elsargente (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

why are my speakers taking a shat in my ears?!

Belibette (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

wasup???? I just tried 2 see this n' there's just a weird "static" sound??

smikro1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Clear, concise, and well done all around.Ghs

sherlockfury (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Nice video. I agree that you cannot initiate force on others. The only moral force would be the protection again a force, and I believe it must be non-violent (physical harm - understanding all force is a "violent" act), and only to create an in-action (peace).

gumbiproductions (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

yay! An objectivist!

natdavi (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Suppose govA recognizes the right to health-care and govB doesn't. CitizenA gets sick and goes to a Hospital under the jurisdiction of govB where he's refused treatment and dies. Under the laws of govB no rights were violated and under the laws of govA they were. Contradictory laws are unenforcable. There can only be one set of laws for a given group of ppl to live by. There may be competition among law enforcers, if that's how the gvmnt chooses to function, but not law enforcement.

natdavi (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I'd say that in such a situation it must be that there are two governments enforcing their own seperate sets of laws, which happen to be the same, or they're two agencies of the same government.Before there can be enforcement of the law there has to be the LAW, and the definition of laws is the legitimate purpose of gvmnt. Neglect FTSOA that competing gvmnts is contrary to the definition of gvmnt. Esp since we're talking about anarchy, lol! The real answer to your question is: neither.

XOmniverse (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

And don't say "the one that doesn't violate rights." I could easily suggest a scenario where neither of them is.

XOmniverse (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

So if two institutions of roughly equal size are enforcing the law, which one is the government and which one isn't?

natdavi (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I don't think this constitutes a contradiction in objectivism b/c it doesn't follow that a government would have to initiate force to prevent competition in the protection racket. Nothing ethically prevents people from defending themselves or hiring body gaurds or a security agency to do it for them. As long as such security agencies don't break the law the government would have no need to confront them.