humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <3758767b-21e1-41f7-9ac2-4acba9abfcff@
41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, cbell97@bellsouth.net says...
> On Feb 23, 2:46 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:

I made four points in my previous reply; I see that the last two
prompted a "blank out". Here they are again, for those keeping score at
home:

Third, and much more crucially, why do you
think that choice or consent establishes an obligation? If it is just
because that is what it *means* to have an obligation, then I am going
to tell you that having a right just *means* that others have a duty to
respect it. Where do such claim rights comes from? First tell me where
does the moral binding force of consent come from.
...
> And you have never given any explanation of how a government-less
> society can ensure conformity to rights-respecting behavior without
> the introduction of the anti-concept of moral duty or the real concept
> of rights-protecting government.

Nothing can "ensure" such conformity; "rights-protecting governments"
routinely fail to so. You seem to be confused by the State's propaganda
about what it can accomplish. For an explanation of how a government-
less society could nevertheless have mechanisms that tend to bring
behavior into conformity with the law - which is the most you can
actually get - you can begin with David D. Friedman's website.

> > First, there is a *legal* duty to obey the law - just consult the law.  
>
>
> And you don't see the circularity of that statement?

All deductive argument begs the question. Get used to it.

> 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.

Might be, but it is not my legal or moral duty, so I'm not going to fret
over it.

--
Gordon