Rules are established where all agree to them and will obey them or leave the group,i.e., are fully acceptable to all members of the group or faction. If there are competing groups or factions on what are acceptable rules, i.e., fully acceptable by those of all the factions, then either the factions stay isolated or government of laws need to be formed to keep war from starting between the factions. If you want to call the government protection companies, insurance companies, or something else, there is no difference. There would be enforceable rules, laws, where not everyone agrees to them. Rules are not the same as laws in the sense that a rule has to be acceptable for inclusion in a group with the promise to go elsewhere if not obeying the rule. A law by nature is a includes force in its definition, just as laws of nature are force laws or imply some force as in causality.
What becomes of those who do not agree up front to a non-aggression axiom which is not part of natural law? Just why would everyone become rational if only government were to disappear? All humans are individuals and do not agree on most matters including non-aggression axiom or property rights. The quantity of property laws are just that there is very little agreement without the need for some forcible agent to adjudicate disagreements about property.
Government is like a governor on a machinge, It keeps the machine from flying apart by applying a force to slow the machines action. In a society government does the same thing by applying a force when things get out of hand.

" I think we're just arguing meaningless stuff here..."
Meaningless? On the contrary, the objective/subjective distinction is fundamental to Objectivism (the name should have given you a clue.)

Ill make a deal with you. Ill look up Adam Mossoff and read some of his work ( I see he has quite a few published articles and I will read some).

If you read Stephan Kinsella
https://mises.org/library/against-int...

Kinsella has directly refuted much of Mossoffs work and Rands for that matter. Rand's defense of IP is not very sound. For an objectivist, its a bit absurd to defend as property, something that really cannot be defined with absolute boundaries as to what is an "IDEA"?

Not to mention the convolution involved with then trying to define the undefinable to now fit the definition of property.

Once you try these thought exercises, it becomes absurd, -the idea one can own an idea or information.

Your second statement using the word likely was only objective because the first statement exists (with the actual data on white/black balls).

If you just said the latter without the former, it would be subjective. I think were just arguing meaningless stuff here that stemmed from your misunderstanding of my original post.

Will, There is no such thing as limited government. There has never been a state that has accomplished this in all of human history.
I use the current U.S. as an example because this current system is the result of the limited government experiment.
the problem is that states grow. Once power is granted to individuals, they will seek more of it. No constitution or any words on a piece of paper will put a stop to this simple fact.
Like many, I have reverence and respect for our founders and their attempt at limited government. Some of them like Jefferson were brilliant men. The words they organized into a constitution was a nobel attempt at the limited state. I don't think I could do a better job.
I doubt you could have done a better job. There is no arrangement of words they could have written that would have stopped what happened (a rapid growth in the state to almost collapse in just over 200 years). They put in checks and balances. Division of powers into 3 branches. A bill of rights to never be violated.
Yet, some of those very same men like Adams defied those rights almost immediately (Im thinking of the Alien and Sedition acts here).

So what words on the constitution would have worked?

What would have kept this state from growing? What elections could have gone differently that would stop men from abusing their power?

This Nobel experiment is a failed one. Repeating it would have the exact same results. Limited government is not possible because of the nature of power once men are given it. They will always seek to remove such restrictions in any way possible.

This is when you make the argument that limited government is possible if the population was more diligent. Under our own constitution, what exactly does that mean? How would we have been more dillignet? what process is available to us other than revolution?

Voting.

The state picks Hillary or trump to trot out before us and this is how we can remain diligent?

there is no means!

Voting does not give the population control over the state.

The state trots out two people and says now pick Either Wesley Mouch or Mr Tompson.

"words like "likely" or "dangerous" are not needed or used. As they are subjective terms."
Suppose you have an urn with 99 black balls & 1 white one. One can say "if a single ball is drawn, there is a 99% chance it will be black". Or ""if a single ball is drawn, it is likely it will be black". The former is more precise, but both statements are equally objective (& equally true.)
Your notion of the objective/subjective distinction is likely to lead you astray.

Yes, those organizations are called "states"
Anachy is not a floating abstraction. Its what you personally believe with everyone you deal with, except for the group of people called the state. You would never let your friends or family or anyone else steal your money, but for some reason you have some magic rules that your mind provides for the members calling themselves the state. You have concocted a whole different set of rules for these men and gave them rights you don't grant yourself or anyone else you know. that is a floating abstraction. Anarchy is just applying the same rules to all people. No special set of magic rights for the state to steal money from you. No magic set of rights for magic people. Its stating all men have the exact same rights and no one has a right to steal from you. its life absent floating abstractions as you have. absent the contradictions you have.

Im having trouble understanding a bit of what your trying to say here?
Statements like this-. "Laws come when there are enough factions where fully acceptable rules are not possible"

Why would fully acceptable rules not be possible? Isnt that kinda what fully accepted means?

I don't really understand your distinction between rules and laws. You say that insurance would not just be a function of the demands of the market, that some large body of law is required for insurance companies to exist. You don't really qualify this statement. Natural Law exists as a form of our logic. It does not require centuries of discussion and usage. It only requires a rational mind. That doesn't mean everyone will follow it. and it is not an enforcement mechanism. just merely something all rational men know. I think your idea of where law comes from is a bit off. Mans law (the laws written by various states riddled with agenda) is the result of centuries of statism) natural law is the actual law. There are no contradictions and it starts with the non aggression axiom and property rights. its all that is needed. Actual rules and how natural law is translated into rules for a society can certainly be what is commonly used by people and can be codified. This happens all the time in societies. It happened in our own bit of Anarchy in the U.S. during the western frontier expansion.

See
https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild...

There is no reason an insurance market to fill the demands of society does not arise and it has without some state to provide law (which states do not provide, they actually provide law breaking if one uses natural law as an objective measure, they are merely a mafia engaged in widespread theft on a continuous basis, this is not law, but lawlessness, and not a pre-requisite for insurance industry)

Craig, You need to improve your own criteria / definition of objective / subjective.

the very word "dangerous" is within the subjective realm. Measurements like speed. momentum, friction, are all objective measurements.

But once you make a statement such as - "driving 75mph is dangerous" you have made a subjective statement.

The only way you could turn this into an objective statement is if you used only facts in the statement.

Such as
"If a person drives at 75mph for X amount of time, he has a 32% chance of getting into an accident"

This is based on the such and such data.

Saying "something is dangerous if its likely to lead to harm and the measure of its likelihood is objective" is a bogus statement.

If you had and objective measurement than you would not even use the word "likely".

Even if you said driving at 10000mph is likely to end in an accident, this is still subjective statement. Not until some link to actual accident data wile driving at 10000 mph is made does it become objective. And once that link is made, words like "likely" or "dangerous" are not needed or used. As they are subjective terms

I think you need a return to philosophy 101.

I think what really matters is the intent of the action. If Rearden's purpose in producing Rearden Metal was for the good of society, that would be shunned, but if his purpose was to make money he should be honored, even if it does in fact improve society.

PS: I am traveling and am super tired, so if my comment was really off-base I apologize! :)

I understand. . I do not ever want to come across
that way, whether towards Rand or towards anyone
here. . I love life and people and diligent thoughtful
earnest searching for the truth, just like you. -- j
.

Buy insurance from whom? Insurance companies as with all companies do not exist just because a hypothetical market might exist. They need a large body of law. Rules and law are not synonymous. Rules are what one gets when people are united with some common beliefs or some private person has the ability to enforce them as with religious institution where one can be forcibly driven out for not believing according to the rules but still agrees in some fundamental way as to the rules for membership. Laws come when there are enough factions where fully acceptable rules are not possible. Rules do not necessarily apply to a whole large geographical area's population. Common law is law which applies to the majority of the population and has been fairly well agreed upon over centuries of discussion and usage. It is one way that individuals can live civilly and solve their disagreements with a minimum of overt force. What is wanted is as large amount of liberty as possible. Contrary to belief, anarchy has very little liberty for those living in a geographical area. No form of safety is assured as even is available in dictatorships where there are armed officials keeping a real crappy peace. In anarchy, tough luck if you go to the wrong area where you have not paid the local gang (protection agency) for protection since there is no law proscribing such gangs. A free market will not protect you because the most ruthless would order the society, if you can call it that. Anarchy is an excellent system for the establishment of protectionism with the most ruthless controlling each area with no say on the rules (shall we call them laws since they work the same with the use of force) by anyone.
Imagine for a moment that government was voted out of existence and assume that there was a laisez faire economy at the time. How long do you believe that would remain after the demise of government? The problem is the same as would happen in an actual Galt's Gulch situation. Only if everyone agrees on a set of rules can that happen. Possibly, as with some religious groups, that might be possible, but not with a general population, you might say that anarchy would result. Just by believing that anarcho-capitalism would be a desirable form of anarchy does not keep it from having the attributes of anarchy. If large numbers of individuals (everyone completely different in mental activity from all the others) want to live in the same geographical area, government of some kind is a necessity and protection and insurance agencies are just a way of concealing government. The result might be the same but competition will not give long term rules which can be depended upon, paying fees for service where there is no way to enforce getting the service paid for is stupid.
Just how does a home owner have extreme liability if using force to protect his home and why would the protection by a security company not have the same liability from some other company, ad infinity, with no common law to stop the carnage.

Wanderer is explicitly and openly hostile to Ayn Rand and this forum.

You need to improve your criteria for the objective/subjective distinction. Something is dangerous if it's likely to lead to harm and the measure of this likelihood is objective.

"well." -- remember Jack Benny? -- j

p.s. if you think that my 52 years of praising
Ayn Rand amounts to "anti-Rand," well.......
.

It is not an observation. Your "acerbic" "not even a 'producer'" was an insulting denunciation.

Stating and explaining in plain English and essentials what anyone can read for himself to verify is not "sour or astringent".

There is no cognitive difference caused by a "wallet investment". Economics causing ideas is a Marxist notion. I have produced far more on this forum in intellectual content than the anti-Ayn Rand misrepresentation and hostility by those who don't understand ideas clashing with their conventional emotional biases.

A lot of effort, investment, and professional expertise has gone into creating this forum. It is supposed to be for those interested in and serious about Ayn Rand's ideas. It is a shame to see it disintegrating, which is routinely accepted by those willing to compromise their own supposed values.

You did not answer the question Craig,

You answered the question of when is a state justified in using force. That is not the question I have.

I agree only defense force is moral.

My question is how does a state EXIST at all without offensive force?

How do you pay the police, fire, military, politicians?

If no offensive force can be used. How does the state exist at all?
WHere does it get its funding?

in a society absent rulers. force can be explicitly implied (you said only with a state is this true).
If the majority of people purchase insurance and that insurance company uses force when needed to retain or return property, Likely most people in a 100% free market society would purchase this. So force would be implied for any actions of theft.
Its actually the opposite with a state. because of the current system, it is very easy for people to steal and have no force used on them. even if caught. The amount of crime we have is evidence of this. Theft is common place because there is a monopoly on force that is removed from the owners of property. Property owners have an extreme liability if they use force themselves to protect their property.

Craig,
A man in a blue costume can judge subjective things as good as anyone. He can certainly attempt to judge the danger of peoples actions.
My point is that we don't need blue men in costumes judging anything. My point is that it is immoral to have this.
If one uses the objective principles of natural law as a moral compass, then having men in blue costumes steal from us is immoral.
You can argue that someone was driving dangerous and therefore the police have a right to pull him over and steal from him.
My point is that objectively speaking, no crime was committed. There is no victim.
There was no aggression committed.
So if no aggression was committed and then someone with a gun steals from you, then that is the aggression.
So objectively speaking, the man in the blue costume is the criminal.
The only way you can argue he is not the criminal is if you accept subjective arguments.

The driver was driving too fast

He was driving dangerously

He could hurt someone else.

These are subjective statements.
They are just judgments

You cant say they are fact.

When it comes to whether or not something is a crime, I believe only objective should be used.

If you see the world this way, you begin to see almost everything a cop does, is a crime.

Once you accept the idea that subjective things can be crimes, you are open to anything is a crime, which is exactly what we have today and getting worse all the time.

.

I had to laugh at the irony that James, who abhors thieves, wanting to avoid paying 99 cents for someone's intellectual property, asked Russ to steal it for him. Hilarious. Or just hypocritical? Is that the role model of anarchy?

I'm also wondering how James acquired the rights to own his house without theft. After all, that land originally belonged to the Native Americans and was taken from them by force. That makes James the recipient of stolen goods. Funny man.

I agree with your understanding of right and wrong sir. You are either evil or you're not; no and you cannot be a little pregnant either. . .

You should look up Adam Mossoff.

Sorry to offend, James, truly. Just the casual abrasion of plain talk I assure you.

But the statement seems valid.

I'm sorry but only in safety can we deride danger.
The barbarian with a battle axe seems no different from a lying, thieving politician only to a person with no experience with the former.

But it's clear we're both satisfied in our positions and I'm not trying to keep it going.
That we disagree harms me not.

Well met, James5820.