The single most important political principle ever

[Maerngau]

BC Postulate: "A person has sole authority over themself... A person has no authority over another..."

->Since no one can have authority over another, no group of people can have authority over another person...

->Since groups cannot have authority over another person, governments may not exert authority over the people...

->Since government cannot exert authority over people, laws cannot exist to outlaw the actions or behaviors of other people (them having sole authority over themselves)

->Murdering someone else is perfectly okay, because no one has the authority over someone else to say otherwise

While I don;t agree with BC whatsoever, this last point is illogical on the premises of the argument. The individual has authority over herself. Murdering someone is wrong because it violates that authority.

[Bluth Corporation]

No time tonight to say anything except:

So only organic things can have authority?

I don't think you understand the sense in which I used "organic"...

[Melkor Unchained]

BC Postulate: "A person has sole authority over themself... A person has no authority over another..."

->Since no one can have authority over another, no group of people can have authority over another person...

->Since groups cannot have authority over another person, governments may not exert authority over the people...

->Since government cannot exert authority over people, laws cannot exist to outlaw the actions or behaviors of other people (them having sole authority over themselves)

->Murdering someone else is perfectly okay, because no one has the authority over someone else to say otherwise

I don't know if BC will point this out or not, but Objectivism != Anarchy. Objectivism doesn't reject 'government,' per se, it just asserts that government plays a very specific role; e.g. enforcing contracts and keeping people from killing each other and drinking their blood, etc.

Indeed, even someone as "LOL STUPID NEVER RIGHT" as Ayn Rand could see that government is the basis for organized civilization. Objectivism just rejects the hitherto accepted premise that said government can mortgage someone's life/labor/whatnot.

[New Kereptica]

BC Postulate: "A person has sole authority over themself... A person has no authority over another..."

->Since no one can have authority over another, no group of people can have authority over another person...

->Since groups cannot have authority over another person, governments may not exert authority over the people...

->Since government cannot exert authority over people, laws cannot exist to outlaw the actions or behaviors of other people (them having sole authority over themselves)

->Murdering someone else is perfectly okay, because no one has the authority over someone else to say otherwise

I don't know if BC will point this out or not, but Objectivism != Anarchy. Objectivism doesn't reject 'government,' per se, it just asserts that government plays a very specific role; e.g. enforcing contracts and keeping people from killing each other and drinking their blood, etc.

Indeed, even someone as "LOL STUPID NEVER RIGHT" as Ayn Rand could see that government is the basis for organized civilization. Objectivism just rejects the hitherto accepted premise that said government can mortgage someone's life/labor/whatnot.

Objectivity might not, but BC certainly seems to be.

[Tekania]

While I don;t agree with BC whatsoever, this last point is illogical on the premises of the argument. The individual has authority over herself. Murdering someone is wrong because it violates that authority.

Except, since your authority (nor a groups) extend past yourself, you lack the authority to say it is wrong. Because that extends your authority over another... You can tell yourself that it is wrong; you have the authority to do that...

[Melkor Unchained]

BC Postulate: "A person has sole authority over themself... A person has no authority over another..."

->Since no one can have authority over another, no group of people can have authority over another person...

->Since groups cannot have authority over another person, governments may not exert authority over the people...

->Since government cannot exert authority over people, laws cannot exist to outlaw the actions or behaviors of other people (them having sole authority over themselves)

->Murdering someone else is perfectly okay, because no one has the authority over someone else to say otherwise

I don't know if BC will point this out or not, but Objectivism != Anarchy. Objectivism doesn't reject 'government,' per se, it just asserts that government plays a very specific role; e.g. enforcing contracts and keeping people from killing each other and drinking their blood, etc.

Indeed, even someone as "LOL STUPID NEVER RIGHT" as Ayn Rand could see that government is the basis for organized civilization. Objectivism just rejects the hitherto accepted premise that said government can mortgage someone's life/labor/whatnot.

Objectivity might not, but BC certainly seems to be.

Well I haven't read the entire thread, but based on my own past experience arguing from an Objectivist point of view in NSG, I was fairly often treated as an anarchist. The forum tends to lean far enough left that anyone saying "Government shouldn't tax/subsidize" might as well be saying "Government shouldn't exist."

I think there's a tendency to paint something of a caricature of Objectivism; people read the wiki article or whatever and are subsequently prepared to assume that Everything It Says Is Wrong. An excellent example of this is the "A=A" hate I keep seeing here; I don't know how BC has portrayed the concept but it's a pretty simple one that I can't say as I understand any logical basis by which it might be refuted. "A=A" refers to (I think it was Aristotle's) Law of Identity, which basically means that shit is what shit is. For instance, you're looking at a computer monitor right now, and that monitor is displaying words. You're not reading a magazine or sharpie scribbled on an inflated balloon; you're reading written commentary from some putz in Ohio. I think people like to attack it because it's the basic lynchpin of Objectivist thought more than anything else.

[Tekania]

BC Postulate: "A person has sole authority over themself... A person has no authority over another..."

->Since no one can have authority over another, no group of people can have authority over another person...

->Since groups cannot have authority over another person, governments may not exert authority over the people...

->Since government cannot exert authority over people, laws cannot exist to outlaw the actions or behaviors of other people (them having sole authority over themselves)

->Murdering someone else is perfectly okay, because no one has the authority over someone else to say otherwise

I don't know if BC will point this out or not, but Objectivism != Anarchy. Objectivism doesn't reject 'government,' per se, it just asserts that government plays a very specific role; e.g. enforcing contracts and keeping people from killing each other and drinking their blood, etc.

Indeed, even someone as "LOL STUPID NEVER RIGHT" as Ayn Rand could see that government is the basis for organized civilization. Objectivism just rejects the hitherto accepted premise that said government can mortgage someone's life/labor/whatnot.

I was arguing from a starting point of BC's premise; that is that an individual has no authority over another individual...

I really could care less what Rand, or any other Objectivist might postulate as their starting point...

[New Kereptica]

This thread is essentially hinging on BC's assertion that government has no authority. The logical extension of that argument is that government shouldn't exist.

EDIT: It was a Freudian slip, I swear.

[Melkor Unchained]

I was arguing from a starting point of BC's premise; that is that an individual has no authority over another individual...

I really could care less what Rand, or any other Objectivist might postulate as their starting point...

Fair enough, but I suspect you're talking past each other when you use the term 'authority.' I would guess BC would agree that it's okay for the government to exert its authority on a murderer; or to enforce a written contract. Again, I haven't read the whole thread so perhaps he's been deploying vague terminology, but I think when he says "authority" he means to say "authority to mortgage its citizens' life/labor/resources." The opposition (which would include you, I guess) probably reads "authority" in the broader sense.

This thread is essentially hinging on BC's assertion that government has no authority. The logical extension of that argument is that government shouldn't exist.

EDIT: It was a Freudian slip, I swear.

Has he been asked this directly, then? I can't be arsed to read the whole thread

[New Kereptica]

I have no idea. At this hour, nor can I.

[Tekania]

Well... There is no real difference with how I use "authority" then, vice how a traditional Objectivist might... And therefore it may be asserted that one (or a group) can exert authority over one (or others) given the context of certain compelling reasons to exert said authority...

At that point, however, the discussion ends; because I might have compelling reasons to require taxation upon the general populace to provide for the greater-good of society, whereas and Objectivst might say that isn't a "compelling reason"... And it devolves into subjective argumentation, since our subjective views of the world and human society differ...

[FreeAgency]

No time tonight to say anything except:

So only organic things can have authority?

I don't think you understand the sense in which I used "organic"...

Or I was mocking you. Never ascribe to stupidity what can more easily be explained by disdain.

[Melkor Unchained]

No time tonight to say anything except:

So only organic things can have authority?

I don't think you understand the sense in which I used "organic"...

Or I was mocking you. Never ascribe to stupidity what can more easily be explained by disdain.

Not that it's anything I'm going to OMG MODSMASH you for, but posting for the sole purpose of 'mocking' posters is something I think we should try to avoid.

[FreeAgency]

No time tonight to say anything except:

So only organic things can have authority?

I don't think you understand the sense in which I used "organic"...

Or I was mocking you. Never ascribe to stupidity what can more easily be explained by disdain.

Not that it's anything I'm going to OMG MODSMASH you for, but posting for the sole purpose of 'mocking' posters is something I think we should try to avoid.

To be fair, it wasn't the sole purpose. I did actually go about the tedium of defeating his arguement in segments he didn't bother to post.

But point taken, I'll try to be less overtly cruel in future posts.

[Ryadn]

Incorrect; authority over the individual rests solely with the individual--and since all political acts ultimately reduce to acts of individuals, no other form of "authority" is relevant or even meaningful.

I'd go even further and say that no form of authority is relevent

An individual's authority over himself is quite relevant.

It is because I, and I alone, possess sole and exclusive authority over myself, no one else may do harm to me without my consent--because in so doing, they would be illegitimately attempting to usurp the authority over myself that I rightfully hold.

Now that I think about it some more... why do YOU have authority over yourself? Why does any individual have authority over her/himself? I mean, objectively, you should be property of your parents. You are quite literally the fruit of your mother's labor. Your very being was created entirely from their own bodies. By living your 'own' life, you're basically stealing from them.

[Natapoc]

Hay Melkor Unchained, I asked him twice what he meant by authority without response. I also suspect that definitions are part of the problem here.

[Allbeama]

I cannot delegate to the state authority I do not have. If I have zero authority to do a particular act on my own, and everyone else does as well, then altogether we have zero authority to do it, which means the state cannot ever have the authority to do it either.

That makes absolutely no sense.

That I cannot delegate authority I do not myself possess makes no sense?
That if every one of us posseses zero authority to do something, then regardless of how many of us there are there is still overall zero authority for us to do something makes no sense?

"Authority" is a subjective concept, so your objective definition of it makes no sense. You cannot treat the intangible as if it were tangible. Can you show that there is no such thing as "authority" even in the subjective sense? I mean If your argument is true nothing should be done ever. By executing free will that shows some "authority" to act. Your own. Therefore "authority" can be delegated if you see it from that perspective.

[Bluth Corporation]

This thread is essentially hinging on BC's assertion that government has no authority.

I have made no such assertion.

[Bluth Corporation]

Can you show that there is no such thing as "authority" even in the subjective sense?

Why would I want to? I have never claimed "there is no such thing as 'authority'," in any sense.

[Unchecked Expansion]

This thread is essentially hinging on BC's assertion that government has no authority.

I have made no such assertion.

On page 1 your vauge assertation that as people have no authority over each other, governments have no authority over each other certainly sounds like it. If governments have no authority over people, then what do they have authority over?

[Bluth Corporation]

On page 1 your vauge assertation that as people have no authority over each other, governments have no authority over each other certainly sounds like it. If governments have no authority over people, then what do they have authority over?

Governments only have the authority that the individuals that government claims to rule delegate to it, and no one can delegate an authority he doesn't have.

I have the authority to protect myself; therefore, I can delegate that authority to the state.
I do not have the authority to rob Peter to pay Paul if Peter has committed no transgression against Paul; therefore, that is not something I can delegate to the state.

Since:

1. Everyone has zero authority to rob Peter to pay Paul if Peter has committed no transgression against Paul
2. No one can delegate to the state or any other entity an authority he does not himself possess
3. Zero times three hundred million (or any other number) is still zero

Then:

1. The state has zero authority to rob Peter to pay Paul if Peter has committed no transgression against Paul.

[Unchecked Expansion]

On page 1 your vauge assertation that as people have no authority over each other, governments have no authority over each other certainly sounds like it. If governments have no authority over people, then what do they have authority over?

Governments only have the authority that the individuals that government claims to rule delegate to it, and no one can delegate an authority he doesn't have.

I have the authority to protect myself; therefore, I can delegate that authority to the state.
I do not have the authority to rob Peter to pay Paul if Peter has committed no transgression against Paul; therefore, that is not something I can delegate to the state.

Since:

1. Everyone has zero authority to rob Peter to pay Paul if Peter has committed no transgression against Paul
2. No one can delegate to the state or any other entity an authority he does not himself possess
3. Zero times three hundred million (or any other number) is still zero

Then:

1. The state has zero authority to rob Peter to pay Paul if Peter has committed no transgression against Paul.

Peter however has the ability to give money to pay Paul, as well as fund all manner of public works. He also has the ability to vote, to stand for election and to organise protest. If he was persuasive and held to be right, he should have the ability to change the authority of the government.

[Tekania]

I do not have the authority to rob Peter to pay Paul if Peter has committed no transgression against Paul; therefore, that is not something I can delegate to the state.

::screeching halt::

No one is transferring the authority to "rob" someone... Merely some authority over finances have been transferred by the people to the state... If you don't like having this authority transferred, well then attempt by voting power to change it; or if that's not good enough for you, you always have the option of renouncing your citizenship, and leaving...

In any case, it is not "theft"... Since you're not being coerced, having the perfect freedom of taking other options (like getting the fuck out)...

[Bluth Corporation]

Peter however has the ability to give money to pay Paul, as well as fund all manner of public works.[/quote]

His own money, yes--but not someone else's, which means he cannot delegate authority over someone else's money to the state.

If I choose not to delegate to the state control over my finances, then the state does not get to decide at all what to do with my money, or to take it from me without my consent.

And I'm not implicitly delegating such authority by choosing to remain in a certain arbitrarily-defined geographic area, because I and not the state am sovereign over my property, and the state has no authority over the land I own except that which I choose to delegate to it--and I am entitled to choose to delegate zero authority over my land to the state if I so desire.

[Tekania]

And I'm not implicitly delegating such authority by choosing to remain in a certain arbitrarily-defined geographic area, because I and not the state am sovereign over my property, and the state has no authority over the land I own except that which I choose to delegate to it--and I am entitled to choose to delegate zero authority over my land to the state if I so desire.

Yes, you are... You delegated authority in accordance with a contract with the state which bears the name "Title Deed"...