

No it isn't. State force has been applied to radicals unfairly through the police and other security forces and most of all through the INS.

Are you referring to incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge? And I agree that the INS stinks.

A very minimal deterrence is needed. Again, I criticize prisons not in their ideal, but in practice.

You seem to have stated that any kind of state sponsored revenge is improper. I guess I read that wrong.

They are horrible institutions in the US. It's the worst thing about the country IMO. It always has been.

No argument there

1. My point was that government in general has certainly not done this.

True, but most western government, including the USA, has. Things could be better, but they could also be a lot worse. Comparatively, the USA has a great government, which means that I will support the status quo, modified by small changes, because I fear what would happen if the whole thing fell to bits. No matter how good your motives are, breaking up something that works fairly well is a bad idea IMO. And I´m not just talking violent revolution. Rewriting the constitution and our entire system, even if done peacefully, makes me uneasy.

Modern anarchist societies

I find it odd that you insist on using that term in the plural. There has only been one society that fits your description of the anarchist ideal, and it lasted less than two years. I´ve read "Homage to Catalonia" too, and I noticed a lot of descriptions of coercion and waste and inefficiency, like the fact that bread was appropriated for the soldiers, who wasted it while the civilians never had enough to eat.

Although the current developments in Argentina are very interesting. Common people are uniting to save the country after the collapse of existing government and economic systems.

And the danger of people like Stalin and other authoritarians is the main reason why I don't support violent revolution in the West. Force unfortunately tends to propagate force. It should be avoided where it can be avoided.

Good, you seem to be a lot more reasonable than most anarchists. Given the connotations of the word Anarchy, you may want to call yourself Libertarian.

[Ramo]

I never said they were. But I do think that technological growth and prosperity are worth a few sacrifices. I´d rather err on the side of property rights, even if it means an unequal distribution of wealth and power. Moderation, as usual, is the key. If there is too little property rights, you get the tragedy of the commons and no incentive to improve anything. And if property is too concentrated, you get stagnation and repression.

I never said there should be no property rights, just that there should be property rights that actually make sense.

My position makes more sense than the arbitrary siezure of the property of anyone that can be considered an oppressor.

I never said that. I said that property rights (like anything else) can be justified when they increase liberty.

And no, your position doesn't make more sense than that. Mine is consistent, yours is not.

What I am saying is that, after a democratic revolution such as the American colonists´, it is perfectly appropriate to sieze the land that used to belong to the King, because he was the government. But it isn´t right to take land that the king gave to a private individual 100 years ago.

Why? That's just enforcing legitimate property claims. When the King seized the land, he siezed it from someone else, and presumably down the line, someone who didn't call himself part of a "government." So it would belong to that person, not the person the king gave the land to. And if the king gave the land to that person, doesn't that mean he's part of the government too?

Nobility is a bit trickier; it would depend on how closely they were tied to the operation of the overthrown government.

The President is pretty damn closely tied to the operation of the government of the US.

In a representative government, the leader is not the government. He is a temporary agent of the government

1. No King ever had absolute power. So no King was the entire government. At best, you can say most Kings were significant parts of the government.
2. So then what's the difference between agent of the government and part of the government? More to the point, what's the difference between a significant agent of the government (a King) and a significant part of the government (a President)?
3. Regarding permanence, no King was ever permanent ruler. They all died at some point. Some were overthrown by the nobility or the peasantry (just as Presidents in an electoral democracy have been overthrown by the legislature/courts or the electorate). Some stepped down. Some died from internal coups. Some from external coups. Some from natural death. And we even have parts (or agents?) of the goverment that are appointed for life. Such as judges. Can I seize Clarence Thomas' property?

And can I seize the white house for my personal use?

It would not be fair to take company property, unless they were an integral part of teh former government.

Most powerful coroporations have been integral parts of the government. In general.

Nothing that we say in this discussion or indeed anywhere on these boards will ever be "relevant." I was simply stating my position for clarity.

But you missed my point. State-sponsored "theft" (by your standards) of the poor has existed to this day. In the US, the government is relatively benign. In other countries, it isn't. Why the hell do you think you have anything to say on whether or not they sieze the property of the rich who have built their fortunes and family fortunes on the exploitation of the poor, through coercive force, often with state-sponsorship.

Can you give a concrete example of this? As far as I know, the only seeds that get intellectual property protection are the ones that have been through expensive breeding or genetic engineering programs.

No, only seeds that have been through expensive breeding programs from the developed world. From the developing world, the centuries of breeding (much more expensive IMO) don't get any intellectual property protection

Nobody stops them from using the traditional varieties; only the new improved things are protected. Besides, you can´t realistically force anybody to pay for seeds unless you put in terminator technology or make some kind of obvious genetic marker that proves it was engineered.

Through biotech subsidies, the American, etc. businesses that sell these seeds (based on the work of indigenous cultures) are able to corner the market and enforce a permanent dependence.

Are you referring to incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge? And I agree that the INS stinks.

No, I'm primarily referring to the deportation of people who the state deems less than politically expedient.

True, but most western government, including the USA, has. Things could be better, but they could also be a lot worse. Comparatively, the USA has a great government, which means that I will support the status quo, modified by small changes, because I fear what would happen if the whole thing fell to bits. No matter how good your motives are, breaking up something that works fairly well is a bad idea IMO. And I´m not just talking violent revolution. Rewriting the constitution and our entire system, even if done peacefully, makes me uneasy.

Seeing as how you probably don't know much about what changes I'd like to see in the Constitution, why do you think I would call the whole thing to fall to bits? And why do you think my preferable changes would be bad?

FYI, I wouldn't scrap the entire thing; I have no idea where you got the idea. There are certainly things I'd like to change, for instance taking away Congress' authority to raise tariffs and reducing federal and state authority to a large degree (relative to local authority), and changing a whole bunch of court decisions on the nature of the Constitution, but this isn't exactly tantamount to causing it to fall to biits.

I find it odd that you insist on using that term in the plural. There has only been one society that fits your description of the anarchist ideal

That's not true. Look at the Zapatistas during the Mexican revolution or the Makhnovists of the Ukraine after the Russian revolution. Depending upon what you mean by modern, there have been a number of societies, such as early rural Northern US or mid-Midieval Iceland which fit the bill, but don't have the ideology. Further, you have many more modern movements towards anarchism. For instance, the Basques have something pretty significant going on.

I noticed a lot of descriptions of coercion and waste and inefficiency, like the fact that bread was appropriated for the soldiers, who wasted it while the civilians never had enough to eat.

That's true. Like I said, coercion (war) tends to breed more coercion. Which is one reason why I want to minimize it.

Although the current developments in Argentina are very interesting. Common people are uniting to save the country after the collapse of existing government and economic systems.

Yep, hopefully the coup will eventually collapse.

Good, you seem to be a lot more reasonable than most anarchists. Given the connotations of the word Anarchy, you may want to call yourself Libertarian

Most anarchists I know are unusually reasonable.

And no, I'm most certainly not libertarian (as its generally meant in the US). I'm an anarchist. I'm certainly no capitalist. It's unfortunate that some people have a ludicrous idea of anarchy involving bomb-throwing terrorists and a semi-feudal society with lots of corporations and thugs and the works, but I'm not going to trade a couple centuries of intellectual tradition and social movements for a more convenient name that hasn't been the victim of so much slander. And I certainly don't want people confusing Bakunin or Kropotkin or Goldman with the likes of Rand.

[Richard Bruns]

You are right about the government-based property siezure thing. It gets too hard to tell what is government property and what is the private property of government agents.

Originally posted by Ramo
Why the hell do you think you have anything to say on whether or not they sieze the property of the rich who have built their fortunes and family fortunes on the exploitation of the poor, through coercive force, often with state-sponsorship.

Once you start siezing private property, where do you stop? How do you determine which wealth was gained properly and which wealth was gained by exploitation? Where do you draw the line?

Besides, isn't there something in the UN charter about not holding people responsible for the crimes of their ancestors?

No, only seeds that have been through expensive breeding programs from the developed world. From the developing world, the centuries of breeding (much more expensive IMO) don't get any intellectual property protection

Patents have a limited time span. After a certain amount of time, it passes into the public domain, and anyone has the right to use the innovation. Or are you suggesting that intellectual property rights should last centuries and be passed down through generations?

Through biotech subsidies, the American, etc. businesses that sell these seeds (based on the work of indigenous cultures) are able to corner the market and enforce a permanent dependence.

Yes, subsidies are very bad. As you indicated, they are the cause of the mess, not intellectual property rights.

If the seeds that the companies sell were the same as traditional varieties, nobody would ever buy them, since they would just keep using the seeds from their last harvest. They can't force anybody to buy their seeds. How can you possibly corner the market when the competition is freely available?

The only time people will buy biotech seeds is if they are clearly superior to traditional varieties. And if the company invests a lot of money making seeds that are better, they should be rewarded for their efforts.

No, I'm primarily referring to the deportation of people who the state deems less than politically expedient.

Examples?

There are certainly things I'd like to change, for instance taking away Congress' authority to raise tariffs and reducing federal and state authority to a large degree (relative to local authority), and changing a whole bunch of court decisions on the nature of the Constitution, but this isn't exactly tantamount to causing it to fall to biits.

You just imposed your will on and overturned the work of the legislative, judicial, and possibly the exectutive branch. Even though I happen to agree with all your changes, I still don't like one person being able to do all that.

That's not true. Look at the Zapatistas during the Mexican revolution or the Makhnovists of the Ukraine after the Russian revolution.

I thought those were Communists. My mistake; I will have to look them up and do some reaserch.

And no, I'm most certainly not libertarian (as its generally meant in the US). I'm an anarchist. I'm certainly no capitalist.

Do you believe that the government should have the authority to order inspection of meat and produce, and order any contaminated food destroyed?

Do you believe that the government should be able to coerce companies into adding safety features like air bags?

Do you believe that the government should be able to force people, under threat of fine, to wear seat belts and bike helmets?

Assuming that a company developed a monopoly without trampling anybody's rights in the process, should the government have a right to break up the company?

Do you believe that the government has the right to coerce tobacco companies into putting labels on their products?

If you say no, you think like a Libertarian. If you say yes, how do you justify this coercion? It doesn't increase anybody's freedom.

P.S. This is quite a threadjack, isn't it? That last post was the first in who knows how long that actually mentioned Rand; we are having a lively discussion even though we share identical views on the main thread topic.

[Ramo]

Once you start siezing private property, where do you stop? How do you determine which wealth was gained properly and which wealth was gained by exploitation? Where do you draw the line?

That's the whole point. I don't. My philosophy doesn't have to deal with that baggage. It is a problem for the conception of capitalist property rights, though. I find it amusing that the ultra-liberals who want things like slavery reperations are just enforcing legitimate capitalist property rights, while the ultra-capitalists are so vehemently opposed to it.

Besides, isn't there something in the UN charter about not holding people responsible for the crimes of their ancestors?

Let's say you own billions of dollars. Then I kill you. Then I take the billions of dollars you own. Your kids are left with absolutely nothing and they stay poor, live in a ghetto, etc., etc. I buy the government off so they let me keep all that money. Now, when I die, do my kids have moral rights to those billions of dollars?

Why should property claims last only a generation? If that's true, and you turn back the clock a bit, we're back to the Windsors owning a quarter of the world. And why do you draw the line at a generation? Why not half a generation? Why not two generations?

Patents have a limited time span. After a certain amount of time, it passes into the public domain, and anyone has the right to use the innovation. Or are you suggesting that intellectual property rights should last centuries and be passed down through generations?

Intellectual property can last over a century and has passed through generations. The current standard is the lifetime of the creator plus 50 years, IIRC. And it can be renewed past the original length of protection if Congress decides so (Disney's IP's have recently been extended).

If I had my way, I would maximize patent lengths at something like 10 years.

Yes, subsidies are very bad. As you indicated, they are the cause of the mess, not intellectual property rights.

Subsidies are only part of the protectionistic agenda. Intellectual property is a productive system of authority only after a society is industrialized enough. Before that, you don't have very advanced industry, so your markets become dumping grounds of the economies of the industrialized states. Intellectual property prevents the nascent industry from achieving parity with the rest of the world. If it walks like protectionism, if it talks like protectionism...

The only time people will buy biotech seeds is if they are clearly superior to traditional varieties. And if the company invests a lot of money making seeds that are better, they should be rewarded for their efforts.

The point is that intellectual property isn't an economically useful concept in these cases. Even in the West, it's far stronger than it ought to be. We have no right in pushing it on other countries. Whether or not they should be "rewarded" for their efforts is dependent only upon the value to society such state-enforced monopolies add.

Examples?

For instance, the feds' persecution of the "LA 8."

I can't think of any other prominent cases other than that.

You just imposed your will on and overturned the work of the legislative, judicial, and possibly the exectutive branch. Even though I happen to agree with all your changes, I still don't like one person being able to do all that.

I did? I thought I just posted my opinion in an internet forum. Would you mind showing me how that works 'cuz that's a pretty nifty trick.

Do you believe that the government should have the authority to order inspection of meat and produce, and order any contaminated food destroyed?

Yes, and in certain extreme circumstances, yes. I think the FDA should become a principally advisory agency in the vast majority of cases except when there's a real danger to the public (beyond the obvious stuff like small pox going around, there should be regulation of anti-biotics so diseases don't suddenly become uber-resiliant), but I do think that it should have the authority to inspect basically anything it wants. Furthermore, I believe that every food/drug business should be required to have a visible FDA approved or FDA unapproved guarantee (and they should get in deep **** if they lie about it) when selling their merchandise.

Do you believe that the government should be able to coerce companies into adding safety features like air bags?

I don't know much about airbags, the level of the car industry's oposition to them, or exactly how much safter people are with them, but probably no.

Do you believe that the government should be able to force people, under threat of fine, to wear seat belts and bike helmets?

No.

Assuming that a company developed a monopoly without trampling anybody's rights in the process, should the government have a right to break up the company?

What do you mean by "rights?" A Randist conception of rights? And it depends entirely upon the circumstances of the situation.

Do you believe that the government has the right to coerce tobacco companies into putting labels on their products?

I don't think it matters either way nowadays, so probably no, but 30 years ago, yes.

If you say no, you think like a Libertarian. If you say yes, how do you justify this coercion? It doesn't increase anybody's freedom.

You're saying that breaking up a monopoly doesn't increase anyone's freedom? That seems pretty damn silly to me. Or if some food is infected with fleas with the bubonic plague or something along those lines, it doesn't increase anyone's freedom if that food is prohibited? Freedom is nothing more and nothing less than the lack of constraint. If a third of the country dies from the bubonic plague, there'd be a hell of an increase in constraint.

But you could consider me a libertarian socialist if you'd like (libertarian alone has the implication of libertarian-capitalism over here; interestingly enough, in most of the world, libertarian is a synonym to anarchist). That's how I generally introduce people to my philosophical ideas.

[quote]P.S. This is quite a threadjack, isn't it? That last post was the first in who knows how long that actually mentioned Rand; we are having a lively discussion even though we share identical views on the main thread topic.[/qutoe]

Yep, gotta love Apolyton.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why should property claims last only a generation? If that's true, and you turn back the clock a bit, we're back to the Windsors owning a quarter of the world. And why do you draw the line at a generation? Why not half a generation? Why not two generations?

So how much do we owe the Native Americans for their land? And if they won´t accept payment, do they have the right to tell us all to go back to Europe? Since we are on their land without permission, does any Native American have the right to shoot any person of European descent as a trespasser?

If I had my way, I would maximize patent lengths at something like 10 years.

So you agree that third world farmers should not have intellectual propety rights for the work of traditional breeding.

Intellectual property is a productive system of authority only after a society is industrialized enough.

The point is that intellectual property isn't an economically useful concept in these cases. Even in the West, it's far stronger than it ought to be. We have no right in pushing it on other countries. Whether or not they should be "rewarded" for their efforts is dependent only upon the value to society such state-enforced monopolies add.

I understand why you think it is unfair to enforce developed-world patents in developing countries, even if I disagree. But do you realy believe that people in the developing world should have no intellectual property rights to what they produce? The emerging film indistries in Africa and Asia, for example, are crippled by rampant piracy. The lack of intellectual property protection is preventing these countries from developing a home-grown alternative to the Western cultural imperialism of Hollywood.

Before that, you don't have very advanced industry, so your markets become dumping grounds of the economies of the industrialized states. Intellectual property prevents the nascent industry from achieving parity with the rest of the world.

Each country should do what it naturally has a comparitive advantage in. That way everyone gets richer. Any state intervention, from subsidies to protectionism, artificially distorts economic realities and causes inefficient activity.

Ideally, there should be no such intervention. However, state subsidies and protectionism can be justified as a response to the unfair state meddling of another country. If we didn´t subsidize our indistries, they would have no need or right to protect theirs. But we do, so they can also.

You are absolutely correct about the hypocricy of western governments protecting their own industries while not allowing other countries to do the same. I would prefer to solve the problem by eliminating our support, while you seem to want to allow them to add their own government meddling in an attempt to make two wrongs add up to a right. (Which, in this case, is a perfectly valid strategy, even if it is suboptimal in my opinion)

You're saying that breaking up a monopoly doesn't increase anyone's freedom? That seems pretty damn silly to me.

If the monopoly arose through making a superior product, without any foul play, they are not harming anybody´s freedoms. If their product starts to deteriorate, then competitors can enter again. Monopolies should be watched closely to make sure they don´t start abusing their powers, but their simple existence hurts nobody.

Freedom is nothing more and nothing less than the lack of constraint.

I´m not sure exactly what you mean by this use of the word "constraint". Do you think that the government has the right to draft people into the army if national survival is threatened, since preventing an invasion decreases the "constraint" on the general population?

I personally believe that the FDA should be given a whole lot more power than it has now, and that they should be able to wield that power freely. For example, judges often block FDA attempts to shut down unsafe food plants. I also support seat belt laws, saving thousands of lives a year is a small price to pay for losing the freedom to cruise around without a seat belt.

Basically, my view is that government should aim for the greatest good for the greatest number, and that freedom is only one of those goods, and it must be balanced with others, such as health and technological progress.

interestingly enough, in most of the world, libertarian is a synonym to anarchist)

which is what I was trying to prove. And yes, "libertarian socialist" has a very different connotation than "anarchist". Although "minarchist" is a very nice term, both acurate and free of nagative connotations.

I find it odd that you support liberty yet oppose the economic system that is a natural result of that liberty. You seem to have come to the conclusion that capitalism only means big monopolies who support corrupt politicians. In fact, capitalism is a system where people have the right to trade with each other nad seek profit with a minimum of government interference. I suppose it is in the same way that I associate anarchy with bombs, even though that isn´t accurate. (Although, frankly, bombing stock exchanges is the only meaningful thing that anarchists have ever done in the history of the USA.)

In a libertarian society, people would be able to choose between capitalism or socialism. Frankly, most of them would choose capitalism. Libertarian socialism, while a nice ideal, simply has almost no chance of happening spontaneously, given the current state of human nature. Maybe it is something we can evolve into in a few hundred years, but in the meantime democracy and capitalism are the best way of providing for the needs of people.

[Ramo]

So how much do we owe the Native Americans for their land? And if they won´t accept payment, do they have the right to tell us all to go back to Europe? Since we are on their land without permission, does any Native American have the right to shoot any person of European descent as a trespasser?

You're missing my entire point. I don't have to answer these questions. You and other capitalists do. In capitalists terms, Amerindians have rights to most of the land in country. Most blacks have rights to reperations for slavery. In socialist terms, this is not necessarily the case.

So you agree that third world farmers should not have intellectual propety rights for the work of traditional breeding.

Depends on the country, but in much of the third world, I don't believe intellectual property protections on seeds should exist.

But do you realy believe that people in the developing world should have no intellectual property rights to what they produce? The emerging film indistries in Africa and Asia, for example, are crippled by rampant piracy. The lack of intellectual property protection is preventing these countries from developing a home-grown alternative to the Western cultural imperialism of Hollywood.

There's no clear cut line between "developing" and "developed" countries. States like China or India for instance are straddling on the border, and they actually have use for IP protections in many cases, for instance with regards to software. States like Haiti don't.

Each country should do what it naturally has a comparitive advantage in. That way everyone gets richer. Any state intervention, from subsidies to protectionism, artificially distorts economic realities and causes inefficient activity.
Ideally, there should be no such intervention. However, state subsidies and protectionism can be justified as a response to the unfair state meddling of another country. If we didn´t subsidize our indistries, they would have no need or right to protect theirs. But we do, so they can also.
You are absolutely correct about the hypocricy of western governments protecting their own industries while not allowing other countries to do the same. I would prefer to solve the problem by eliminating our support, while you seem to want to allow them to add their own government meddling in an attempt to make two wrongs add up to a right. (Which, in this case, is a perfectly valid strategy, even if it is suboptimal in my opinion)

But, again, I'm not referring subsidies. I'm referring to IP. IP, in many cases, is Western protection on developing states.

And IP is certainly not a free market concept. Rhetoric about comparative advantage is irrelevent.

I do agree that third-world protectionism is one of the primary problems in the third world, though. Given distribution costs, these states ought to be markets for each other in the relevant industries (for instance, agriculture). Instead, they're ****ing each other over. Very unfortunate...

I´m not sure exactly what you mean by this use of the word "constraint". Do you think that the government has the right to draft people into the army if national survival is threatened, since preventing an invasion decreases the "constraint" on the general population?

I can't imagine a case where an extreme measure like conscription would reduce net coercion, but no, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Just like there's nothing intrinsically wrong with any idea.

And survival of a state usually isn't necessarily a decrease in coercion. As often as not, it's an increase. Also, keep in mind that the draft is a huge constraint as it basically combines two of the most authoritarian constructs humanity has ever come up with - slavery and war.

I personally believe that the FDA should be given a whole lot more power than it has now, and that they should be able to wield that power freely. For example, judges often block FDA attempts to shut down unsafe food plants. I also support seat belt laws, saving thousands of lives a year is a small price to pay for losing the freedom to cruise around without a seat belt.

I don't know much about the seat belt issue, but if fines are actually getting people to wear seat belts to a large degree, they are justifiable.

As for unsafe food plants, I'd prefer that they are dealt with heavy social sanction illuminated by the state, instead of coercion. Unless the situation is more extreme and there's a serious threat to the public.

Basically, my view is that government should aim for the greatest good for the greatest number, and that freedom is only one of those goods, and it must be balanced with others, such as health and technological progress.

I believe health and generally technology of society increase its freedom. Getting cancer or having to gather berries for food are serious constraints. This is why I can justify institutions like prisons.

which is what I was trying to prove. And yes, "libertarian socialist" has a very different connotation than "anarchist". Although "minarchist" is a very nice term, both acurate and free of nagative connotations.

Minarchist has capitalist connotations IMO. At least, that's what I'd have thought before I learned about socialist variants of libertarianism - anarchism.

I find it odd that you support liberty yet oppose the economic system that is a natural result of that liberty.

They are not. Corporations are incredibly authoritarian organizations. They are strictly hierarchial with minimal influcence by the workers. They are aurthority incarnate.

You seem to have come to the conclusion that capitalism only means big monopolies who support corrupt politicians.

Why do you say that? I realize there are relatively benign forms of capitalism in the world today, but I still find the idea of capitalism intinsically immoral, as control is taken away from workers and handed to capitalists and stockholders and the state. I simply don't find that morally right.

I suppose it is in the same way that I associate anarchy with bombs, even though that isn´t accurate.

The accusation is pretty amusing, actually. Because we knocked off a handful of kings, dictators, and capitalists who murder strikers and so forth, we are considered bomb-throwing terrorists.

Although, frankly, bombing stock exchanges is the only meaningful thing that anarchists have ever done in the history of the USA.

You must be either incredibly ignorant about the political history of the US or kidding. Things like free speech or the right to strike or the 8 hour workday aren't meaningful? Because those are precisely the kinds of things that anarchists have helped win for us in this country. You can thank people like Emma Goldman for organizations like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood.

I don't recall anything about stock exchanges being bombed, though.

n a libertarian society, people would be able to choose between capitalism or socialism. Frankly, most of them would choose capitalism. Libertarian socialism, while a nice ideal, simply has almost no chance of happening spontaneously, given the current state of human nature. Maybe it is something we can evolve into in a few hundred years, but in the meantime democracy and capitalism are the best way of providing for the needs of people.

I'm not saying it will happen spontaneously. It's a movement that needs to be supported by the people, otherwise it won't happen. But it can be fought for in our statist-capitalist society. And I think it should be.

And a "few hundred" years is pretty silly. A lot can change pretty rapidly.

[Ted Striker]

Man, how you guys have the stamina for these long posts?

Are you taking ephedra?!?