humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Feb 23, 2:46 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:

> > or that anyone has a "duty" to obey the law -- other than
> > that of a chosen obligation to a political system that has created the
> > law implying the same choice of obligation being possible to opt-out
> > of the society.
>
> First, there is a *legal* duty to obey the law - just consult the law.  


And you don't see the circularity of that statement? As a matter of
fact, I have written here on this legal pad beside me: "Gordon Sollars
has the duty to pay me $20 fortnightly herewith" ; therefore it *must*
be your duty because it says so.

I have stipulated that I accept the word "duty" insofar as it may mean
to swear to uphold a promise to do something, but it is *actually* a
matter of choice to enter or leave that obligation, though I will also
stipulate it would be immoral to do the latter.


> But, is there a moral obligation?  


. . . and this is the sticking point with Prescott. Whereas I say that
an Objectivist today ought not to use the phrase "moral obligation",
Prescott points out that Rand herself used that phrase, but I also
point out that she did not use the phrase in the way that all other
moral philosophers and most non-Objectivists will use that phrase --
in a way such that there is no choice as to what one will decide to
do. Objectivist "moral obligation" is a redundancy where a moral act
is chosen and obligation is always chosen. All obligations of any
kind are always chosen from a moral code.

> Well, second, I disagree that a
> situation of free choice is presented in the context of political
> obligation;

I'm not sure what this means, but I believe it to be true, but in a
complicated sense (for one is born into a society in the first place)
or otherwise simply in an choice to leave a society either by
physcially removing oneself or engaging in deliberate anti-social
behavior.

Oddly enough, your preference for gangism, what you call anarcho-
capitalism, is the simplest (i.e, simple-minded) application of
choosing political-legal obligations. O'ist monopoly constitutional
federalism is complex, but does not imply lack of choice, but rather
multiple and conflicting choices whereby one does not get everything
one wants (as in reality!)