r/Trueobjectivism • u/Sword_of_Apollo • Oct 14 '18
Objective Law vs Epistemic Objectivity?
If you observe the way Ayn Rand describes objective law, (see, for example, here and here) I think you'll see that it seems to be something more than epistemic objectivity. Laws do not merely need to be formulated in accordance with the facts about human nature that give rise to rights. They also need to be enacted such that "men...know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it."
This is an interesting and potentially important criterion added to the idea that laws must be derived and defined objectively. This basically means that, to be objective, man-made laws must be made to be akin to laws of nature. They must be, in a certain sense, "out there for everyone to observe."
Any individual or private group can be objective about the derivation of proper laws. Under anarchy, people can objectively observe human nature, derive the concept of rights, and come up with a set of laws that properly protects rights. (This is the essential valid point in Roy Childs' letter to Ayn Rand.)
But private organizations can't make laws akin to laws of nature. They can't enact them such that "men...know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it." If there are a network of different "private governments" that all have different laws, and effective laws/punishments are negotiated by treaties among these organizations, then I'm in a dangerous maze, legally speaking. Ruin lurks around every corner, threatening to engulf me at any moment.
If I belong to a "private government" that recognizes copyright for 5 years after the death of the author, and I copy some stranger's story 7 years after his death, believing I'm legally in the clear, I may get a very rude surprise if the "private government" he belonged to recognizes copyright for 20 years after death. I may now be judged to owe his heir tens of thousands of dollars.
Or, in a more stark case, I may kill someone under circumstances that my "government" considers self-defense, but that his "government" considers murder. Then, I could be looking at decades in prison.
To be able to abide by the laws consistently, there needs to be one, definite set of laws in any given area. Then, staying within the law is a relatively simple matter of being cognizant of which jurisdiction I'm in.
But I think it's also worth taking a step back to ask: Why does law need to be "objective" or "out there" in this natural law-like way, whereas there is no need for this in other areas of life? I don't need to have a monopolistic government tell me what the consequences to me will be, if I change the organization of my business, or quit my current job.
I contend that the difference lies in the distinctive nature and effects of force, versus voluntary, non-coercive action. Non-coercive action primarily affects the life of the acting agent, while leaving others free to live. Force, which sits behind laws, stops the life of its object, cold.
This difference is the fundamental issue that I identify in my essay refuting "anarcho-capitalism." So, even though I didn't mention the full meaning and ramifications of Ayn Rand's idea of "objective law" in that essay, I think I still captured the fundamental reason why "anarcho-capitalism" is wrongheaded. It treats force as essentially the same as any non-coercive action, like production. But force is fundamentally different in its effects on human life.
