Just a suggestion: In addition to Ayn Rand, other writers offer good "color" on the subject of rights and the limits on the government's use of force. Some poignant quotes inserted into your text would add some interest, in my view. Yours is a good effort, and I like that you want to keep updating and improving.
I so appreciate the either-or aspect of all your writing. I can't think anyone who reads this thinks it is something that will be accepted overnight, but if you don't know the ideal you are trying to achieve how will you ever hope to get there. As to the argument that morality is determined by each society for itself, I couldn't disagree more. Morality is the same for all human beings regardless of the society they are living in. The methods for insuring that people can live according to that proper morality may be different from society to society, but whatever those methods are they must protect the ability of each individual in that society to freely achieve his or her objectives in life through their own efforts while preventing individuals from initiating force against any other individual.
Thanks for your feedback. I will use it to clarify certain points. I agree with Russ' statement that "Morality is the same for all human beings..." as human nature is a constant (at least for the foreseeable future). Societies that are committed to limiting government to protecting individual rights (=morally Right) may implement and interpret objective law differently but over time they will converge as they learn from one another and as case law is evolving. Circumcision may be an example of where implementation may vary initially (I haven't really thought about whether it is an individual rights violation or not).
As for dress code and running around naked, it would be at the discretion of property owners to determine what is appropriate on their property ("public" property is limited to the valid functions of government--military, police and the courts--in a society that champions the respect for and protection of individual rights. I've written about what I call "The Tragedy of The Public Square"--the fact that we don't have well defined property rights--here: https://andersingemarson.substack.com/p/the-tragedy-of-the-public-square).
What the community thinks about a "moral response" is all that matters. Isn't it the community that objectively determines what is moral or not? If it is not the community that determines the objective measures that moral decisions are based on who does? If everybody in a community is for something that only affects their community, is it possible for it to be amoral?
I agree too much government intervention is not good. I know it can be difficult to make a point without exaggerating but I believe your perspective would be more broadly acceptable with a less binary approach. The problems you are looking to solve are not binary. Just like the temperature at which water boils changes with pressure, there are many variations in a society that can change the calculus of what makes sense for government to provide.
You believe the government should be limited to physical protection of its citizens. What's the justification for not including other protections?
I get a presentation of these being right or wrong to make a point, however, what you're saying is that one thing is moral and one thing the other is amoral. Isn't morality something that is decided by each society?
The chart in this post is an example of skewing the argument unfairly. The chart shows Right as limited government and wrong as unlimited government, but you seem to put the US government in the wrong category. Are you saying the US government is unlimited?
I believe your quest for more limited government is nobel. I believe the scope of limitations you desire are utopian and in the end not realistic. There are many reasons a government would be more difficult to be managed like a company and there are not even companies that are run like you suggest we should operate our government. If you have examples of successful companies that operate as you suggest we should run our government, those would be good to highlight. Good organizations take advantage of economies of scale and competitive advantage. Why would it not make sense for our government to do the same thing?
Just a suggestion: In addition to Ayn Rand, other writers offer good "color" on the subject of rights and the limits on the government's use of force. Some poignant quotes inserted into your text would add some interest, in my view. Yours is a good effort, and I like that you want to keep updating and improving.
I so appreciate the either-or aspect of all your writing. I can't think anyone who reads this thinks it is something that will be accepted overnight, but if you don't know the ideal you are trying to achieve how will you ever hope to get there. As to the argument that morality is determined by each society for itself, I couldn't disagree more. Morality is the same for all human beings regardless of the society they are living in. The methods for insuring that people can live according to that proper morality may be different from society to society, but whatever those methods are they must protect the ability of each individual in that society to freely achieve his or her objectives in life through their own efforts while preventing individuals from initiating force against any other individual.
Russ, Steve and Mike,
Thanks for your feedback. I will use it to clarify certain points. I agree with Russ' statement that "Morality is the same for all human beings..." as human nature is a constant (at least for the foreseeable future). Societies that are committed to limiting government to protecting individual rights (=morally Right) may implement and interpret objective law differently but over time they will converge as they learn from one another and as case law is evolving. Circumcision may be an example of where implementation may vary initially (I haven't really thought about whether it is an individual rights violation or not).
As for dress code and running around naked, it would be at the discretion of property owners to determine what is appropriate on their property ("public" property is limited to the valid functions of government--military, police and the courts--in a society that champions the respect for and protection of individual rights. I've written about what I call "The Tragedy of The Public Square"--the fact that we don't have well defined property rights--here: https://andersingemarson.substack.com/p/the-tragedy-of-the-public-square).
Re. my views on abortion, see this article: https://andersingemarson.substack.com/p/how-to-bridge-the-abortion-divide.
What the community thinks about a "moral response" is all that matters. Isn't it the community that objectively determines what is moral or not? If it is not the community that determines the objective measures that moral decisions are based on who does? If everybody in a community is for something that only affects their community, is it possible for it to be amoral?
I agree too much government intervention is not good. I know it can be difficult to make a point without exaggerating but I believe your perspective would be more broadly acceptable with a less binary approach. The problems you are looking to solve are not binary. Just like the temperature at which water boils changes with pressure, there are many variations in a society that can change the calculus of what makes sense for government to provide.
You believe the government should be limited to physical protection of its citizens. What's the justification for not including other protections?
I get a presentation of these being right or wrong to make a point, however, what you're saying is that one thing is moral and one thing the other is amoral. Isn't morality something that is decided by each society?
The chart in this post is an example of skewing the argument unfairly. The chart shows Right as limited government and wrong as unlimited government, but you seem to put the US government in the wrong category. Are you saying the US government is unlimited?
I believe your quest for more limited government is nobel. I believe the scope of limitations you desire are utopian and in the end not realistic. There are many reasons a government would be more difficult to be managed like a company and there are not even companies that are run like you suggest we should operate our government. If you have examples of successful companies that operate as you suggest we should run our government, those would be good to highlight. Good organizations take advantage of economies of scale and competitive advantage. Why would it not make sense for our government to do the same thing?