What Capitalism Is
• The Nature of Government
• The Nature of Government
The Proper Purpose of Government
Objective Law as the Rule of Law
Applications of Rights in Political Society
The
government in a capitalist system is the agency by
which the citizens of a country protect their
rights. To banish the initiation of force from
human relationships, a society must create an
institution with the power and authority to stop
anyone who uses force against other individuals. To
accomplish this end, the government is the sole
possessor of the right to use retaliatory force
against those who initiate force. It holds a
monopoly on that power. In a rational society, all
individuals agree to delegate to the government
their right of self-defense, that is, their right
to ward off and defend against those who initiate
force against them.
This delegation of the power of self-defense is the way that citizens can ensure that the use of retaliatory force is made objective. The use of retaliatory force cannot be left to the discretion of individual men who may disagree about its use in particular circumstances. By delegating this power to their agency, the government, the citizens can ensure that objective rules in the form of objective laws to guide its use.
To protect the rights of its citizens, a government must protect them from the initiation of force both by other citizens and by the government itself. The means to accomplish this is to limit the government, via a written constitution, to its proper functions. These include the provision of a domestic police force, the provision of a military force, and the provision of a court system to adjudicate disputes between citizens. By properly limiting government to its essential functions, a constitution places the retaliatory use of force under objective control. It delimits and strictly defines what powers are permitted to government officials and agents. It restricts their action to only that which has been granted by the citizenry, leaving the citizens free to take any action that does not violate another’s rights. The laws in a capitalist society have only one purpose, to prohibit those actions that involve the initiation of force by one citizen against another. Under such a system, men can enjoy a rule of law rather than the rule of men.
This delegation of the power of self-defense is the way that citizens can ensure that the use of retaliatory force is made objective. The use of retaliatory force cannot be left to the discretion of individual men who may disagree about its use in particular circumstances. By delegating this power to their agency, the government, the citizens can ensure that objective rules in the form of objective laws to guide its use.
To protect the rights of its citizens, a government must protect them from the initiation of force both by other citizens and by the government itself. The means to accomplish this is to limit the government, via a written constitution, to its proper functions. These include the provision of a domestic police force, the provision of a military force, and the provision of a court system to adjudicate disputes between citizens. By properly limiting government to its essential functions, a constitution places the retaliatory use of force under objective control. It delimits and strictly defines what powers are permitted to government officials and agents. It restricts their action to only that which has been granted by the citizenry, leaving the citizens free to take any action that does not violate another’s rights. The laws in a capitalist society have only one purpose, to prohibit those actions that involve the initiation of force by one citizen against another. Under such a system, men can enjoy a rule of law rather than the rule of men.
The
government in a capitalist system embodies the rule
of law, not the rule of men. This means that the
government must operate in accordance with
objective laws.
Objective laws, as philosopher Harry Binswanger explains, “must be objective in both their derivation and their form.” To be objective, a law must be based on the recognition and protection of individual rights. It must be strictly limited to the prohibition of the initiation of physical force in some defined form. Because individual rights are the only means for a society to recognize the objective requirements of man’s survival as a moral being, they are the only proper basis for a system of laws to regulate that behavior in society.
That the form of the law must be objective means that it must be clear, knowable, and consistent in their language. Citizens must be informed of the laws, their justification, and the clear, objective punishments that accrue for violations prior to taking action. A government cannot rightfully engage in retroactive lawmaking (a principle enshrined in the Constitution’s “ex post facto” clause).
The contrast to a non-objective law illustrates the difference between a rule of law and the rule of men. In a proper, objective system, a government would clearly define and prohibit murder. A non-objective law would be a law that prohibited “doing things that are mean” to other people. Whereas in the first example, the individual’s right to life is protected against the initiation of physical force (gunshots, stabbings, poison, etc.), in the latter example, no man could know what would be enforced as “mean.” Such a law would waver according to the judge or jury involved in the case.
Unfortunately, such non-objective laws have come to be commonplace in our system. The antitrust laws prohibit “unfair” competition, which has been interpreted by the courts to both prohibit and allow the same types of business practices depending on the situation. Some legislators want to pass laws that prohibit gasoline producers from selling at prices that are “unconscionably excessive.” This is the essence of a non-objective law—it is not based upon an instance of the initiation of physical force since buyers and sellers of gasoline come to the market freely of their own choice; and it is not clear or knowable ahead of time, since “unconscionable” may mean different things to different juries and judges. In the end, the enforcement of such a law would exist at the whim of the man or men who held governmental power. No man would be safe from the arbitrary exercise of the government’s power in such a situation—it would truly be the rule of men.
Objective laws, as philosopher Harry Binswanger explains, “must be objective in both their derivation and their form.” To be objective, a law must be based on the recognition and protection of individual rights. It must be strictly limited to the prohibition of the initiation of physical force in some defined form. Because individual rights are the only means for a society to recognize the objective requirements of man’s survival as a moral being, they are the only proper basis for a system of laws to regulate that behavior in society.
That the form of the law must be objective means that it must be clear, knowable, and consistent in their language. Citizens must be informed of the laws, their justification, and the clear, objective punishments that accrue for violations prior to taking action. A government cannot rightfully engage in retroactive lawmaking (a principle enshrined in the Constitution’s “ex post facto” clause).
The contrast to a non-objective law illustrates the difference between a rule of law and the rule of men. In a proper, objective system, a government would clearly define and prohibit murder. A non-objective law would be a law that prohibited “doing things that are mean” to other people. Whereas in the first example, the individual’s right to life is protected against the initiation of physical force (gunshots, stabbings, poison, etc.), in the latter example, no man could know what would be enforced as “mean.” Such a law would waver according to the judge or jury involved in the case.
Unfortunately, such non-objective laws have come to be commonplace in our system. The antitrust laws prohibit “unfair” competition, which has been interpreted by the courts to both prohibit and allow the same types of business practices depending on the situation. Some legislators want to pass laws that prohibit gasoline producers from selling at prices that are “unconscionably excessive.” This is the essence of a non-objective law—it is not based upon an instance of the initiation of physical force since buyers and sellers of gasoline come to the market freely of their own choice; and it is not clear or knowable ahead of time, since “unconscionable” may mean different things to different juries and judges. In the end, the enforcement of such a law would exist at the whim of the man or men who held governmental power. No man would be safe from the arbitrary exercise of the government’s power in such a situation—it would truly be the rule of men.
In
a fully developed system of government, the basic
philosophic rights to life, liberty, property, and
the pursuit of happiness must be applied to the
particular contexts that arise in such a society.
These applications limit and make objective a
political system and the government’s institutions.
They represent a recognition and protection of the
underlying individual rights of all men in a
political system.
Implementing the rights of citizens might include things like the freedom of association, freedom of speech, and the freedom of thought. In designing a proper government, its founders may also develop a system of procedural and civil guarantees to protect individual rights against the infringement of government. Such freedoms would include things like the trial by jury, voting in elections, confronting one’s accusers, etc. In all these cases, such freedoms and guarantees must be reducible to the basic right to life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness.
Implementing the rights of citizens might include things like the freedom of association, freedom of speech, and the freedom of thought. In designing a proper government, its founders may also develop a system of procedural and civil guarantees to protect individual rights against the infringement of government. Such freedoms would include things like the trial by jury, voting in elections, confronting one’s accusers, etc. In all these cases, such freedoms and guarantees must be reducible to the basic right to life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness.
(return to outline)