How could humans arrive at objective laws?

This thread has been hijacked. I did not see the relevance in Phil Osborn's Post #16 had anything to do with Ed Thompson's original question.

So, I started a thread for this in General.

see --
FLDS: Free Will versus Cultural Context

Post 21

Saturday, April 19, 2008 - 3:37pm

If I'm not mistaken (and I'm usually not mistaken), then humans could arrive at the objective rule of law through the use of 2 rules and 3 truths. The 3 truths are the individual rights of:

Liberty
Property
Pursuit of Eudaimonia

The 2 rules are the co-application of (1) Aristotelian 'rational choice theory' of superiority (see liberty/security example below) and (2) Pareto Optimality -- applied to the rule of law. Taking the 2nd rule first, no law could make anyone worse off (in the objective sense of what's good for you). The first rule of law-making, Aristotle's rule, goes like this:

[A] is more choiceworthy than [B] if [A] is choiceworthy without any [B], but [B] is not choiceworthy without any [A].

Using the following key:

A = Security
B = Liberty

... we can run the equation ...

[Security] is more choiceworthy than [Liberty] if [Security] is choiceworthy without any [Liberty], but [Liberty] is not choiceworthy without any [Security].

But this is clearly not the case. Running the equation again -- this time with the 2 factors juxtaposed ...

[Liberty] is more choiceworthy than [Security] if [Liberty] is choiceworthy without any [Security], but [Security] is not choiceworthy without any [Liberty].

... we can see that we've arrived at the objective truth of the matter -- i.e., that Liberty is more objectively important to humans than is Security. We can then use this objective truth in order to guide our legislative body (e.g., laws which decrease Liberty in order to legislate-by-fiat for more Security are objectively unjust).

That's my quick & dirty method for humans to arrive at the objective rule of law. Critics, I hope that you really 'let-me-have-it' on this one.

Really.

Ed

Post 22

Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 9:57pm

Ed, no doubt you put a lot of thought into this and perhaps you could share some of that process with us because I have a few questions.

For [A] and [B] let us substitute
A= Apples and B=Oranges
A= Voting and B= Paying taxes
A= Living and B= Dying
A= Getting an Education and B= Getting a Job

You can see that Apples without Oranges is no better or worse that Oranges without Apples, so that is a null case. It does not matter which is chosen.

Would you prefer to live in a society with voting and no taxes, or one with taxes but no voting. The first case sounds preferable, but voting without restrictions might allow infringements, like voting to replace trial by jury with trial by lottery or trial by ordeal... but hey! no taxes! On the other hand, taxes might be preferable to a democracy bridled only by your Two Rules and Three Truths.

Life is the standard of morality. If you have life without death, you have an amoral being, in fact, being for whom even rationality is not required. If you have death without life, that would mean dying before you were born, which is nothingness, no loss. Moreover, people sometimes choose death over life, voluntarily, it seems. So, there, too, your Rules and Truths are not contravened, but the equation you propose does not hold.

Suppose that because gold was discovered under the seat of government, everyone could get some largess. (Athens had a silver mine; citizens got paid.) The legislature considers giving everyone the means to an education or creating a works project. Is it better to have an education without a job, or to have a job without an education. In my macro economics class, the book had a picture of some star basketball player who quit college to play pro ball for a zillion dollars. It had to do with the production possibility curve, I think. Anyway, I argued (unsuccessfully) that without a college education, he might end up middle aged and broke. None of the kids in my class agreed. They thought that a bazillion dollars would never disappear in financial mismanagement and the player would never get caught in a scandal and lose that lucrative contract. You see my point. Which is better: Job or Education? How do you decide?

That is the question. I do not see how to apply your Rules and Truths. (I think that my case is valid: the legislature must decide between Education and Jobs and does not need to tax to provide them.)

In terms of security and liberty, if you have maximum liberty with zero security, you have natural anarchy. Are you proposing that anarchy is a good thing? Myself, I choose to live here in the USA where we have some security and some liberty, as opposed to living in Somalia or Darfur where there is zero security and zero liberty. As an "anarchy" (so-called) Somalia is not preferable to the USA, though you argue that liberty absent security is preferable to security absent liberty. Though a declared market anarchist myself, I think that context counts for a lot here. Context is everything. We should not treat "liberty" or "security" as absolutes, but as objective values.

As for the Rules and Truths, they seem straightforward enough at first blush, but the more I thought about them, the more questions I had.

Hunter-gatherers have limited (if any) need for a "right" to property. From the end of the Ice Age until a few thousand years ago, most people seem to have lived in a near state of Eden. (I saw a cartoon of two cave guys and one says to the other something like "We have natural food, high in fiber, pure air and pure water and still we die off by 35. Why?") Agreed, that you might always have the right to life and to eudiamonia, but the right to property depends on there actually being property. Furthermore, any right can be forfeited by law. It might seem "just" that you give up your happiness or property or even your life, but in that case, they are not "rights." Let me demonstrate:

Do you believe in capital punishment? If you do, does that mean that you advocate drawing and quartering people for jaywalking? See, I do not "believe in" capital punishment, but that only means that I see it as the last possible of all possible alternatives. Maybe it is justified and appropriate and required in some case or other. How do you know which cases? Under what circumstances? The reason I ask is that this is an example of why I asked "What does an objective legal code look like?"

One of my criminology instructors was actually from Toledo, not Michigan, and she used to make fun of "Larceny from a peat bog." There is no such law, but the Michigan Compiled Laws does go into excruciating detail because people who give to campaigns suffer real losses and their legislator shows hard work by getting that specific loss made illegal. Well, OK, how do you know whether the legislature should enact "larceny from a peat bog" versus the "licensing of barbers"?    As opposed as I am to such licensing, it does not seem contravened by your Two Rules and Three Truths.

The Third Amendment prohibits the quartering of troops, except in time of war. Using the War Powers Act, the President has the USA at war against "terrorism." Are you ready to bunk some national guard folk? The Second Amendment promises a "right" to bear and keep arms. How about an atomic bomb or poison gas, are they part of that right? How do you know? By what standard?

When I look hard at your Two Rules and Three Truths, all I see is a complicated way to say that the greater good should prevail over the lesser, but you do not parse that into how you know the one from the other.

Finally, a quibble: Your reference to "legislative fiat" is not necessary. By definition, all legislation is is by consent, not fiat. Also, the object that is brought into existence is legislation. So, it is tautologously true that legislatures create legislation by fiat. But legislation is not fiat, so we have a contradiction. That can only come from unreconciled premises.

Part of the problem not just with your essay but with all such is what I call the "Newtonian Fallacy." People are not billiard balls. So, "laws" of human action must be of a different kind of expression than F = m (dv/dt).   Laws of human action take more than 25 words to express.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/20, 10:08pm)

Post 23

Monday, April 21, 2008 - 12:00am

Thanks for the response, Mike.

When I get time, I'll post answers to your well-meant criticisms.

Ed

Post 24

Monday, April 21, 2008 - 8:54pm

Ed,

I never would have taken you for a Pareto optimality man. Ronald Coase would be proud, as he greatly incorporated Pareto optimality into his analyes of law.

But Pareto clashes with Objectivism. The ethical corollary to Pareto optimality is John Rawls' theory of justice, and you will recall that Rand chomped down hard on Mr. Rawls' theory. Besides, Pareto optimality becomes insanely difficult to apply in a wildly multi-transactional/partied world, which is why Kaldor-Hicks efficiency, proposed as an alternative, has gained so much academic ground. So if you're going for an Objectivist theory of law, you'll have to skip Pareto.

Of course, if you'd like to diverge from Objectivism in your investigation, that's another story.

Jordan

EDIT: If you go back to Coase's The Problem of Social Cost, you'll find the Pigou more closely approximates what I think would be the Objectivist viewpoint.

(Edited by Jordan on 4/21, 9:12pm)

Post 25

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - 7:58pm

Teresa, your argument completely misses the point. I don't have to pay any attention to the details of whether bad things were actually going on in order to make an argument for proper legal procedure. It is ALWAYS going to be easy for the bad guys to justify violating people's rights wholesale for a "good cause," such as rescuing 14 year old girls from forced marriages. That's why the ACLU, with its high percentage of Jewish members, defends NAZIs and Klan members. They aren't doing some kind of "self-hating" semetic trip. They know all too well that you don't wait until the goons are at YOUR door. If a Klan group is not allowed to stage a march, then what about a John Birch Society march, or a pro-choice march, or any march or organization or publication that doesn't meet the approval of whoever has the majority coalition of the moment? I don't have to like the klan in order to understand that their freedom is MY freedom.

Or do you think that if John Galt were world dictator, then everything would be ok?

If there's to be any real content to "objective law," it has to begin with procedure. Without an objectively derived procedure that everyone involved is bound to follow, the element of chaos creates unbearable transaction costs and the system collapses into the rule of the moment. Imagine a society in which the individual laws were perfectly rational and just, but the police had the right to storm into your home or business on whatever pretext- or none - at any time, looking for transgressions, siezing you and forcing you into incarceration indefinitely while they examined the issue of what crimes you might have been committing or planning to commit. Now, I don't think that our present U.S. laws are anywhere near being perfectly rational or just, but that hasn't stopped the cops from simply doing what they please - invoking "For the Children" as a cover-all mantra.

(Edited by Phil Osborn on 4/22, 8:11pm)

Post 26

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - 6:08pm

I don't have to pay any attention to the details of whether bad things were actually going on in order to make an argument for proper legal procedure.

Sounds like something Javert would say.

It is ALWAYS going to be easy for the bad guys to justify violating people's rights wholesale for a "good cause," such as rescuing 14 year old girls from forced marriages.

It's obvious that your mind is made up, so I won't bother pointing out that the charges involved rape of a minor, not just forced marriage of a minor.

That's why the ACLU, with its high percentage of Jewish members, defends NAZIs and Klan members. They aren't doing some kind of "self-hating" semetic trip. They know all too well that you don't wait until the goons are at YOUR door. If a Klan group is not allowed to stage a march, then what about a John Birch Society march, or a pro-choice march, or any march or organization or publication that doesn't meet the approval of whoever has the majority coalition of the moment?

Oh my gawd, Phil. Are you honestly comparing hate speech with rape? Honestly? This action wasn't taken over lifestyle difference. The state feared rights were being violated, and I'm willing to bet that they were, too. If you want perfect law, and perfect process, you're never ever going to get it. Ever. Not if "rights" are to remain a first principle of law. Do you care about rights, Phil? I have to wonder. The best test is to show how rights apply to those who can't fully exercise them. Maybe you're one of those who think the dumpster baby has no rights.

I don't have to like the klan in order to understand that their freedom is MY freedom.

Define "freedom," Phil. Is the dumpster baby "free?"

Or do you think that if John Galt were world dictator, then everything would be ok?

Phil, you seriously have no business on this site. You truly don't. Neither does the asshat that sanctioned your post.

If there's to be any real content to "objective law," it has to begin with procedure.

Procedure divorced from principle, Phil? You really are convoluted, aren't you.

Without an objectively derived procedure that everyone involved is bound to follow, the element of chaos creates unbearable transaction costs and the system collapses into the rule of the moment.

I totally agree. A judge had to okay the raid, and a prosecutor had to bring it before the judge, and someone from law enforcement had to bring it to the prosecutor, etc. etc. Sounds like a "procedure," doesn't it?

Imagine a society in which the individual laws were perfectly rational and just, but the police had the right to storm into your home or business on whatever pretext- or none - at any time, looking for transgressions, siezing you and forcing you into incarceration indefinitely while they examined the issue of what crimes you might have been committing or planning to commit.

What in the hell are you talking about?

Now, I don't think that our present U.S. laws are anywhere near being perfectly rational or just, but that hasn't stopped the cops from simply doing what they please - invoking "For the Children" as a cover-all mantra.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Is that what you think happened here? The cops just toted away 400 kids, and the court was cool with that? Don't be stupid.

Post 27

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - 8:33pm

Jordan,

I can answer you before answering Mike because your point is relatively easy. You're taking Pareto in isolation. That's not how it (my Theory of the Objective Rule of Law for Humankind; "TORLH") works.

For example, some folks following Pareto get it into their heads that it's somehow fine to mitigate Individual Rights. That's not true of TORLH, though, which never abrogates Individual Rights. The reason that it never does this is 2-fold:

(1) because I said so (see the 3 truths above)

(2) because Aristotle's choiceworthy theory (also see above) wouldn't allow for that

Ed

Post 28

Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 12:12am

Mike, thanks for "letting me have it":

=========
For [A] and [B] let us substitute
A= Apples and B=Oranges
A= Voting and B= Paying taxes
A= Living and B= Dying
A= Getting an Education and B= Getting a Job

You can see that Apples without Oranges is no better or worse that Oranges without Apples, so that is a null case. It does not matter which is chosen.
=========

Mike, you are comparing apples to oranges here (except for that one case between living and dying). Aristotle's rule is meant for all contradictory cases, but only some contrary ones (where the contraries mutually-exhaust the alternatives). You can't compare apples and oranges -- not unless there are no such things as bananas or grapes, etc.

=========
Life is the standard of morality. If you have life without death, you have an amoral being, in fact, being for whom even rationality is not required. If you have death without life, that would mean dying before you were born, which is nothingness, no loss.
=========

I agree that you can't have one without the other. You're reading into this too far (farther than legislation ever goes).

=========
Moreover, people sometimes choose death over life, voluntarily, it seems. So, there, too, your Rules and Truths are not contravened, but the equation you propose does not hold.
=========

Now, this is something within the realm of legislation -- but you failed to integrate the 2 rules with the 3 truths. The 3 truths are the base or the framework or the skeleton, the 2 rules allow for us to fill-in the gaps left by the framework. If someone has the right to liberty, then they have the "negative" right to do what they want to -- as long as they don't violate others' rights in the process. This includes euthanasia.

=========
Is it better to have an education without a job, or to have a job without an education[?]

In my macro economics class, the book had a picture of some star basketball player who quit college to play pro ball for a zillion dollars. It had to do with the production possibility curve, I think. Anyway, I argued (unsuccessfully) that without a college education, he might end up middle aged and broke. None of the kids in my class agreed. They thought that a bazillion dollars would never disappear in financial mismanagement and the player would never get caught in a scandal and lose that lucrative contract. You see my point.

Which is better: Job or Education? How do you decide?
=========

This is, again, outside the realm of legislation.

=========
I think that my case is valid: the legislature must decide between Education and Jobs and does not need to tax to provide them.
=========

This jumps the gun. Starting with the 3 basic truths (Individual Rights), you have to use the 2 rules to get to the conclusion that legislatures provide for education and jobs. Current laws would need to be amended in order to be re-validated by first looking at the 3 truths, and then applying the 2 rules. Many (perhaps most) of the laws wouldn't pass the test (because they're inherently unjust).

=========
In terms of security and liberty, if you have maximum liberty with zero security, you have natural anarchy. Are you proposing that anarchy is a good thing?
=========

No. Anarchy doesn't necessarily provide for the 3 truths, though minarchy does (necessarily provide for them).

=========
As an "anarchy" (so-called) Somalia is not preferable to the USA, though you argue that liberty absent security is preferable to security absent liberty. Though a declared market anarchist myself, I think that context counts for a lot here. Context is everything. We should not treat "liberty" or "security" as absolutes, but as objective values.
=========

The "anarchy" in Somalia contradicts the 3 truths -- and something can't contradict truth and still "work." When I used the example of "liberty" pitted against "security" -- I uncovered the "natural" hierarchy of value between them (that's what Aristotle's rule is for). I didn't say (or mean) that one is good and the other bad. I said that, when you have to choose between them, there is one right choice (and a wrong one).

That said, I agree that context is everything. That's why there are 2 rules -- instead of just 3 truths (absolutes). The rules are vague enough to account for individual contexts.

=========
Hunter-gatherers have limited (if any) need for a "right" to property. From the end of the Ice Age until a few thousand years ago, most people seem to have lived in a near state of Eden. (I saw a cartoon of two cave guys and one says to the other something like "We have natural food, high in fiber, pure air and pure water and still we die off by 35. Why?") Agreed, that you might always have the right to life and to eudiamonia, but the right to property depends on there actually being property.
=========

In order to even get out of the jungle, man required "property" -- if only basic wood or stone tools. Property is the implementation (or concrete instantiation) of man's mind toward the "problem of survival." To get back to truly property-less life requires living as a wild animal.

=========
Furthermore, any right can be forfeited by law. It might seem "just" that you give up your happiness or property or even your life, but in that case, they are not "rights."
=========

Individual rights can't ever be forfeited -- though some folks may forfeit some of the exercise of their individual rights (such as when a criminal forfeits some of their freedoms).

=========
Do you believe in capital punishment? If you do, does that mean that you advocate drawing and quartering people for jaywalking? See, I do not "believe in" capital punishment, but that only means that I see it as the last possible of all possible alternatives. Maybe it is justified and appropriate and required in some case or other. How do you know which cases? Under what circumstances?
=========

What I currently "believe" is irrelevant. All that's relevant is what can be had by taking 3 truths and applying 2 rules. Someone will have to do the work of all of this application of these 2 methods -- to these 3 truths -- in order to get your answers. If and when they do, then I suspect that they will have arrived at the correct way to handle the concrete situations you mention. It's like you're asking a marathon runner to step across the finish line, but without taking the steps in-between.

=========
The reason I ask is that this is an example of why I asked "What does an objective legal code look like?"
=========

It would start out with basic laws for basic scenarios, then -- as scenarios get more "hairy details" -- it would develop using 2 rules. The euthanasia example above is case in point. Freedom includes freedom to harm yourself. That truth is not self-obvious, but if you apply the 2 methods, you get there. Here's an outline:

The question of euthanasia involves the owner of a human body. Does the owner have the right to dispose of this property? Using Pareto Optimality (rule #2), we ask what would happen if folks WEREN'T in "ownership" over their own bodies. It turns out that -- when they aren't -- then some folks are worse off (e.g., those in agonizing pain). So we can immediately throw-out laws that intervene in folks' individual ownership of their own bodies.

That said, there might be a case where we flip-flop or waffle on this, but we have to wait for that kind of wacky context to arise -- and then apply the 2 methods (rules) from the base of the 3 truths (individual rights).

I'll address your other points later ...

Ed

Post 29

Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 4:27pm

The problem of defining objective law, strictly interpreting this phrase, reduces simply to creating laws which can be interpreted to have a definite meaning, ie. a single meaning, and thus allow, or disallow, a specific action. Non-objective law is the opposite, laws with multiple meanings which are contradictory, which in turn allow contradictory, or disallow non-contradictory, actions.
For example, an objective law might be "it shall be unlawful to take the product of another man's labor without his voluntary consent." The meaning of this premise is perfectly clear and can not be read to have various contradictory meanings. A non-objective law might be "it shall be unlawful to subject a business to unfair competition." Here "unfair" is an undefinable term, since competition will always place economic stress upon a business and there is no way to objectively define a limit for the point at which this competition crosses the boundary from being fair to unfair.

Post 30

Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 5:21pm

I'm not taking Pareto in isolation. Most Pareto-friendly people I've come across accept, even demand, that Pareto optimality is commensurate with a rights-based system.

The difference is in how the initial allocation of those rights is determined. As I believ we've discussed before, Objectivism tends to accept the Lockean labor theory of property acquisition: You mix your labor with something, and it's yours; first in time, first in right.

Objectivism further tends to accept the Pigouvian theory of absolute internalization of negative externalities: You are 100% responsible (liable) for anything nasty that comes out of what is yours.

This is not how Pareto operates. Pareto would allocate based on efficient outcomes, i.e., set the law to approximate that point where no one is willing to trade further. If you would necessarily have either the Lockean or Pigouvian requisites I just described, you are at odds with Pareto.

Jordan

Post 31

Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 7:01pm

Robert,

Good point about objectivity vs. ambiguity. I actually meant more than that, though, when I titled this thread. Not only did I mean laws that are definite, I meant laws that are just, also.

Jordan,

Just take me to be using the maxim that it's not allowed to make any folks worse off -- rather than to join or contrast me with or against the conventional Pareto crowd. The conventional Pareto crowd is focused on the inferior subject matter of allocation (whether of rights or of whatever) , I'm focused on the superior subject of privation.

=========
The difference is in how the initial allocation of those rights is determined.
=========

When one's thoughts are aligned well with reality, it's clear that rights aren't ever "allocated" (granted by a governing body) to human beings.

=========
Objectivism tends to accept the Lockean labor theory of property acquisition: You mix your labor with something, and it's yours; first in time, first in right.
=========

The other necessity for property acquisition according to Objectivism is some kind of final causation (intended value). Here's a wacky example. Arabs, for instance, could use open oil wells as a means for human sacrifice (throwing in the infidels) -- but that doesn't make the oil wells "their" property. There's no added-value to using nature for destruction.

=========
If you would necessarily have either the Lockean or Pigouvian requisites I just described, you are at odds with Pareto.
=========

See above where I admitted that I wasn't a conventional Pareto Optimalitist -- but mere adapted the Aristotelian/Lockean idea that new laws shouldn't ever hurt anybody (because that's not what laws are for).

Locke said men wouldn't gather together under a "government" unless it were more valuable for them all to do so (causing no one any "net harm"). I'm saying this same thing about "law."

Ed

Post 32

Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 10:39pm

Hi Ed,

I'm focused on the superior subject of privation.

You mean privatization.

And I think you are assuming that each and every instance of privatization necessary does not make anyone worse off. I don't think that bears out empirically.

When one's thoughts are aligned well with reality, it's clear that rights aren't ever "allocated" (granted by a governing body) to human beings.

That's not what "allocated" means. "Allocation" refers to the way rights are initially acquired.

The other necessity for property acquisition according to Objectivism is some kind of final causation (intended value). Here's a wacky example. Arabs, for instance, could use open oil wells as a means for human sacrifice (throwing in the infidels) -- but that doesn't make the oil wells "their" property. There's no added-value to using nature for destruction.

Eh. I'd say they get some pleasure out of it, which is intended value for lots of property. But really, interesting though your point might be, I don't think it's too important to this thread.

Jordan

Post 33

Friday, April 25, 2008 - 6:16am

Continuing on the thought of how to write just laws, the first step would be to construct a just political philosophy, then to construct a legal code based upon it. The political philosophy must be constructed by identifying life as the standard of value, and then reasoning out the general social relationships that are implied. These general principles could then be written down as laws, thus legalizing the general corresponding categories of behaviors. To avoid potential misapplications of these more general principles they could be applied to specific situations and the specific consistent behaviors deduced, and then writing these as laws. This recognizes that all laws are just political principles or direct applications of them.
For example, a law to allow the freedom of the individual might be written as "it shall be unlawful to force a person to act against his will by fraud or force, or threats thereof." This general law would preclude any coercion of the individual. However, it could be applied to the displacement of a person by force by writing it as "it shall be unlawful to require a person to move more than a distance of ten feet under the threat of force " thus creating a law forbidding kidnapping, etc.
Laws could be written retaining the full generality of the political principles and thus govern broad categories of behavior, or applied to completely unique situations and thus govern only single specific acts, or at any level of generality between, as long as they retain full consistency with just political principles. The best level of generality at which to write a law is an interesting question. The advantage of general laws is that the legal code would be short and very simple, but it would carry the disadvantage of misinterpretation and a difficulty in associating a just punishment, alternately the advantage of more specific laws is the each can be attributed a specific punishment ensuring a just punishment, but would generate a much more detailed and complicated legal code. Since an a just punishment is one which is proportion to the life destroying effect of the crime, it would seem that some measure of specificity would be required to ensure justice, however to help ensure the logical consistency of the legal code it would also seem that the most general political principles should also be included. Thus, I would conclude that the political principles should be written as general laws, and more specific laws be deduced from them as needed to ensure their unambiguous application and appropriateness of punishments, thus creating a legal code of a hierarchical structure, the more general laws at the highest level of abstraction and their specific applications at progressively lower levels of abstraction.

Post 34

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 10:44am

Jordan,

=========
You mean privatization.
=========

No, I mean privation (restrictions). The language of "objective rule of law" -- as I have here laid it out -- is the language of objectively-ethical restrictions on various human actions.

=========
... I think you are assuming that each and every instance of privatization necessary does not make anyone worse off. I don't think that bears out ..
=========

[see above]

=========
That's not what "allocated" means. "Allocation" refers to the way rights are initially acquired.
=========

We're talking past each other (unjoined issues). To allocate is to apportion, distribute, earmark, or designate. Individual Rights aren't things that are ever allocated. However, property (not Property Rights, which are themselves absolute) is something that can be allocated.

You are viewing rights as positive rights (as rights to things). That is an incorrect (non-objective) view of rights. Real rights are negative rights (as rights against actions).

Arriving at objectively-just laws for human beings requires first having the right view of rights. You couldn't ever meet the high standard of objective justice with a positive (read: allocative) view of the rights of man.

Ed

Post 35

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 11:07am

Robert,

=========
Continuing on the thought of how to write just laws, the first step would be to construct a just political philosophy, then to construct a legal code based upon it.
=========

Right. Objectivism is the "just political philosophy", and this thread is the outline for the construction of the "legal code based upon it."

=========
These general principles could then be written down as laws, thus legalizing the general corresponding categories of behaviors. To avoid potential misapplications of these more general principles they could be applied to specific situations and the specific consistent behaviors deduced, and then writing these as laws.
=========

Right. In other words: "The 3 truths are the base or the framework or the skeleton, the 2 rules allow for us to fill-in the gaps left by the framework. ... The rules are vague enough to account for individual contexts. ... It would start out with basic laws for basic scenarios, then -- as scenarios get more 'hairy details' -- it would develop using 2 rules."

=========
For example, a law to allow the freedom of the individual might be written as "it shall be unlawful to force a person to act against his will by fraud or force, or threats thereof." This general law would preclude any coercion of the individual.
=========

Right!

=========
However, it could be applied to the displacement of a person by force by writing it as "it shall be unlawful to require a person to move more than a distance of ten feet under the threat of force " thus creating a law forbidding kidnapping, etc.
=========

This one is probably premature, as it could be used in order to prevent police from disbanding a rights-violating riot in the streets, for extreme example. Nevertheless, the basic idea (to make kidnapping illegal -- BECAUSE it is unjust) is a recognizable good.

=========
The best level of generality at which to write a law is an interesting question. The advantage of general laws is that the legal code would be short and very simple, but it would carry the disadvantage of misinterpretation and a difficulty in associating a just punishment, alternately the advantage of more specific laws is the each can be attributed a specific punishment ensuring a just punishment, but would generate a much more detailed and complicated legal code.
=========

Good point.

=========
Since [a] just punishment is one which is [in] proportion to the life destroying effect of the crime, it would seem that some measure of specificity would be required to ensure justice, ...
=========

Right!

=========
... however to help ensure the logical consistency of the legal code it would also seem that the most general political principles should also be included.
=========

Right, but I don't see any kind of a problem with balancing these 2 things -- on the one hand, the proportionality of punishment fitting the crime and, on the other hand, the objective justification for the broken law.

=========
Thus, I would conclude that the political principles should be written as general laws, and more specific laws be deduced from them as needed to ensure their unambiguous application and appropriateness of punishments, thus creating a legal code of a hierarchical structure, the more general laws at the highest level of abstraction and their specific applications at progressively lower levels of abstraction.
=========

Right. In other words: "The 3 truths are the base or the framework or the skeleton, the 2 rules allow for us to fill-in the gaps left by the framework. ... The rules are vague enough to account for individual contexts. ... It would start out with basic laws for basic scenarios, then -- as scenarios get more 'hairy details' -- it would develop using 2 rules."

;-)

Ed

Post 36

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 12:19pm

Hi Ed,

No, I mean privation (restrictions). The language of "objective rule of law" -- as I have here laid it out -- is the language of objectively-ethical restrictions on various human actions.

Weird but okay. A passing thought -- why not just stick with the non-agression principle and be done with it? What's missing?

We're talking past each other (unjoined issues). To allocate is to apportion, distribute, earmark, or designate. Individual Rights aren't things that are ever allocated. However, property (not Property Rights, which are themselves absolute) is something that can be allocated.

This paragraph is just messy to me. Are you just saying the right to act on one's own uncoerced judgment (i.e., one's individual right) is nonallocable? If so, then Ok. But I don't know what you're saying with regard to property rights. Property rights can be divided up, added to, assigned, etc. I still don't think you know what I mean by "allocated." That term has to do with efficiency, not with equity. Allocation is an initial determination of who gets what. After that, who gets what is up to individuals. Allocation does not entail re-distribution. It might be best we just let this portion of our discussion go.

You are viewing rights as positive rights (as rights to things). That is an incorrect (non-objective) view of rights. Real rights are negative rights (as rights against actions).

First, I don' t view rights as rights to things. Don't know where you got that idea. For what it's worth, here's Rand's take on the subject from "Man's Rights" which is not far from mine:

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. Virtue of Selfishness, 93.

Second, your claim is not an Objectivist one. In "Man's Rights", here is what Rand says:

The concept of a �right� pertains only to action�specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive�of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights. Virtue of Selfishness, p.93, underline added.

Therefore, under Objectivism, you've got your right to and your concomitant rights from.

Jordan

Post 37

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 3:36pm

Jordan, I appreciate your continued criticisms.

=========
A passing thought -- why not just stick with the non-agression principle and be done with it? What's missing?
=========

The NIOF principle! What is missing with the NIOF (non-initiation of force) principle is that there's no rules of application. Instead, the application of NIOF is currently being left up to the acting agents, the recipients, or the 3rd-party observers of an action. Take the Libertarian use of NIOF to decry our current war efforts, for instance.

The Libertarians are arguing that man is wrong whenever initiating force against man, and so Bush is wrong invading Iraq and Afghanistan (because there are innocent people there being harmed from our invasions). But this involves their own interpretation of the context (rather than using my 2 universal rules for the contextual application of 3 truths).

These Liberate-my-brain-etarians use their specific application of NIOF to support a pacifist political position. They don't yet fully appreciate the rules of right thinking I've laid down.

Does that effectively answer your question?

=========
Are you just saying the right to act on one's own uncoerced judgment (i.e., one's individual right) is nonallocable?
=========

I'm saying that the 3 rights I outlined above (in post 21) are nonallocable.

=========
Property rights can be divided up, added to, assigned, etc. I still don't think you know what I mean by "allocated."
=========

Like I said, we're talking past each other. You're using property rights to mean concrete "ownerships" of specific "properties" -- such as the rightful owner of a specific house, or patent, or whatever. With this use of the term property rights, you have to ask who gets what.

Here's Rand on your use of property rights (e.g., the specified case of the home):

=========
There is no �right to a home,� only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it.
=========

Therefore, if you buy or build a home, then you own it; it is yours, by (property) right. Buying or building is enough to get the property rights ball rolling and to culminate in individual ownership.

And here's Rand on my use of property rights (i.e., the objective value -- the objective justification -- of them):

=========
"Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property�by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort." -- CUI, The Property Status of Airwaves

"The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man�s mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those who�re able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won�t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner�s terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of men toward man�s property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers." -- AS, Galt's Speech
=========

You bemoaned:

=========
First, I don' t view rights as rights to things. Don't know where you got that idea.
=========

[see above]

=========
Second, your claim [that "Real rights are negative rights (as rights against actions)."] is not an Objectivist one.
=========

Jordan! You professional word-sleuth! I can't believe the gall. I can't believe the nerve. I mean, you sit there, at your computer workstation, and you write such heretical things about my claims. Not an Objectivist one??? Puhleeze! I'm the Objectivism-expert in THIS discussion, Jordan (not you).

In the context of law-writing, we'd need to write laws restricting certain actions. We wouldn't bother with writing laws that force humans to take positive, self-beneficial actions such as ...

(1) thou shalt act on his or her own judgment
(2) thou shalt act on his or her own goals
(3) thou shalt act on his or her own voluntary, uncoerced choice
(4) etc

Here's that part of the Rand quote which you had to have glossed over -- when you claimed to be able to show me what has to be the "true, dual nature" of the Objectivist concept of rights:

=========
It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
=========

In other (my) words, real rights are rights against others; specifically, they are rights against the coercive actions of others. This is my view. This is the Objectivist view.

=========
Therefore, under Objectivism, you've got your right to and your concomitant rights from.
=========

Your "right to" here can be reduced to your "rights from" -- can you see that now, Jordan?

Ed

Post 38

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 7:34pm

Hi Ed,

Does that effectively answer your question?

Yes, thank you.

I'm saying that the 3 rights I outlined above (in post 21) are nonallocable.

Those would be the right to life, property, and pursuit of eudaimona. I can see how you could say they're inalienable, but we're still not on the same page, probably cause you're using the phrase "right to property" differently from my understanding.

You're using property rights to mean concrete "ownerships" of specific "properties" -- such as the rightful owner of a specific house, or patent, or whatever.

Still bemoaning... :-) If you really want to know, I'm using "property rights" to mean liberties (optional actions) with which other individuals may not lawfully interfere. No "property right" in itself tells us what it takes to have that right. To use your example, the right to the house is a right to an optional action (e.g., living there or selling it, or renting it) with regard to the house. But it doesn't say how we come to that right. Buying? Okay. Building? Okay. Receiving through inheritance? Sure. Adverse Possession? Fine. But why?

I'm the Objectivism-expert in THIS discussion, Jordan (not you).

Ha! That's funny cause I'm the one wearing the John Galt underpants. (Now that's a marketing idea!)

In the context of law-writing, we'd need to write laws restricting certain actions. We wouldn't bother with writing laws that force humans to take positive...

Okay.

In other (my) words, real rights are rights against others; specifically, they are rights against the coercive actions of others. This is my view. This is the Objectivist view.

Again, that's only half the Objectivist story. I totally agree that Objectivists view rights as rights against others' coercive actions, but they also view rights as rights to liberties. I agree that Objectivists don't think we need to write down the right to stuff, so perhaps we can move on. What say you, Mr. Roark?

Jordan

Post 39

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 11:23pm