Along these lines, how are the indigent handled (if this is even addressed). If I have no way to pay a fine, can I leverage that somehow? I'm thinking of squatters on one hand and random layabouts on the other.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class
- Thread starter Sword of Apollo
- Start date
Along these lines, how are the indigent handled (if this is even addressed). If I have no way to pay a fine, can I leverage that somehow? I'm thinking of squatters on one hand and random layabouts on the other.
Are you asking if prisons would exist? The answer is that they would, and they would probably be government-run.
What does it mean to use property rights in an "antisocial manner"? Regardless, the answer is probably "no, there's no way to force people not to do so".
That would depend on how the laws were set up.
It would depend on how the laws were set up. Is there something specific about this issue that you can't see being handled in an Objectivist system for some reason?
Not at all. Except for my upthread point about the disparity in harms because of the individual perspective -- that is, we are relying on a mechanism that stems from a relative perspective (me) outward instead of adopting rules that place authority elsewhere and extend inward (society imposes duties on me).
I am still exploring the consequences of that, so I'm looking for examples.
To make it plain, it seems the systems differ because either I am beholden to laws and rules I don't make that modify my behavior or those laws are largely dispensed with (whenever possible) and I make my own based on self interest. I'm expecting to see inequalities in perceived harm as a result.
To give a radical example, if there is no harm detected in a relationship between an underaged (whatever the cut-off is) person and an older person, this is still a crime in our current system. But free people acting freely would not be prosecuted under Objectivist principles, would they? Now add the nuance that harm itself is experienced differently by different people and doesn't always come down to money. (If consent is an issue in my example, change it to incest instead of statutory rape -- assuming incest is illegal, I suppose.)
I'm actually not criticizing Objectivism here, just exploring the logical outcomes to see what pops up. I have no problem with people adopting whatever philosophical principles suit their fancy.
Last edited:
I'm assuming that by "relationship" you mean a physical/ sexual relationship. Minors cannot consent to that sort of thing (or anything else, legally). Since consent is required for such a relationship to not be a violation of rights, having a relationship with a minor would be illegal.
Of course it doesn't always come down to money, and I don't think any Objectivist has argued that it does.
Suppose dad, who I am paying, thinks it's a good idea?
Still trying to find where Objectivism and "things as they stand now" diverge.
Paying for what? And why would that make the slightest difference? The minor's rights are being violated, therefor it would be illegal in an Objectivist society.
On the issue of statutory rape I'm not sure they diverge at all.
What I was saying about it being within the rules is that the merchant simply buys all the grain he can , and because he is very rich, he can corner the market.
He could then beggar everyone else in the town, and get them working for him as indentured labour - which the inhabitants will have signed up for "freely" as the only way they will get food.
This is exactly what happens in parts of the world with little legal protection for the poor, and has happened in both the US and UK prior to similar legal protections. Assuming the people need the food immediately, they are stuffed.
Systematic solutions, as opposed to wishful thinking, are almost explicitly non-objectivist.
What legal protections are you thinking of?
What I mean by this (apart from causing a nuisance which is easily covered in objectivism and the current system with civil damages) is in using ones superior wealth as a weapon to generate more wealth by beggaring other people - in a manner reminiscent of the game of monopoly.
This is what has happened in history before the current checks and balances were implemented.
In that case it may or may not be allowed, depending on the specific nature of your actions.
Buying food and refusing to sell it except at a rate that puts the buyer in debt, so that you can take a large cut of their future earnings?
What's wrong with that from an objectivist viewpoint?
Nothing (well, not nothing--it's not a very good plan, rationally speaking, to intentionally make it so your customers can't continue to pay you). But that's not the only way to try to use wealth to beggar people, which is why I said it would depend on your actions.
First, you missed the rest of my posts about that. Second, it's completely nonsensical to say "Objectivists do this!" when none of them do. The absence of data is no more data than anecdote.
How exacltly would this happen? Money is only useful if you can trade it, and you can only trade with people who have products you want.jimbob said:
IF you specifically set out to cause a huge number of people to go broke, you probably could. That said, if you wanted to do that in any system you probably could find a way. Sociopaths and people hell-bent on destruction will always find a way to cause destruction. The fact that you can find a way in a system in no way invalidates the system, it merely means that you've spent a great deal of time figuring out how to cause destruction.
As for legal protection, EVERYONE'S rights would be protected. Anyone who violates anyone else's rights would be libel to prosecution, either when the victim sues or when police find out about it.
Except it is a good way for converting their temporary poverty into a long term source of wealth for you (you could agree to only supply them with food for the deeds to all their property, and 95% of future earnings) which would force them to keep in your debt.
This is the business model used by slum landlords, loansharks, and other such scum.
Not at all. Nothing's stopping me from establishing a competing business, undercutting YOUR prices and ruining YOU.
It may sound like a good idea if you don't think about it, and I'm sure it'll be tried, but after you spend some time thinking about it you realize it's just not smart, and will ruin you. You'll notice that loan sharks and other such scum also employ people who specialize in breaking other people's legs, while Fortune 500 companies tend not to. There's a reason for that.
Yes, the fortune 5000 companies work within the current legal framework.
This is not what would be the case in an objectivist system
What wouldn't be the case in an Objectivist system? People working within the law? Or the law preventing breaking people's legs?
Leg breaking isn't necessarily required. It looks like regulation in the UK is being tightened up against "payday loan" companies. If I understand it correctly they have been loaning people money to help make the payments on their payday loans.
Right--the only reason a Fortune 500 company doesn't go around breaking people's kneecaps is their deep and abiding respect for the modern legal system.
And people call ME naive.
And yes, businesses that cause problems will exist in an Objectivist society, just as they do in any other society. It'll be up to the consumer to use them wisely, and if they don't they'll suffer the consequences. You have a right to be stupid; you don't have a right to force other people to make choices you consider not to be stupid.