Ask An Objectivist

[tsig]

If there's only one person, rights don't exist. They arise from the interface between individuals.

But they're not concessions granted by the mob; that's entirely wrong. They're what you inherently have unless the mob takes them away. Or more benignly, unless you bargain them away in a social contract.

Dinwar put this quite well:

How can they be taken away if they are inherent?

Sounds like to only true freedom is enjoyed by a hermit.

 

[tsig]

Yup. Collectivism of any kind--socialism, communism, what have you--is bad.

"There is only one evil thought, Mr. Rearden--the refual to think." ~Francisco

So thinking in cliches is OK?

 

[tsig]

How can they be taken away if they are inherent?

Sounds like to only true freedom is enjoyed by a hermit.

According to Dinwar even the right to life is not inherent:

it is not my obligation to maintain their bodies. They can trade for it, or others can voluntarily work towards it--but they cannot demand it as a right.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

According to Dinwar even the right to life is not inherent:

It's inherent, it just doesn't trump his right to property. Or in simpler terms, "I've got mine, Jack."

One of the reasons I doubt objectivism is a viable system for humans is from my experiences playing EVE online.

I'm sorry, that's my fault. The last big NRDS alliance crumbled the very same day I poked my schnoz into nullsec. I do that to videogames sometimes.

If you're disenchanted with EVE but still hankering to live the dream of Libertopia, may I suggest Salem? It's a free-to-play crafting-based MMO that is explicitly meant as a Libertarian sandbox. So naturally multiplayer gameplay is dominated by gangs of collectivist Russians who kill everyone they meet with anything worth taking, and the only way to actually keep anything valuable is to pack it onto one or more (or several dozen) storage alts that can poof safely offline.

If you've never heard of it, I'd seriously recommend at least logging in and going for a stroll. It takes an hour or two of walking in one direction to go from the tiny central market that is all that passes for highsec, to the border regions of the map, where a constant health-draining field discourages wandering griefers. Along the way you'll pass dozens of ruined towns and hermitages, each representing hundred of hours of effort to build. It's like Fallout:1626.

 

[Soapy Sam]

If there's only one person, rights don't exist. They arise from the interface between individuals.

As I said above, I agree that some human characteristics arise from interaction with other humans and others are innate, but I see the distribution differently from yourself and I think, Dinwar.

If there is only one person, interactive herd behaviour has no relevance.
(Unless we postulate an objective standard observer- either god or a conditioned conscience)- a solitary individual cannot commit an immoral act, if morality is defined as interaction with the herd.

I don't see what restricts a solitary individual's ability to say what he likes, though. He just can't say it to anyone else. He has no inherent right to be listened to. The ability to speak freely is not a right, it's just an innate ability. The right to be heard, to be listened to, is granted from above, by the group.

But they're not concessions granted by the mob; that's entirely wrong. They're what you inherently have unless the mob takes them away. Or more benignly, unless you bargain them away in a social contract.

Either POV is defensible, I think. We may be quibbling over definition.

Dinwar put this quite well:

In a way, yes. Rights are principles of social interaction; thus, they can only exist in the context OF social interaction. Thus, they can be said to not be inherent.

That said, rights come into play the instant more than one human interacts. So in that way, they are inherent.

Inherent to what? Not to the individual. They arise only from interaction with others. They are a group property.

When the group comprises thirty individuals, a youngster knows he can't do whatever he wants and he knows who is stopping him- group disapproval, enforced by a sub group of particular individuals.
Come the day he's big enough to go off on his own, he may choose to discard their rules as applied to himself. He is apt to find though, that while some rules were about preserving their position in the group, others were generally sensible. So he keeps them. He joins a new group at a more senior level, or maybe starts his own, acquiring a mate, kids, a few associates.
And he finds that the rules the old bastards used to protect their position work pretty well for him, too. So the rules propagate themselves memetically.

Fast forward to a 21st century nation state.
Not only are the youngster's ability to just walk away when he gets older severely constricted, there exist legal libraries full of codes and regs designed to protect the position of group leaders back to Hammurabi. Nobody knows more than a fraction of them, but one of them is that ignorance of the others is not a defence.
You can't win and you can't quit. Play on. The herd now number in the billions. We can land on a comet, but we don't know how to answer simple questions about our own ethology. Primates were always good with ballistics. Stand under any tree filled with monkeys.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Wikipedia is bad?

I think Wikipedia is an Objectivist's dream come true, since participation is entirely voluntary.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Does it though?

What about the so-called "Nordic model" which is basically capitalism but with a significant welfare state and redistribution.

I've always had an issue with that being called 'socialism'. Having social programs doesn't make a society socialist. The government owning the means of production does.

 

[Mister Agenda]

That failed state of Switzerland, right? It's clear the world is progressing towards more socialism, not away from it. Many capitalists of today like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and lots of the younger tech guys advocate for systems with less inequality.

'Less inequality' is not a synonym for socialism.

so·cial·ism/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

[Mister Agenda]

One of the reasons I doubt objectivism is a viable system for humans is from my experiences playing EVE online.

In theory the economy and politics of this game should be a breeding ground for objectivism.
All players start equal and the training method (education) is done in such a way that even poorer players can learn everything and there is no unbridgable gap between veterans and newer players.
It is possible to create your own corporation and set the tax rate to 0% so all members keep all the money they earn
And there is a large section of space that is free from things like police and rule enforcement, while also being the richest area of the game.
And finally all players can access weaponry to defend themselves as needed.
According to (what I understand of) objectivism this area should therefore be filled with small groups of people working for themselves or trough agreed upon contracts while only banding together for short periods if needs arise, without any large government dictating their needs.

You're describing anarchocapitalism or possibly minarchism.

But in reality that part of the game is dominated by 4 major alliances that have both a mandatory tax rate and demand that a certain amount of playtime is dedicated to serving the alliance. Trade is bound to a certain number of rules (important items must be sold at cost or less than 3% profit, no markups higher than x% etc). There is a clear healthcare equivalent in ship replacement programs and both alliance policy and what infrastructure to install are decided by (near) dictatorships.
Yet all alliances have severe recruitment stops because of their popularity and players that are part of them can make far more money than they ever could playing without the support of their respective 'states'.
Yes, there is some form of corruption and nepotism and waste, but appearantly even in a game where leaving the 'state' has no actual real life consequences, humans are willing to put up with that in order to get some form of herd security.

If even in a game that seemingly is set up to reward individualistic behaviour humans still are inclined to from nation states I'd say that expecting them NOT to do that in the actual world shows a severe lack of understanding of actual human nature. Sure, some people might want to live in such a system, but they seem to be in a clear minority.

That might be a telling point in a thread about anarchocapitalism. Ayn Rand was a strong believer in the role of government in protecting the rights of citizens, including from outside aggression. She was at least a minarchist, but arguably her ideal government would be somewhere between minarchy and what we actually have.

 

[theprestige]

One of the reasons I doubt objectivism is a viable system for humans is from my experiences playing EVE online.

In theory the economy and politics of this game should be a breeding ground for objectivism.

Why should it be a breeding ground for Objectivism?

As far as I can tell, Objectivism as an ethical framework is absolutely not an emergent property of human interaction. Rather, it is a conscious choice to adopt certain axioms and reason to ethical principles from those axioms (then followed, with varying degrees of success, to live up to the ethical ideals thus derived). One notable feature of Objectivism is that it is a conscious decision to not exploit others against their will. It seems strange to object to Objectivism on the grounds that you have to reason out for yourself what is right and wrong, and choose for yourself to do what you have reasoned is right, rather than arrive at Objectivism's conclusions instinctively, and without any guarantee that society as a whole will follow your lead.

EVE Online should be no more likely to produce Objectivists than it is to produce trolls, cartels, communes, predatory capitalists, etc.

I wonder if this is the basis for so much resistance to Objectivism--the mistaken expectation that if it were valid, it would emerge naturally.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Why should it be a breeding ground for Objectivism?

As far as I can tell, Objectivism as an ethical framework is absolutely not an emergent property of human interaction. Rather, it is a conscious choice to adopt certain axioms and reason to ethical principles from those axioms (then followed, with varying degrees of success, to live up to the ethical ideals thus derived).

EVE Online should be no more likely to produce Objectivists than it is to produce trolls, cartels, communes, predatory capitalists, etc.

I wonder if this is the basis for so much resistance to Objectivism--the mistaken expectation that if it were valid, it would emerge naturally.

Fair points. But what, then, would an Objectivist vidyagaem look like?

Your normal MMO system is, governmentally speaking, totalitarian. You can do things like PvP and conducting transactions only when and in what ways the administration unilaterally permits you to, and efforts to escape these restrictions - exploits, griefing - tend to be hammered down, generally without remorse.

EVE, contrary to what players may insist, is not anarchy, even in nullsec. The developers closely monitor goings-on, and make regular changes, mostly economic. The only activity they don't actively police is PvP.

But let's make this all Objectivey. From the perspective of a developer/government, what features would need to be implemented?

 

[theprestige]

Fair points. But what, then, would an Objectivist vidyagaem look like?

People making a conscious choice to act ethically, to the best of their reasoning, and urging others to do the same?

But let's make this all Objectivey. From the perspective of a developer/government, what features would need to be implemented?

As far as I can tell, an Objectivist videogame would need maybe three features: First, a non-exploitative privacy policy. Second, a non-exploitative TOS. Third, a good-faith effort by the developer and publisher to deliver good value for payment and abide by the privacy policy and TOS.

ETA: Within the context of the game itself, I guess player avatars would be treated by the game engine and the moderators as if they have inherent rights to self-determination and property ownership. Initiation of violence would be permitted by the game engine, but sanctioned by the moderators if and when it was brought to their attention. The engine would allow property theft, and the moderators would adjudicate property disputes if and when they are become aware of them. Moderators would enforce contracts and adjudicate contract disputes. Everything else, including acquisition of resources, self defense, and trade agreements, would be left up to the players.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

ETA: Within the context of the game itself, I guess player avatars would be treated by the game engine and the moderators as if they have inherent rights to self-determination and property ownership. Initiation of violence would be permitted by the game engine, but sanctioned by the moderators if and when it was brought to their attention. The engine would allow property theft, and the moderators would adjudicate property disputes if and when they are become aware of them. Moderators would enforce contracts and adjudicate contract disputes. Everything else, including acquisition of resources, self defense, and trade agreements, would be left up to the players.

It was within the context of the game I was asking about, so thank you. It doesn't sound like you have a very clear idea, except that it would rely on a great deal of Mod action, and those mods must be ideologically pure Objectivists.

I think putting it into a concrete form would help avoid vague handwaving. Let's use Minecraft as a base, since a vanilla Minecraft server is actually much closer to anarchy than EVE. I assume you're familiar with the game?

Let's also try to eliminate Moderator action, where possible. Any ethical system can be implemented as a game of "Mother May I," but we as developers can impose arbitrary limitations on the players which reduce or eliminate ethical problems. For example, the commonly implemented trade mechanism, where both players have to agree and "lock in" the trade before it can be completed, prevents outright theft in a manner which isn't possible in the real world.

So. Your description mentions two things: property and contracts, which sound interesting. How should property be determined, in the context of a Minecraft-like game? What could be some in-game mechanics for implementing useful contracts between players?

As far as I can tell, an Objectivist videogame would need maybe three features: First, a non-exploitative privacy policy. Second, a non-exploitative TOS. Third, a good-faith effort by the developer and publisher to deliver good value for payment and abide by the privacy policy and TOS.

ETA: By the way, I'm under the impression that "non-exploitative" is not a useful adjective for describing anything in Objectivism. If you agree to it, it is by definition non-exploitative. See for example, Dinwar's earlier post that fair (non-exploitative) working conditions are not a right under Objectivism.

 

[Dinwar]

I wanted to delve a little deeper into the concept of rights....I apologize for skipping some stuff, but I think that area deserves a better explanation than I gave it.

The first question we should ask is "Who needs it?" In other words, why do we need rights in the first place? As I pointed out, a person can live just fine on a deserted island without ever dealing with rights--thus, they are not inherent in the human condition. Why should we bother with them?

The answer is: IF we wish to interact with others, THEN there needs to be some set of guidelines, some rules. Otherwise there's simply no posibility of interaction; it'd be a complete toss-up as to what would happen in any interaction. There'd be no possibility for trade, which means no posibility for specialization, which means we'd each have to survive only on what we could gather from the environment ourselves, etc. The most fundamental of these--those rules which are absolutely necessary for maintaning a society--we call rights. Those rules which can vary from society to society are called manners, customs, etc. (For example, we all have to write things down, but exactly how we do it--what instruments we use, the characters we use, the order we do it in, all that--is highly variable.)

It's like bsaeball. You can go your whole life without ever learning the rules of baseball--but if you wish to play baseball, you must follow those rules. Similarly, you can live your whole life without being part of a society (though the lives of those unfortunate few who have are both horrifying and brutally short)--but if you wish to interact with people, you've got to accept the concept of rights.

Unlike Libertarians (at least the ones I know), Objectivists do not consider rights a primary; rather, they are derived from more basic premises: Each person is an end in themselves, for example. (In fact, they can all be tied back to that premise--rights basically boil down to "Don't treat others like you own them".) Rights CANNOT BE primary; as was demonstrated in this thread, rights are derived from specific ethical concepts. A socialist will have a very different set of rights from an Objectivist. Their rights will still boil down to fundamental rules for social interactions, though. It's impossible to imagine a coherent and rational set of rights applicable to a person all by themselves, with no potential for interacting with other people.

The primary rule for interacting with others in Objectivism, as stated above, is that other people don't belong to you. The rights Objectivists believe exist reflect this. You can't kill others, because they aren't your property. You can't take their property, because it's THEIR property, and doing so assumes that you own them. You can't censore them (in Objectivism, this refers only to government action; the right to free speach does not mean anyone owes you the means to speak), because you don't own the property they use to spread their message and you don't own them. In contrast, you CAN kill a pet, or take things away from a pet, or stop a pet from growling/barking/hissing/what have you.

As was pointed out, this can get complicated in cases where the property in question is a complex entity. Who owns a river? Tough question to answer. However, more derived concepts--the customs of the land in question--can be used to determine this. Think of them as house rules. The actual application of these concepts is the realm of (proper, under Objectivist philosophy) political philosophy, an area I haven't researched that much. But the fact that practical application under complex conditions becomes complicated is not disproof of the concept; f=ma can become difficult to solve under complex physics problems, but the foundational concept--that force, mass, and acceleration are related in specific ways--remains constant.

So. Your description mentions two things: property and contracts, which sound interesting. How should property be determined, in the context of a Minecraft-like game? What could be some in-game mechanics for implementing useful contracts between players?

This is something I've given some thought to--I wanted to start a Gult's Gulch server at one point. Unfortunately, it's not possible; there is not sufficient capacity for innovation in Minecraft to reflect the real world.

That said, a very good way to do it is the following: Anything not claimed is considered wilderness (as in the real world). Attacking villages is immoral; villages should be considered claimed by the villagers (or, ideally, removed entirely). Property, at least initially, consists of the area you develop. As a custom (NOT a right, but an enforceable rule of behavior none the less), property above ground will be delineated by a fence or wall. Property below ground is trickier; I'd say that you own anything below your claim, to be sure. If you fence off an underground area, it's yours (you cannot remove other claims, and this cannot violate claims above ground!). Players who break into unfenced mines in the wilderness will not be held criminally liable, though basic courtesy demands they fix the damages. And, due to the nature of the game, you can only build structures above either wilderness areas or your own claim--building things that cause monsters to spawn in other people's property is a violation of their rights, and would be treated as such.

Alternatively, each claim can include an area 10 blocks above the highest point, and 10 below the lowest point, at the ground surface. Claims underground would be 20 blocks above and below the claim, or until they run into the edge of another claim, whichever is less. I've seen the equivalent of both in the real world.

A claim is necessary because in order for something to be your property other people must be able, in some way, to recognize it AS your property. I don't mean you ahve to have your name on everything you own, ro that people can take things they can't immediately identify owners to; rather, if a person acting in good faith cannot determine if something is property or not, they have commited no transgression; errors of ignorance are not moral failures, nor can they justifiably (or in justice) be considered criminal offenses. Civil, maybe, but not criminal.

Contracts can be written on books, and it would be extremely useful for someone to keep track of said books. In fact, I'd say this is one legitimate activity of any governing body: ensuring a record of all contracts. There would also have to be a police force to ensure compliance with the laws and to enforce contractual obligations. Personally, I think a tax on all contracts is justifiable; it's payment for services rendered, after all (a rather controversial stance in Objectivism). Police aren't free, nor should we expect them to volunteer thier services. There'd also have to be a judge/arbitor for settling disputes and determining when (if) violations of rights ro contractual obligations occur (multiple if the numbers got high enough). This judge wold have the power to confine the player's avatar, or remove the claim, or transfer the claim (as damages), or in extreme cases remove the player from the server (the equivalent of exicution). If there is no next of kin, the claim would revert back to wilderness.

After that, players would be on their own. They could work together if they wished, or separate and live as hermits if they wished. They could create a contract that allowed them each partial ownership of a large claim, or they could rent claims from each other, or whatever they wished.

 

[Dinwar]

ETA: By the way, I'm under the impression that "non-exploitative" is not a useful adjective for describing anything in Objectivism. If you agree to it, it is by definition non-exploitative. See for example, Dinwar's earlier post that fair (non-exploitative) working conditions are not a right under Objectivism.

One person's exploitation is another's golden opportunity. Many sweatshops are horrific by American standards, certainly, but by the standards of the countries they are in, they are the best option available. When your choice is prostitution or making shoes, and making shoes pays better, you don't worry too much about what rich Americans who can't find your country on a map think. You think "Thank God I can feed my children this week."

 

[marplots]

I am glad to see we are getting down to the basics, because, if we think ethics should logically follow from underlying principles, we should examine the logical train and what underlies it.

Dinwar said, "Objectivists do not consider rights a primary; rather, they are derived from more basic premises: Each person is an end in themselves, for example. (In fact, they can all be tied back to that premise--rights basically boil down to "Don't treat others like you own them".) Rights CANNOT BE primary; as was demonstrated in this thread, rights are derived from specific ethical concepts."

I would like to see what the phrase, "each person is an end in themselves" means. It seems to start with the notion of a "person," which may not be as clear as we would have it.

For example, children. Are they people, even from infancy, in the same manner as all others? How about the fundamentally retarded or psychotic?

I'll stop with that to keep the questions manageable.

 

[Spindrift]

Are you being self-constradictory?

Here you say that the rules which vary from society to society are manners and they are not rights.

The most fundamental of these--those rules which are absolutely necessary for maintaning a society--we call rights. Those rules which can vary from society to society are called manners, customs, etc. (For example, we all have to write things down, but exactly how we do it--what instruments we use, the characters we use, the order we do it in, all that--is highly variable.)

But here you say that rights can vary from society to society.

Rights CANNOT BE primary; as was demonstrated in this thread, rights are derived from specific ethical concepts. A socialist will have a very different set of rights from an Objectivist. Their rights will still boil down to fundamental rules for social interactions, though.

Is it both?

From this thread it seems to me that there is a fundamental flaw with objectivism and that is that it can't work unless everyone adheres to objectivism and everyone has the same ethical and moral code. And for any group of humans greater than one, they are not going to have identical ethical and moral codes.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

This is something I've given some thought to--I wanted to start a Gult's Gulch server at one point. Unfortunately, it's not possible; there is not sufficient capacity for innovation in Minecraft to reflect the real world.

That said, a very good way to do it is the following: Anything not claimed is considered wilderness (as in the real world). Attacking villages is immoral; villages should be considered claimed by the villagers (or, ideally, removed entirely). Property, at least initially, consists of the area you develop. As a custom (NOT a right, but an enforceable rule of behavior none the less), property above ground will be delineated by a fence or wall. Property below ground is trickier; I'd say that you own anything below your claim, to be sure. If you fence off an underground area, it's yours (you cannot remove other claims, and this cannot violate claims above ground!). Players who break into unfenced mines in the wilderness will not be held criminally liable, though basic courtesy demands they fix the damages. And, due to the nature of the game, you can only build structures above either wilderness areas or your own claim--building things that cause monsters to spawn in other people's property is a violation of their rights, and would be treated as such.

Alternatively, each claim can include an area 10 blocks above the highest point, and 10 below the lowest point, at the ground surface. Claims underground would be 20 blocks above and below the claim, or until they run into the edge of another claim, whichever is less. I've seen the equivalent of both in the real world.

A claim is necessary because in order for something to be your property other people must be able, in some way, to recognize it AS your property. I don't mean you ahve to have your name on everything you own, ro that people can take things they can't immediately identify owners to; rather, if a person acting in good faith cannot determine if something is property or not, they have commited no transgression; errors of ignorance are not moral failures, nor can they justifiably (or in justice) be considered criminal offenses. Civil, maybe, but not criminal.

Contracts can be written on books, and it would be extremely useful for someone to keep track of said books. In fact, I'd say this is one legitimate activity of any governing body: ensuring a record of all contracts. There would also have to be a police force to ensure compliance with the laws and to enforce contractual obligations. Personally, I think a tax on all contracts is justifiable; it's payment for services rendered, after all (a rather controversial stance in Objectivism). Police aren't free, nor should we expect them to volunteer thier services. There'd also have to be a judge/arbitor for settling disputes and determining when (if) violations of rights ro contractual obligations occur (multiple if the numbers got high enough). This judge wold have the power to confine the player's avatar, or remove the claim, or transfer the claim (as damages), or in extreme cases remove the player from the server (the equivalent of exicution). If there is no next of kin, the claim would revert back to wilderness.

After that, players would be on their own. They could work together if they wished, or separate and live as hermits if they wished. They could create a contract that allowed them each partial ownership of a large claim, or they could rent claims from each other, or whatever they wished.

You should definitely check out Salem, then, as well as that company's earlier game, Haven and Hearth. Both games have claim systems which work more or less as you describe: you can set up personal or town claims over property, fueled by XP (HnH) or ingame currency (Salem). You can allow or disallow a number of actions for various groups of people on your claim, and those who violate your restrictions leave behind "scent" markers which can be collected and used to track down the offenders and as proof that they committed the crime. It doesn't do anything beyond that, though, meaning the players are the ones responsible for caring enough to carry out justice.

Generally, the mechanic is used to claim vast, palatial estates for miles around anything of value, and for offensive purposes to hinder others' actions (such as slapping up a throwaway claim over a newbie who foolishly decides to build a house before a personal claim, or doesn't extend it all the way to his fence gate). It's almost useless for its intended purpose of rights arbitration - if they're going to break in to your house/town and steal stuff, either they're going to use a vandalism alt who can't easily be tracked down, or they're willing to kill anyone who protests as well.


You own a river, then, by putting a claim across it, and getting to watch everyone who passes stop dead, then have to either drag their boat around the claim overland, or turn trespassing on and leave a marker behind saying they were there.

 

[Dinwar]

I would like to see what the phrase, "each person is an end in themselves" means.

Every sentient being (and this definition is still fuzzy, I will be the first to admit) has to be treated as an independent entity, with equal rights to any other sentient being.

As you said, children are a special case. They are not fully formed, nor are they fully responsible--by any rational definition of any of these terms--for their behavior. As they mature they are responsible for more of their behavior. An infant is responsible for none of it (in a legal or moral sense), while a 17 year old may be considered responsible for pretty much all of it, with a few exceptions. The age of majority is when we can assume that the person is fully responsible for their own behavior, absent some extreme circumstance like severe mental disability. Every culture has to have such a cut-off point, but each chooses its own.

For those who are not of the age of majority, or who are not able to take full responsibility for their actions, ideally someone takes up that responsibility. My son isn't responsible for his actions for the most part at this point. *I* am, as his caretaker. Similarly, if I were caring for a mentally disabled person, their actions would be my responsibility. This may not be one-to-one--it's like I can be put on trial for my ward's attempt to murder someone--but that's a nuance that is beyond my capacity to address. If there is no one, at least with the mentally handicapped the government does have the right to remove them from interacting with society beyond their capacity for responsibillity--meaning that it would not be a violation of their rights to forcibly detain a violent person who was mentally incapable of taking responsibility.

All that said, any society where children were left ot starve on the streets routinely is so disgusting a society that I cannot see any rational person remaining in it. And I am certainly NOT advocating 18th- or 19th-century asylum treatment! I'm just saying that if someone is a threat to others, the state can intervene--just as, and for the same reason as, I don't have to check someone's mental capacity to determine whether I can defend myself against a violent attacker.

All of THAT said, I'm not convinced that an exploration of abnormal cases provides any insight on the normal cases. Most of us are not mentally handicapped, and most of us are not children. I think it more informative to address the normal case first, and abnormal cases only after the normal cases have been dealt with sufficiently.

It doesn't do anything beyond that, though, meaning the players are the ones responsible for caring enough to carry out justice.

This is where it breaks down. I have said time and again, I AM NOT an anarchist.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

This is where it breaks down. I have said time and again, I AM NOT an anarchist.

I didn't say you were. That's where those two games' claim mechanics end, and where imo it starts breaking down into thug-driven chaos. You'd have to build on it from there.

[ETA] Thinking about it, first I'd try adding a system for divine retribution. If you lack other means of recourse, you can build an altar and sacrifice the scent on it. The criminal would be marked in some way, as would others he'd interact with, until the gods were satisfied. Retribution might be as simple as teleporting valuable goods from his inventory to yours, up to an auto-smite for committing multiple murders. Said player should have a chance to defend himself, and at this point we'd probably need a human to arbitrate, with fairly stiff penalty fees/initial defence sacrifice to pay for the mod's time.

That might not be Objectivist enough, what with their NO GODS OR KINGS ONLY MAN, but it's what I'd try.