I've been mulling this one over for a while, but haven't researched it, so, yet again, I have no idea how original I am. I'm just putting my thoughts out there.
Everything in our social existence, including the operations of government, must be applications of what is right and wrong for individuals to do. Each individual must be able to identify what they are morally entitled to do and morally obliged to accept that others are morally entitled to do, at least in the first instance of such action. In regards to government, the anarchist is one who never gets past that final caveat, and says that there is only that "first instance" in all cases. They are not querying the use of voluntary mediation, for instance, but of the existence of the state, of a body embued with a monopoly on the non-emergency use of retaliatory force. It is that monopoly they reject, not the existence of a body as such. So, how does one respond to this without relying solely on mere pragmatic reference to separation of whim and force? How does one fully justify one's insistence for such a monopoly and even the right to enforce it upon others at the point of a gun?
After some thought I discovered that is actually quite simple in principle. Here's my thesis: if, when two parties A and B have a dispute, one can demonstrate that in at least some circumstances third party C is morally entitled to unilaterally intervene in that dispute and demand that it be settled in such-and-such reasonable fashion on pain of both A and B being subject to C's retaliation independently of the content of the dispute A and B have, and justify this unilateral intervention on the basis of C's own rational self-interests as an individual rather than reference to social good or whatnot, then as a matter of principle one has blown anarchism out of the water and has given the foundation of the State while retaining the principles of rationality, egoism and the inviolability of the rights of man all with their full force.
Reference to rights as the means to making society subject to the moral law, and of having a single body with a monopoly whose reason for being is so that the use of force is separated from the potential for individual whim, while entirely correct, comes after that. With that I leave you for now with two related questions: how does one make such a demonstration as a matter of principle, and, how does this translate into the State and all this entails? Have a think, and post a comment if you care to.
JJM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
“if, when two parties A and B have a dispute, one can demonstrate that in at least some circumstances third party C is morally entitled to unilaterally intervene in that dispute and demand that it be settled in such-and-such reasonable fashion on pain of both A and B being subject to C's retaliation independently of the content of the dispute A and B have,”
ReplyDeleteThis question goes straight to the heart of the metaphysical nature of force. If and when the dispute involves the violation of either A or B’s rights (by force or fraud), it therefore implies a potential future threat to C. For example if A steals from B, then C has to assume that A is a criminal and C has a certain right to retaliation. In essence A violated C’s rights as well as B’s although to a lesser extent. In order to understand this you need to be able to induce the metaphysical nature of force and understand the variants of indirect force. This is the metaphysical argument against anarchy and is a more potent argument that the epistemological argument that Objectivists usually use (there are also the historical and practical arguments).
By the way in this case persons D and E also have a right to intervene – hence the actual need for a government.
I would argue though that in cases where disputes do not involve the actual violation of someone’s rights (or if it is unclear that they do) no outside (or government) involvement is allowed. Even in cases where there are minor violations other mechanisms (reputation, good will, arbitration) may work and should be the first line of defense. I also think that if A commits a crime against B then B has a greater interest in retaliation than C since the use of force in this case is direct rather than indirect. This should be taken into consideration when writing the laws.
This line of arguement may actually lead to a more restricted government than Objectivist generally assume but it also emphasizes very clearly that governments are necessary by man’s nature (and the nature of force).
Close, but not quite there. Remember that C may have grounds for action against *both* parties. Moreover, the original dispute may not even be a criminal issue at all. What I will establish is the *universal* principle of dispute resolution, be disputes civil or criminal. The answer *at that level* cannot rely solely upon using reference to the violator-of-the-present's potential future action. Certainly, this forms a part of the context for specifically criminal law principles later on, but that comes after one has established the core principle I have in mind.
ReplyDeleteSo, the first question still stands: how does one establish the in-principle right to intervene in other people's disputes irrespective of the particular nature of a dispute?
"D and E also have a right to intervene – hence the actual need for a government"
That first part is both true and necessary to identify, but it is only half the story and not enough by itself to establish the justification for a body having the monopoly on the non-emergency use of retaliatory force. Additionally, reference to D and E does not at all indicate the basis for proper representative government, whose principle can be identified by sticking solely with just A B and C (though is irrelevant in practice in such small communities and hence the need to bring in D and E et al).
The really cool and powerful thing about concepts and principles is that they are open-ended. Chew on that in the context of the present discussion and see what you come up with!
"I would argue though that in cases where disputes do not involve the actual violation of someone’s rights (or if it is unclear that they do) no outside (or government) involvement is allowed."
I have to disagree with that. That statement is both wrong and rules out large swathes of actions and remedies that we depend on today and are entitled to depend on. Also, simply replacing 'actual' for 'potential' would still not cut the mustard as the whole statement as worded is cut off from the principle of individuals' right to intervene. I'll cover that when I give the post with responses.
JJM