Would ADT Function as the Ideal Objectivist Government?
Would ADT Function as the Ideal Objectivist Government?
Assuming that ADT formed a strategic partnership with a high-powered private security force....
-
Tolthar Lockbar
- Posts: 732
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:10 pm
This is all good for self defense, but what is lacking is the use of retaliatory force.
For instance, if a country bombs a city, we would need a force to go bomb them to the stone age (not like America would though
).
Also, for simple things like burglery that _did_ succeed past ADT systems would have to have retaliatory force. First the police would arrest them (hopefully) and then be punished based on the court system.
So defense isn't everything, and private companies should not have the power to use retaliatory force because of the conflict of interest of private individuals involved in it.
Here is a video about it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=gSnCYPXdnUk I suggest watching the follow up responses too. It was the first organized and laid out demonstration of the flaws of anarchism that I have ever seen.
For instance, if a country bombs a city, we would need a force to go bomb them to the stone age (not like America would though
).Also, for simple things like burglery that _did_ succeed past ADT systems would have to have retaliatory force. First the police would arrest them (hopefully) and then be punished based on the court system.
So defense isn't everything, and private companies should not have the power to use retaliatory force because of the conflict of interest of private individuals involved in it.
Here is a video about it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=gSnCYPXdnUk I suggest watching the follow up responses too. It was the first organized and laid out demonstration of the flaws of anarchism that I have ever seen.
If Tolmart doesn't have it in stock, you get a free shuttle!
(Must be something with a BPO cost of less than 20 mil. One shuttle a day and per an item.)
-
Tolthar Lockbar
- Posts: 732
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:10 pm
On second thought... not sure what you are talking about. I was assuming you were talking about if ADT systems is all the force the government needs... after rereading, not sure.
If Tolmart doesn't have it in stock, you get a free shuttle!
(Must be something with a BPO cost of less than 20 mil. One shuttle a day and per an item.)
A private militia would not function well. For starters the employees would be loyal to their employer, not the people of the country. This would deliver control of the country to the warlord with the greatest power.
And of course once a private firm controls the country, it is the firm that decides which laws if any should be enforced. The question makes me think of the current situation in Somalia, the lack of any government.
And of course once a private firm controls the country, it is the firm that decides which laws if any should be enforced. The question makes me think of the current situation in Somalia, the lack of any government.
Keep your sharpened steel sword, this wooden one will be all I need!
Clarification...
Okay, let me add some clarifying elements.
First off, ADT is a private corporation that specializes in providing private security services to homes and business primarily through the use of electronic monitoring devices which are used to alert both the consumer and local police forces to the presence of intruders, damage or disaster.
Although ADT does not provide physical assets (ie. security personnel, weapons) for protection and instead serves only to serve as a conduit to the police, I am adding this capability for the sake of argument.
I can already see the disadvantages to the idea of a private militia, so let's assume that our government was being formed along the same lines.
Because we are voluntarily providing this public service with the funds to operate, our ADT-like government would be limited only by our willingness to give in terms of its ability to retaliate against wrong-doers (they could operate aircraft carriers and tanks, etc if we paid for it).
So, that being said... If our ADT Government, funded by the people and able to use force in our name, existed in only that capacity, would it be enough?
What I'm struggling with are issues like punishment. For example, once a robbery has been prevented and your right to pursue happiness is secure for the moment, would punishing the robbers for their crime interfere with their own right to pursue happiness? Or would we be justified in incarcerating them to keep the knowledge that they could try again from interfering with the potential victim's pursuit?
First off, ADT is a private corporation that specializes in providing private security services to homes and business primarily through the use of electronic monitoring devices which are used to alert both the consumer and local police forces to the presence of intruders, damage or disaster.
Although ADT does not provide physical assets (ie. security personnel, weapons) for protection and instead serves only to serve as a conduit to the police, I am adding this capability for the sake of argument.
I can already see the disadvantages to the idea of a private militia, so let's assume that our government was being formed along the same lines.
Because we are voluntarily providing this public service with the funds to operate, our ADT-like government would be limited only by our willingness to give in terms of its ability to retaliate against wrong-doers (they could operate aircraft carriers and tanks, etc if we paid for it).
So, that being said... If our ADT Government, funded by the people and able to use force in our name, existed in only that capacity, would it be enough?
What I'm struggling with are issues like punishment. For example, once a robbery has been prevented and your right to pursue happiness is secure for the moment, would punishing the robbers for their crime interfere with their own right to pursue happiness? Or would we be justified in incarcerating them to keep the knowledge that they could try again from interfering with the potential victim's pursuit?
-
Tolthar Lockbar
- Posts: 732
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:10 pm
If a guy shoots at your head with an intension to kill you, whether he misses or not would matter little to me.
Burglary is a little different, because you don't always know what they were gonna do and how bad. But I think they should still receive punishment for the amount that we had proof they were gonna do.
Burglary is a little different, because you don't always know what they were gonna do and how bad. But I think they should still receive punishment for the amount that we had proof they were gonna do.
If Tolmart doesn't have it in stock, you get a free shuttle!
(Must be something with a BPO cost of less than 20 mil. One shuttle a day and per an item.)
-
Tolthar Lockbar
- Posts: 732
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:10 pm
Also, if one infringes on someone else's right, they lose that right themselves.
If one does not wish to follow some natural right, then one loses it for themselves.
If one does not wish to follow some natural right, then one loses it for themselves.
If Tolmart doesn't have it in stock, you get a free shuttle!
(Must be something with a BPO cost of less than 20 mil. One shuttle a day and per an item.)
Perkone
ADP would only be responsible for physical force, I assume?
If so, then it would be a serious error, because it would separate legal system and enforcement system. Both system have to be as one, and not separated out into a private corporation.
Plus, if it is private, then that means another private company can enter the market? Oh, no - this means anarchy. The use of physical force for retaliation must belong to government only.
If so, then it would be a serious error, because it would separate legal system and enforcement system. Both system have to be as one, and not separated out into a private corporation.
Plus, if it is private, then that means another private company can enter the market? Oh, no - this means anarchy. The use of physical force for retaliation must belong to government only.
Ex-CEO of Taggart Transdimensional
"Objectivism is not only true, it is great! Why? Because of the volitional work a mind must have performed to reach for the first time so exalted a level of truth—and because of all the glorious effects such knowledge will have on man’s life, all the possibilities of action it opens up for the future." -- Leonard Peikoff
"Objectivism is not only true, it is great! Why? Because of the volitional work a mind must have performed to reach for the first time so exalted a level of truth—and because of all the glorious effects such knowledge will have on man’s life, all the possibilities of action it opens up for the future." -- Leonard Peikoff
The government is basing itself on "ADP," so it would definitely not be private.
"ADP" would be both the "force" and the legal system, although I am wondering to what extent the government's capacity to have a legal system as we know it now would be in a truly objectivist society... If using force to disrupt someone else's pursuit of happiness causes them to forfeit their own natural rights then an objectivist legal system has the ability to punish as it sees fit... But personally I am in favor of exile as an alternative to punishments like incarceration or execution. Compensation for the offended parties at the expense of the transgressors in minor cases, and removal from society through banishment for serious offenses.
This would remove the obligation for citizens to pay for the upkeep of punishment systems for prison inmates, etc, because the same force that we are paying for to protect us from aggressors can be used to force the offenders to leave, and to keep them away.
"ADP" would be both the "force" and the legal system, although I am wondering to what extent the government's capacity to have a legal system as we know it now would be in a truly objectivist society... If using force to disrupt someone else's pursuit of happiness causes them to forfeit their own natural rights then an objectivist legal system has the ability to punish as it sees fit... But personally I am in favor of exile as an alternative to punishments like incarceration or execution. Compensation for the offended parties at the expense of the transgressors in minor cases, and removal from society through banishment for serious offenses.
This would remove the obligation for citizens to pay for the upkeep of punishment systems for prison inmates, etc, because the same force that we are paying for to protect us from aggressors can be used to force the offenders to leave, and to keep them away.
-
Amarantus Cerularius
In the ideal objectivist system we'd all be capable and trained at kung fu and be issued .45's at birth.
As it stands, no, I don't think a private security firm can possibly be trusted to act as go-betweens for citizens and the government. Public police forces have a hard enough time, so privatizing just increases bureaucratic fiddling and the likelihood of corruption. I do support a solely military and military-police based system though, where soldiers are also the law keepers within society.
If we have to elect a security contractor, vote Blackwater, they 'Git er' Dooone!'
As it stands, no, I don't think a private security firm can possibly be trusted to act as go-betweens for citizens and the government. Public police forces have a hard enough time, so privatizing just increases bureaucratic fiddling and the likelihood of corruption. I do support a solely military and military-police based system though, where soldiers are also the law keepers within society.
If we have to elect a security contractor, vote Blackwater, they 'Git er' Dooone!'
-
Tolthar Lockbar
- Posts: 732
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:10 pm
While I agree that a private retaliatory use of force would be bad, I don't think that was Sophid's Essential Question (tm).
The question is about justice.
Lets say that someone tried to break into my house and got caught by me. When this happened, they killed me in the process. This means that, by shooting me, the robber has given up his right to property and life, and subsequently cut the corp chat by 50%. I do not think exiling him is enough. Justice is not just preserving the peace, it is getting fair. Eye for an eye if you will.
If person A infringes on person B's rights, then person A has given up that same right--unless it was done in self defense, and unless it was done as punishment for a certain offense which can only be issued by the government.
The reason for the government being the only issuer of punishment was said in my first post.
So the reason why exiling is not enough is a matter of fairness and justice. That is the supreme reason for the government and an objective law.
--------
Interestingly enough, in eve, this can not be the case. Eve lacks a supreme punishment like death so the most you can punish someone in eve is waste their time. So the ADT system in eve might be a little better--in that the goal is just to kick them out and prevent them from coming back.
EDIT: trademarking issues
The question is about justice.
Lets say that someone tried to break into my house and got caught by me. When this happened, they killed me in the process. This means that, by shooting me, the robber has given up his right to property and life, and subsequently cut the corp chat by 50%. I do not think exiling him is enough. Justice is not just preserving the peace, it is getting fair. Eye for an eye if you will.
I don't really see how this would give the government the ability to use force how ever they see fit. The point is that the government's use of retaliatory force would be guided by an objective law. This law would be as follows:If using force to disrupt someone else's pursuit of happiness causes them to forfeit their own natural rights then an [O]bjectivist legal system has the ability to punish as it sees fit...
If person A infringes on person B's rights, then person A has given up that same right--unless it was done in self defense, and unless it was done as punishment for a certain offense which can only be issued by the government.
The reason for the government being the only issuer of punishment was said in my first post.
So the reason why exiling is not enough is a matter of fairness and justice. That is the supreme reason for the government and an objective law.
--------
Interestingly enough, in eve, this can not be the case. Eve lacks a supreme punishment like death so the most you can punish someone in eve is waste their time. So the ADT system in eve might be a little better--in that the goal is just to kick them out and prevent them from coming back.
EDIT: trademarking issues
If Tolmart doesn't have it in stock, you get a free shuttle!
(Must be something with a BPO cost of less than 20 mil. One shuttle a day and per an item.)
Now i get more of the picture. So my thoughts on some of the questions.
1. Government as an executioner of punishment.
I think the role of government here should be just to create exact laws on what are the punishments for different tipe of violations. And then the victim of violation executes it (or his relative in the worst case). If someone punches you in the face, you don't ask government to punish the person. Why should it be different in other situations?
2. Exile as a punishment.
Unless you can send a criminal to Mars or smth, you make a bad favour for other people. And long term you get a whole country populated with scum. Then they organize their government. And you can't really exile the whole country.
3. Private military forces.
I think it can't be any good. reasons mentioned in posts above. Right now some big corporations in Russia are lobbying to have the right on their own armed forces. So we may see pretty soon how far this approach can go.
P.S. Tolthar, don't let em reduce the corp chat
1. Government as an executioner of punishment.
I think the role of government here should be just to create exact laws on what are the punishments for different tipe of violations. And then the victim of violation executes it (or his relative in the worst case). If someone punches you in the face, you don't ask government to punish the person. Why should it be different in other situations?
2. Exile as a punishment.
Unless you can send a criminal to Mars or smth, you make a bad favour for other people. And long term you get a whole country populated with scum. Then they organize their government. And you can't really exile the whole country.
3. Private military forces.
I think it can't be any good. reasons mentioned in posts above. Right now some big corporations in Russia are lobbying to have the right on their own armed forces. So we may see pretty soon how far this approach can go.
P.S. Tolthar, don't let em reduce the corp chat
