what happens when those with money or guns decide to hijack the process? it's the same problem as a govt.

well in the Gulch they all agreed to rules. They agreed that Dagny would have to leave, for example. call it private, call it public-but it is still a form of government

Anarchy does not claim that all problems will magically go away. There will still be bad apples, of course, just as there are in the current, force-based system we have now. The proposals I've seen amount to having basically the same types of solutions we have now -- at least to start -- but the providers of laws or rules, and of their enforcement, would be competing, and their services would be voluntarily funded. Here are some videos that explain it: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1...

As I said, Ayn Rand wrote that government should be voluntarily funded, not supported with coercive taxes. If we get that, we will have the same problems, benefits and opportunities that the Anarchist approach would produce. What if a bunch of us withdrew our support for the current government, and began paying for private arbitration and protection services because they were faster, more effective, less corrupt, and cheaper? The result would be accountability, competition, new ideas, and the ability for others to imitate a system that is functioning well. If the worst happened, and we wound up with an arbitration or protection company that was becoming abusive or coercive (like the one we have now), we would withdraw our support and try with someone else.

We all acknowledge and love the effects of the free market in other areas -- why not let it work its magic on the legal and defense systems? I think it's what Ayn Rand wanted, too.

Absolutely, but since by definition it would involve settlement concerning a preceding event of aggression, this would cause no conflict with the NAP. Additionally, such enforcement would largely be "soft" - a hike in the loser's liability insurance premium, ostracism etc. Restitution would be the order of the day, incarceration as punishment (who is going to pay the associated expense?) rare or non-existent.

to remedy: just making functions private does not get rid of these problems. We need laws which are based on logic and reason. There is no short-cut for that and ultimately it will not matter whether your enforcement is supposedly private or public because they have the force, they will be subjected to the same corruption issues. what about IP?

There is no conflict between the NAP and VOLUNTARY self governance or "law & order". It's the COERCED kind that constitutes moral insanity.

This, as so many posts here is neither a description of empirical facts, nor a logically derived conclusion. It is just an opinion, a belief voiced without supporting evidence. It is entirely yours and one to which you are undoubtedly entitled. But, being an opinion it is not subject to debate nor can it be refuted by logic or reason.

again, arbitration must be enforced

I got an 89. I aced the first section-but did not see anything as leading in the questioning as the introductory "test." db only got a 69. I am surprised to find out he's more law and order than I thought him to be ;)

Well I obviously stuck my foot in it with that one. I had a different section in mind, but that doesn't matter. With this one a totally disagree. Ms. Rand in this and other similar passages of her writings simply goes off making assumptions or expressing beliefs without citing any factual evidence to support them. Then she goes on to describe something like Galt's Gulch which totally contradicts the above passage. Go figure. So which is it? Just saying.

yes, but rights were protected. If property rights are not fiercely protected, a society does not value them. A few bad apples will lead to more bad apples including those contracted to protect you. so-called "making it private" does not mean you are problem-less. People break contracts all the time. Who enforces them? What is the remedy?

and the answer is...


"If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door—or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages.

The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice—the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another." Virtue of Selfishness

Yes I did, in the "I don't doubt your good faith" post - further down.

no. I was aware of private security firms hired for downtown Detroit. I live outside the country now. I am for privatizing as much as possible any govt function. You still have not answered my questions...

P.S.: I may be the "new guy" on your block, but I've been thinking about and debating this for over 50 years. Quite possibly since long before you were a twinkle in you daddy's eyes?

Bravo!

So am I to understand that by your interpretation the volunteers who drove off the BLM aggression in the Bundy Ranch stand-off constituted the creation of a government? surely you jest?

Using force to govern is the INITIATION of violence . Repelling or protecting oneself from such aggression is just self-defense and therefore in no imaginable way constitutes government or control.

I believe that most of the people commenting here -- and most Objectivists and Anarchists/Voluntaryists in general -- agree on the ideal political structure of society and our core goal, rather than disagree. In fact, someone reminded me in the comments on another post that Ayn Rand advocated that the funding of government be voluntary, not coerced via taxes and penalties for non-payment.

I believe both Objectivists and Anarchists want the exact same thing: a voluntary system of order. Anarchy is not per se against hierarchy or leaders, but only against coerced relationships. If you take away the element of force and make funding voluntary (as the founder of Objectivism advocated, and as Anarchists advocate), I don't particularly care if you call it "anarchy" or "government" or "a duck," I'm going to be pleased, and I think those Objectivists and Anarchists who aren't caught up in semantics will be also.

Please don't forget how America started. That American Revolution was not masterminded by a government threatening force to fund and fight the battles. That was a voluntary association of people who valued freedom. It would be nice to have that again someday.