Open Letter to Ayn Rand

Posted by helidrvr 9 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
88 comments | Share | Flag

This one stands on its own merit, so I am not going to engage in an debate about it. Read it and draw your own conclusions.
SOURCE URL: http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/roy-a-childs-jr/objectivism-and-the-state-an-open-letter-to-ayn-rand/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 10 months ago
    Hello helidrvr,
    I wish I had that much faith in my fellow man, but...

    Whensoever man has tried to coexist there have been those that would rule, by whatever means necessary. Attilas will rise. Tyranny is the result. Men are not all fit or ready for anarchy.

    “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.”
    Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Civil Government. 1690.

    “The great end of men's entering into society, being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society; the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power...”
    Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Civil Government. 1690.
    This of course implies a need for an enforcement mechanism, i.e., a police force.

    Is limited government a floating abstraction? I believe it is concrete, actual enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYahVMMx...

    Whatever it is, if it can be maintained, it is the best way yet devised for generally peaceful coexistence. It may be that it cannot be maintained without periodic revolution. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 10 months ago
    Most people who try to judge between limited government and free market Anarchy employ a form of circular reasoning. They forget that the free market anarchist model that Mr. Childs hinted at would change radically the allocation of certain military and other resources. For instance, in the absence of the police, private security forces would be much better arms, and probably watch better trained, than they are today. And in the absence of a public Navy, international exporters and importers would either have their own private navies or would contract with a firm dedicated to providing naval services.

    The problem Mr Childs never acknowledged, what is that certain cities in the United States tried something close to free market anarchism. Chicago in the 1920s was an example. Two rival empires, specializing in the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages, competed not only for distribution but also for the right to protect their respective businesses. The heads of those firms were, of course, Al Capone and Bugs Moran. We all remember how that ended, on February 14th, 1929. After that episode, the People demanded a return of the police to their proper role, which they had effectively abandoned.

    Any advocates of free market anarchy must say why it would not be in the rational self-interest either to be an Al Capone, or to tolerate one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 10 months ago
      Did I miss this in history, or are you actually claiming that the police force in Chicago in the 1920s completely and officially shut down, and no taxes were collected to fund it? I have to suspect the reality is that a functioning, taxpayer-funded police force decided to "effectively abandon" the work they were being paid to do, presumably to also collect bribes on the side in addition to the salary they weren't earning. If this is the case, it is not anywhere near an example of anarchy, but rather more evidence of the easy corruptibility of government given its monopoly status. It's also a clear demonstration that the system of government can't be trusted to reliably perform its single alleged raison d'etre: protection from bad guys. Two Mafiosos doing nothing but "protect[ing] their respective businesses" are not an an example of a protection service available for individuals to hire in free-market anarchy. And, of course, government enacted prohibition in the first place, creating the environment where profits could be made by ruthless people.

      It's not in anyone's rational self-interest to either be an Al Capone or tolerate one because it is immoral and unhealthy to live for another's sake or ask him or her to live for yours. (Threatening and using force, or stealing property, entail a person living for someone else's sake.) I read a psychological study which showed that people who consume more value than they produce end up depressed. Yes, there's an actual karmic aspect to Ayn Rand's philosophy, in case you haven't already experienced it yourself.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 10 months ago
        I said effectively abandon, not actually and by any resolution of law. You're right, the Chicago Police Department, or at least the Mayor and several Aldermen, did take bribes, presumably from both sides in the Capone-Moran feud.

        To be more specific, Al Capone enjoyed the protection of the Unione Sicilione, more on account of shared Italian heritage than anything else. Moran was Irish. But I take your point: they were organized criminals. But the CPD took those bribes, and effectively ignored the tension between the two gangs, because the people of Chicago wanted it that way. They didn't give a swizzle stick for anyone "not doing his sworn duty." Very likely they were some of the same people saying the passwords at speakeasies all over town every night.

        Here's the point: the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, and the Capone-Moran feud, are what ordinary people are going to think of, whenever they think of privately contracting protection organizations. That's what you're fighting. If possession is nine points of the civil law, perception is nine points of any debate, especially in political philosophy, as opposed to a choice between political candidates.

        That said, the most famous documentary on the Capone-Moran feud (with Jason Robards as Capone) did say absolutely everyone who took part in the Massacre came to a sad end. That includes Capone, who died insane from late syphilis. But most people aren't going to make that kind of connection.

        It's one thing to present your case here; quite another to take it before the people.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
        Wow. You have some very astonishing perspectives.

        1) You consider the corruptibility of humans as a condemnation of the corruptibility of an institution of men (government) but negate the possibility of similar corruptibility of other institutions of men (free-market services). How does that make sense?

        2) You discount the possibility of a free-market solution to providing security services to be corrupted to provide those services in support of their own client at the detriment of their neighbors.

        3) You state seemingly as fact that it is not in anyone's rational self-interest to be AC or BM. I think that both of them, as well as all such criminals would beg to differ. And for some period of time, they achieved significant success and were highly productive regarding their chosen objectives. The fact that they traded short-term benefits for longer-term problems is a matter of choice, not irrationality. You might find that choice irrational, but they certainly did not.

        4) If this supposed psychological study is valid, then anyone who takes out a loan must be depressed. You are consuming more in the short term than you are producing. That's the worst sort of psychological pablum.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 10 months ago
          1) I said nothing about humans being corruptible, though I did refer to the "easy corruptibility of government given its monopoly status." Which is a better way to ensure benefits like accountability (lack of corruption), efficiency, fair prices and innovative improvements: monopoly or free market competition? Hopefully it makes sense to both of us that there is a safeguard against corruptibility when you are not forced to pay for a service, but can shop around. Are you in favor of one national-run phone company, state health-care, etc.? If there are persuasive arguments in favor of competition in these areas, what is the logical reason the same arguments should not apply to other services currently provided by the government? If there are good reasons why government needs a monopoly on making and enforcing laws and providing defense, why do these arguments not apply to every good and service? I just don't see a rational reason for splitting them out and saying some services should be government monopolies, but others should not. What is the distinction?

          2) I didn't, and don't, discount anything. People are what they are, and there are good people and bad ones. Do you claim that under our current government system there aren't people who use it unfairly to cause harm to others? Lobbyists for special interests get subsidies from our tax dollars, favorable laws that hurt the competition, lawsuits against companies they don't like, etc. Let's compare the free market: When there's a car accident, someone is at fault, and each company is going to argue against their customer's liability as much as they reasonable can. This is a free-market protection service, and I personally haven't heard that Progressive or Allstate or any of the insurers have become corrupt to the point that they throw truth out the window to avoid coverage. Anything is possible, but again, with the option to boycott a corrupt company by withdrawing financial support, I think the free market approach is certainly no more prone to corruption than forced monopoly, and could easily be less corruptible.

          3) Hmmm, I thought you were an Objectivist. Yet, you're arguing that it is rational to steal, destroy others' property, and kill others. My turn to be astonished. Making a profit by harming others is not what I would call "productive." You seem to believe that the moral code and choices of gangsters or psychopaths can never be considered irrational merely because it's what they chose and they received some short-term benefit. I would disagree. Every person out there is an actual or potential trading partner, and intentionally harming them for short-term gain is not in a rational person's self-interest.

          4) I don't have the study right in front of me, but I believe the value provided vs. value received was calculated by the individuals themselves. People who felt they were overall not producing enough value, compared to what they were consuming, wound up feeling depressed. I don't think this kind of negative self-judgment would apply to a normal person who took out a loan and had the intent and ability to pay it back, with interest. Taking out a loan is a value-for-value exchange; the lender wouldn't do it if it there was no benefit for him. Is it your position that people can be happy and psychologically healthy while mooching off of others, excluding psychopaths and the like? Again, you're hanging out in an Objectivist forum, but you seem to be rejecting Ayn Rand's basic concept that, by the nature of man, his noblest activity is productive work, and his self-esteem depends on it. I think this concept is truth, and not "psychological pablum."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
            1. Only humans can be corrupted. How do you get anything from what I said as indicating that free-market approaches aren't possible?
            2. You support private entities, in this case "security" as being superior - but fail to recognize that these same types of actors were what AC and BM were employing to the detriment of their neighbors. Thus, it is not the fact that they are private security that makes them superior/inferior to public police.
            3. Why would you think I was an Objectivist? And why would you expect others to behave in accord with some fanciful ideology? I'm a realist and a student of humanity. I have no false or naïve expectations of my fellow man. And I said that they were productive in the pursuit of their objectives - not that I agree with those objectives, but they were very successful.
            4. If the study were as you describe, then I could probably introduce those who conducted the study to several thousands here in Milwaukee alone, who are moochers of the public largess who have no such poor view of themselves.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
          From my similar perspective I can say that

          1) I don't doubt the corruptibility of free market intuitions, they are just easier to fight than a government when it turns corrupt.

          2) choosing favorites is bad business, when people are looking for a security company, they aren't going to choose the one that doesn't act in a fair way, nor will they pay for one that immediately chooses violent solutions. If they can't get people to pay for the service, how are they going to pay for the weapons to attack others?

          3) I agree with you here, and while speculation is hard, I would wager people like AC would be far less dangerous to society under a voluntary system.

          4) sad is a perspective, so I would say irrelevant.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
            1. Agreed.
            2. You assume that a private security company might be seeking multiple clients. I would say that the "private security" that was employed by Al Capone or Bugs Moran were happy enough with their one "client." While these thugs weren't a distinct company, you could think of them as independent contractors. But they served only one client and they did so to the detriment of all other neighbors. In so doing, they were fairly well compensated, so I would say that negates your statement - in fact, it was very good business (if you didn't end up getting shot in a garage on Valentine's Day, that is). I do agree that private market solutions to security services are possible, just that the original statement that this makes them beyond corruption is not valid.
            3) Why?
            4) My response was to the points from the Kittyhawk post, which made a reference to a psychological study, not to the post by Temlakos about the "sad" end. If you have some comment about the Kittyhawk reference and my response, please elaborate.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by aogilmore 9 years, 10 months ago
    Great Letter! Stefan Molyneax covers a lot of these points in his podcasts. He acknowledges a debt to Rand but is not afraid to disagree with her regarding Government.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryHeart 9 years, 10 months ago
    Some Humans will adhere to a code of conduct, others will only refrain from violating the code if they can get away with it.

    Other nations, cyber hackers and terrorists will attack.

    Therefore force, National military, police, legal system for victim compensation are all necessary.

    Those who advocate anarchy without enforcement are denying reality (which Ayn said is the root of evil)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Snezzy 9 years, 10 months ago
    Without some form of objective government (not some gang's whim) how am I to own property? As some wit once said, "If you cannot OWN property, then you ARE property." I wonder who said that? Hold on a minute while I look. ...

    Perhaps that wit was me. The only references to it that I can find in a brief search are my own, viz.: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
      If you owned your body you would be allowed to put whatever you want in it. If you owned what you produced it would not be okay for anyone to take it by force. If you owned your land you wouldn't have to pay some one property taxes which is essentially rent.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 10 months ago
    As soon as you have rules you have a government. As soon as some people have the right to use force to enforce rules you have a government. Calling it private does not change the fact. Rand was right.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
      Correct! These free-market anarchists get wrapped around who is vested with the use of force and confuse that with government. As you correctly point out, the creation of common rules and the ability to enforce those are de facto government. It matters not whether the actual mechanism is a publicly financed body or privately financed bodies.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
      Yeah, I've noticed most anarchists typically don't understand what a government is. And anarchists like Murray Rothbard try to make up nonsense arguments about how the state and the government are two different things, and that anarchists don't oppose government, but rather just oppose the state, which doesn't make any sense at all.

      Then there are other anarchists like Stefan Molyneux, who wrote in his book "Practical Anarchy," that government isn't necessary, and all we really need is a Dispute Resolution Organization, or DRO. I don't know why he doesn't just use the term "court system," because that's really all he's describing. Maybe inventing new terminology to refer to existing institutions makes him feel smarter or something.

      But Molyneux never explained how a DRO would be able to ensure that its resolutions would be followed and adhered to in the absence of a government body to enforce those resolutions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
      Maybe this will make it clearer for you:

      Under anarchy there are no rules, only a voluntarily agreed to code of conduct, adhered to but not enforced - you can opt out anytime and suffer the consequences, if any. A voluntary code of conduct in winter time may be to remove your shoes at the entrance to a home. You can choose not to, but will likely not be on the guest list next week. This is not force, just non-aggressive ostracism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 10 months ago
        Nonsense. If they are enforceable their are rules and government. If these are not enforceable then they are not rules.

        The non-aggression principle is a lazy attempt to short cut philosophy and fails miserably. For instance, it does not explain how to deal with the DDT issue or AGW.

        Libertarians have been intellectually lazy and attempted to short cut philosophy. The result has been a disaster where some Libertarians think it is okay to have sex with minors, others talk about marxist libertarianism.

        Libertarians are trying to build a skyscraper without a foundation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
          There are no rules, just contracts, and those contacts are just as enforceable under anarchy as they would be under any particular government.

          DDT and AGW are not issues, they are a blend of opinions and facts. If you are an objectivist you promote man's ability to reason for himself what is beneficial to him. If someone thinks DDT or AGW is a problem they can feel free to persuade others to join them in their cause, having a government does nothing but tell people they are too dumb to decide for themselves on such issues.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 10 months ago
            Yes, but this is not answered by the non-aggression policy, neither IP rights, neither property rights and neither is how to deal with irrational people who think creating CO2 is destroying the world.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
              Property rights can be done with a common protection contract among neighbors, me and you disagree about IP, but I do hope to talk about that later. And as for the irrational people freaking out about CO2.... I think the worst thing you could do is give them all the guns and let them make the laws.

              I do understand that simply stating "I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me," isn't a solid foundation, but the book universally preferable behavior does a good job of expanding a philosophical foundation that originated with NAP.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 10 months ago
                None of this makes any sense unless you have an enforcement mechanism. That means you have a government - Period.

                The NAP is a poor substitute for Locke's natural rights. It does not explain property, or if you have property, or why you have legitimate property rights, it does not explain how contracts are created, why they can be created, how they will be interpreted. The NAP says nothing about reason. It is a intellectually lazy short cut argument for freedom and as a result will only result in disaster.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 10 months ago
                  The largest problem I see with NAP, particularly with complete free market anarchy is that it neglects portions of reality that it has no answers for. The best example of that neglect of reality is the existence of socio and psycho-paths. At the extreme, those are individuals not seeking value - they're seeking destruction. To a large extent, AGW and Animal Rights groups fall within that definition as do many formalized religions. Destructive insanity cannot be addressed in a NAP only environment.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
                    How does the government address those issues?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 10 months ago
                      It has a police, a court system, and jails.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
                        We have police that spend most of their time endangering people with things like no knock raids, check points and disrupting traffic, a court system that can only be used by people who have the time and money to defend themselves and as such is completely useless to the poor who need it most, and jails that are filled with non violent offenders who are being supported by stealing the wealth from the productive.

                        How many psychopaths do you think there are out there to justify this level of inefficiency?

                        How about we privatize security forces to actually show up when a crime is in progress to stop it, instead of showing up afterwards to file a report and clean up the mess. If you have any knowledge about how a free market works you know that if one security force starts abusing its customers they are going to hire someone else.

                        How about an arbitration company that knows if they don't do their best to judge fairly you will subscribe to a different company, and in the process give them negative reviews for any other patrons to judge fairly?

                        If a man's mind is his method of survival, stop trying to take that away. If you want a government, subscribe to one and leave me out of it.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 10 months ago
                          Rozar,

                          I agree about the police of today, but they were not always that way. This is result of philosophy, which is then reflected in culture. Changing the procedural systems will not create or save freedom, only winning the philosophical battle will do that. The NAP is an attempt to shortcut the process. It uses the results of a complex philosophical system for freedom and attempts to ignore the foundation, with the same disastrous results of trying to build a skyscraper without a foundation.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
                            Don't we need a simple answer though? Short cuts aren't always a bad thing, some times they can be more efficient. The task ahead of us is daunting, and trying to educate millions of people on natural rights is highly inefficient. Most people don't have the stomach to actually learn about philosophy, others just don't have the time, and for good reason, there are more important issues to many people than the definition of rights, and that will be the case for forever as far as I can see.

                            Discussing things like this is fun for me, and I hope you derive at least some enjoyment out of it, but I just want to be clear that I'm in full support of an objectivist style government and will do what I can to bring that about.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 10 months ago
                              You cannot create a free society separate from reason, you cannot create a free society separate from property rights. NAP is building on a foundation of sand. Yes reason will end up with non-aggression, but that is not the foundation.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 10 months ago
                              Objectivism deals with the rational realization of reality in all things. We are so far away from a society, culture, and morality of the protection of individual natural rights, if we can ever reach such.

                              Belief in simple answers and short cuts, for something as complex as belief and pride in oneself and one's accomplishments, have to a large extent led us into the type of system we all have to live in today. The task ahead is indeed daunting, but until faced and as db says, a foundation sufficient for a working Objectivist life is laid, everything else is just pie in the sky dreaming.

                              Beware of those that promise simple and shortcut answers. Such usually derive from shallow thinking and wishes, not reason and recognitions of reality.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
                              Yes, education is highly inefficient, so let's just establish a totalitarian regime and dictate to the people. Of course, we'll be benevolent dictators, so nothing to worry about.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
                          How do you think you're going to be left out of it?

                          Lets say you purchase 1000 acres of land out in Wyoming. You have all the resources on that property that you need to survive without interacting with the rest of society, so you seemingly have no need for "government." Everything goes along just fine for some time - you have no income so no taxes, you don't require fire or police services, you are seemingly fully self sufficient and devoid of government (yes, I'm conveniently leaving out the issue of property taxes, let's just assume no such thing exists). A new neighbor moves in next door and likes your property that is adjacent to his. So much so, that he begins to use it for his own needs. You now have a dispute about who gets to use those resources.

                          You can -
                          1) Utilize retaliatory force to evict the invading neighbor, at which time the neighbor may escalate and use even greater force to retain his violation of your property, such escalation could continue to the point of loss of life, the ultimate loss of liberty.

                          2) You could discuss the violation with the neighbor and reason with him to stop the violation, at which point the neighbor may or may not agree or even care about your property rights and revert to scenario 1.

                          3) You may employ some outside agency to act on your behalf, which will only result in either scenario 1 or 2.

                          4) You can bring the violation to an external entity to mediate, but if that external agent doesn't have the ability to enforce the decision you end up with scenario 1 or 2.

                          5) You can bring the violation to an external entity to mediate that does have the inherent power - which is a government.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
                            If someone is trespassing then yes I have a right to defend my land, especially if I put up signs and fences. Without the signs and fences or some kind of labor mixed with the land it's hard for me to just declare it mine though. And I don't think violence would be my first answer, I'd try to come to some kind of agreement with him.

                            I dunno, I'll think about it.

                            Maybe instead of buying land in Wyoming I'll just have you guys bill me for anything I use that was payed for by taxes and I'll pay it as long as you don't infringe on my ability to make contracts with others. How does that sound?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
                              So, does defending your land give you the ability to use deadly force?
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
                                Not ability but the moral authority, although deadly force is probably one of the worst responses.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                                • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
                                  But that's the level of escalation that might be required if the other party refuses to cease trespassing. For if you want to avail yourself of your property rights and the other party refuses to recognize your rights, at some point it becomes an issue of either you or them. That is a wholly unworkable and irrational system.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
        Who imparts the consequences?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
          You should agree to a third party arbiter and agree to the consequences that arbiter will inflict before signing the contract.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
            So, every interaction a person has would need to be individually agreed to, with full explanations of rights and obligations, identification of 3rd party arbiter, and identification of contract failure remedy? Seems like a wholly unworkable system to purchase a pack of gum.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
              Or you could subscribe to a company that publicly displays its contracts and hands you a card to use for showing others that you have credibility. Also things like this are only used in circumstances that are high risk. Most trades shouldn't be effected.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
    The problem with the arguments presented is in the fundamental definition of "government."

    To whit, from Merriam-Webster:
    Government

    1: the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control

    2 obsolete : moral conduct or behavior : discretion

    3 a : the office, authority, or function of governing

    b obsolete : the term during which a governing official holds office

    4: the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : rule

    5 a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it

    b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out

    6: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization

    None of these definitions prevents a free-market solution to performing the governing functions. Thus, in fact, the free-market solution is itself a "government." As such, to argue that "government" is immoral but to advocate for a free-market method of achieving the same ends, thus creating a different form of "government" is circular reasoning that disproves the thesis.

    Anarchy requires no authority, by definition. To argue that the authority could be created via a free-market method is counter to the fundamental premise of anarchy, thus, it is not anarchy.

    I think that the methods prescribed are worthy of examination, and even implementation. To call them non-government is foolish and violates basic definitions. It is merely a different method of governing - one that vests the power in a more distributed form.

    The question of monopoly is a canard. For those who choose one governing entity over another, in a free-market system, is choosing a self-imposed monopoly. The fact that you can choose another provider if you don't like this provider is merely a matter of who performs the services - but the rules would need to be the same regardless of service provider, thus we are not discussing the act of governing, nor the governing itself, merely the specific entity of who provides the services. This already happens today in various locations. Security services are provided by private contractors in many situations. Police organizations contract with private firms to augment security, to investigate crimes and perform forensic analysis. Does this disqualify them from being termed "government?" Of course not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
      Valid points. I'm fairly certain I agree in full, besides how we define government which is arbitrary. So I have to ask you, do you think people should be taxed for the services a government provides, or should we pay for the services voluntarily?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
        Like all services, they should be paid for by the consumer of the service. Taxation is one of the poorest mechanisms, but the one that allows politicians to leverage the mechanism to their advantage.

        I would agree to a consumption tax (sales tax) as that is essentially voluntary as the individual does not have to consume (and that goes for food and clothing as theoretically one can provide either without having to purchase, albeit at a much less convenient process).

        Schooling is the one area where I haven't seen a good free-market solution. It is to the benefit of society in general to educate the populace, and that is best done in childhood through young adulthood. Most children are also created by parents that are younger and with a lower level of income. There are also many parents who do not have any means to pay for education (we can set aside the discussion as to whether it is moral for them to have children if they cannot pay for them, as in our society, that is not a requirement). Would it be rational to create a system whereby the student themselves pays for their education, in the form of a loan that they are saddled with that must be paid back after they have reached an age of productivity? But what of those who never are productive, or are merely productive to a level of subsistence? I don't believe that education is a natural right, but I do believe that educated people are less of a burden on society than the costs of that education (assuming that they are actually educated, and again, let's leave aside whether the money spent in the education system today is actually educating). So that one I'm certainly open to ideas on.

        How about the military (and I assume that a military is a necessity for our world as it is today)? Since the military essentially provides an equal service for all residents, a per capita tax would seem appropriate.

        I'm sure that you will respond that a tax is an initiated force, and that may be true. However, I do not subscribe to the faux arguments as to the moral catastrophe that such actions create. If one lives in a society and benefits from the aggregate, then one owes to pay for the costs of creating that benefit. Perhaps the proper way of handling such is to have a "swearing in" at the age of majority - you are offered the opportunity to willingly agree to that payment for the remainder of your tenure in the nation, or you are offered an escort out of the nation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
        False Choice! Is it only the force of government that can provide the vastly complex array of "services" that many individuals want while many others do not?

        We need to keep any "necessary evil" as small as possible. Then it's overall cost is very little.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 10 months ago
          Hi, Solver! I don't understand why you believe forcible taxation as opposed to voluntary financial support of protection, rule-making, and mediation services is a false choice. Will you please explain?

          It seems to me that once financial contributions are voluntary (which Ayn Rand wanted), every person has the option of not funding the government, and has the option of paying a different service provider. The end result seems to be what both Objectivists and Anarchists/Voluntaryists want. Meanwhile, our current system of forced tribute is what neither of us want. So isn't forced vs. voluntary financing a key choice, rather than a false choice?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
            The question above is way too open ended, not defining the type of services. There are many negative services governments provide. Since it is so open ended, I'll give an extreme example. Let's say we define a particular group of government services. Let use, what they will allow you to do on your own valuable property you recently purchased. Suddenly a dictate comes that you can't develop your land since they claim there are endangered mosquitoes there. Since no one is allowed to develop anything, the land is pretty much worthless. Or maybe is simply taken for a song by eminent domain to be used for the public good.

            Do you think you should be taxed for these kinds of services government provides, or should you pay for these services voluntarily?

            There is no other choice. Either way, you get these “services.”

            The other problem is the nature of modern or unlimited government. Taxation is voluntary or just part of a social contract everyone has agreed to, according to many statists out there . If you own property you can voluntarily pay for all their mandatory protection services or go to jail or worse, until you do pay with time, interest and penalties.

            Do you think you should be taxed for these kinds of services government provides, or should you pay for these services voluntarily?

            Either way, you will pay.

            Without defining the services, you might as well ask,
            “If you are raped, do you think you should pay for this service involuntarily, or voluntarily?”

            Wrong question and false choice.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
          Am I understanding that it's a false choice because government can't do its job unless it has a monopoly on the use of force?

          Because if that's true it necessitates that government initiates force to maintain that monopoly.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by FreeEach 9 years, 10 months ago
    I want to debate the essentials of Childs' argument against Rand's justification of the State. Childs clearly shows in this article that she is caught in a contradiction, which is: the State exists by the vice of initiated force and therefore cannot be morally justified. Rand never responded to Childs' or other anarch-libertarians' arguments that the State can only exist by employing initiated force and the threat of it. And since Rand was explicitly against the use of initiated force she is caught in a contradiction. Debate this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
      Your fundamental premise (and that of Mr. Childs) is that a government inherently must be initiated as an entity that threatens to use force as a condition of it's existence. That is a red herring. A government is merely any entity that all parties agree has authority to decide (thus, govern). It is the agreement on the authority that makes it a government, not the use or threat of the use of force. The ability of the use of force provides the government the substance to effect it's authority, but it derives the authority from the consent - at least for those bodies that embody freedoms, like the US and most of the western world. For those that embody tyranny, their power does in fact derive from force first.
      Debate ended.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 10 months ago
        The problem is that this alleged "agreement" is an artificial construct, not the actual agreement or consent, with knowledge of the terms, that is required in contract law or in everyday human interactions in order to bind an individual. And I hope your argument isn't that the majority has the right to vote to bind me to a contract that I personally refuse.

        If I don't "agree" with this government, what are my options? Not many, as I'm still subject to the laws and must pay taxes. I can't even leave the country without jumping through numerous hoops and paying large sums of money to get the state's permission.

        The reality of this alleged implied "agreement" to whatever government we happen to be born under is nothing more than slavery; we are state property. Under this system, we never have the option to meaningfully consent or not consent, and we certainly don't have the option (once we attain the age of reason) to withdraw our consent as free, self-owning beings.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
          Your inherent agreement is your willingness to stay there. If you disagree, then you are free to depart. You cannot avail yourself of the benefits but then refuse the inherent contractual obligation to pay for such benefits. As for paying to depart, that is a construct of the US, and as far as I'm concerned is immoral on its face.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 10 months ago
    This discussion, while interesting, is premature. Let's forget about nations and governments for a while and concentrate on the really Big picture. the human race. We (the race) are not mature enough for any form of anarchy at present. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't struggle toward what is pro-life and anti-death. Since it is not possible to achieve or sustain any form of anarchy today, what we must do is judge what's going on and use our reasoning power and whatever other attributes we can spare to determine what promotes freedom and what works to destroy freedom. Then we must use our minds to work toward freedom by the use of actions that will promote it.

    While it never hurts to have discussions of this sort, it is way too far ahead of its time. If the Obama regime and its ilk continue to make the sort of progress it has in the last 50 years, it may well be many hundreds of years of struggle before we crawl out of a new Dark Ages and make this discussion relevant. If the regime falters, and we can contribute to the trend toward freedom, then we must do so.
    I'm betting on the latter.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryHeart 9 years, 10 months ago
    The entire argument is based on a false premise. The US military is not allowed domestically. It is only against foreign enemies.

    The states police internally and each community hires it's own police force. So what is this guy talking about?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 10 months ago
      Your premise is Constitutional, but based on the assumption that those in power respect the Constitution and the limits it places on the use of power!

      Our current President has already tried to create his own police force. Since that was an overt try that got immediately shot down, he has been doing it covertly through the various bureaucracies. Why else is the IRS buying weapons and ammo to outfit itself (proven, btw - not a conspiracy theory). What about the BLM - who showed up on the Bundy Ranch with its own military SWAT team, snipers, and armored vehicles? What about the DHS' purchase of more .45 hollow-point ammo than the Army uses in target practice in 5 years (also NOT a conspiracy theory).

      In a government that actually respects its Constitutional restrictions, we don't have to worry. But then, neither did the Germans of the late 1920's - or so they thought. Neither did the Russians of the 1940's - or so they thought. Neither did the Chinese of the 1940's - or so they thought.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 10 months ago
      Are you allowed to form a competing protection or dispute resolution service, either locally or nationally, without having the government attack and punish you? No, the state will protect their monopoly on these services. It is a "protection racket" like the Mafia. And what are the results of a monopoly? Lack of efficiency, innovation or accountability, abuse of power.

      With all that was said in the article, I cannot see how any of the arguments could hinge on the fact that "the US military is not allowed domestically." Semantics aside, have you seen the ammo and weapon purchases by the various domestic government departments? The armored vehicles on the streets? These are not for foreign use.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
        You are wrong. There are private mediation services to which various parties subscribe. Thus, this is already taking place, and undercuts your statement.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 10 months ago
          There are limited options available for some individuals in strictly private disputes, but you can't turn to private mediation for anything considered a violation of government law or regulations. Besides this, the state has a monopoly on dictating what is a crime or violation, hence the many non-violent offenses that can land you in jail, sometimes for life. And government has the monopoly on applying justice and enforcement, so the application of the law is very unequal. If you have pull, you can harm others horribly and pay no price.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
            You made a very broad statement to which I provided a narrow counter example that refuted the broad aspects of the statement. Of course there are areas where that isn't true. However, if it works in one area, it can be made to work in others with enough creativity. In fact, the old West employed such means. The sheriff and judges in many locales were essentially "private", having been contracted by the town. They provided the services and were paid for by the town. If they didn't perform, or the locality found them to be too costly, they would find replacements.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 10 months ago
              I consider the existing arbitration and mediation services more complementary than competing, given the monopoly on law-making and the state's ability to license and regulate practitioners and practice, and shut it down completely if they ever want to. I like the example of the privately contracted sheriffs and judges. I think in this era of information sharing, we could monitor behavior and reputation and find moral people to fill the jobs.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rayvaughn 9 years, 10 months ago
    This is clear thought?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 10 months ago
      Even Childs recanted his own anarchist position when he realized that he had no way to make it work in reality. Others saw that and a lot more wrong with his rationalizations far sooner, which is why the whole thing remains on the fantasy fringe, with no connection to the real world of today's problems or anything other time or place. These parasites of the gulch are wasting other people's time with this attempt at cult resurrection.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 10 months ago
    This one is pretty easy to poke some serious holes in. The author completely forgets to define government at its base level, and in so doing leaves his entire rationale subject to the most fundamental rebuttal - one of definition.

    Government is nothing more than people getting together to agree to common rules for interaction. Whether they appoint a king, elect a mayor, or even establish a security force, etc. they are simply agreeing to a certain set of base tenets and setting up an authority for mediating disputes, are they not?

    Anarchy is at its very heart a repudiation of common goals, so the idea of a "free market anarchism" is inherently contradictory. Every business transaction is in fact a contract between buyer and seller - an agreement with certain claims and certain liabilities undertaken on both sides. What the author completely fails to account for is that in any contract, there must be a method for appeal to a third party to arbitrate contract disputes! Thus inherent in any business dealing is the notion of government!

    I also love the nonsense he introduces with competing governments in overwatch on the same subjects! Another inherent contradiction. A person can only owe allegiance to one government at a time, i.e. for any contractual matter, there may be only one agreed-upon arbiter in a dispute!

    As to the rest of his points, his logic is quite shaky. He really should spend more time on his logic and less on elocution lessons, as the confuses substance with theory.

    1. With respect to a police force, as alluded to prior and based on the principle that we can only owe allegiance to a single governing body at a time, the notion of competing entities for providing self-protection is similarly nonsensical. To boot, from a practical perspective, ask Ike how practical it was to place him as Commander-in-Chief of the Allied armies when Montgomery went off and did his own thing, Patton did his own, and Stalin did his own!

    2. In this one, he misunderstand's Rand's basic argument entirely. They are actually in agreement, whether he knows it or not.

    3. This argument again is based on the inherently contradictory position that one can have government and no government at the same time.

    4. I have a problem with both arguments here, because each presumes the supposition of knowledge when ignorance is more than often the case.

    5. This one again is based on the false separation of "government" from "competing agencies of protection" in addition to the fallacy that one can have more than one governing body overseeing a single person, group, community, or society.

    While I give him a B- for effort, I give him a solid D for efficacy. I couldn't find a single one of his arguments that wasn't severely and fatally flawed. What was more egregious was that the flaws were not that difficult to identify.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
    I agree with Roy Childs' argument that a limited government must either initiate force or stop being a government. However, I disagree with his conclusion that we should therefore abandon government and become anarchists. My conclusion is that we should abandon the Non-Aggression Principle, not government.

    ---------------------------------------------------

    Roy Childs' position:

    Is it possible for government to preform its essential functions without initiating force?
    [_] Yes
    [X] No

    Should we prohibit the initiation of force?
    [X] Yes
    [_] No

    Should we have a government?
    [_] Yes
    [X] No

    ---------------------------------------------------

    Ayn Rand's position:

    Is it possible for government to preform its essential functions without initiating force?
    [X] Yes
    [_] No

    Should we prohibit the initiation of force?
    [X] Yes
    [_] No

    Should we have a government?
    [X] Yes
    [_] No

    ---------------------------------------------------

    My own position:

    Is it possible for government to preform its essential functions without initiating force?
    [_] Yes
    [X] No

    Should we prohibit the initiation of force?
    [_] Yes
    [X] No

    Should we have a government?
    [X] Yes
    [_] No
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -3
    Posted by FreeEach 9 years, 10 months ago
    Well done TOLFA! You have set the cat among the pigeons! I put the cheese in the rattrap earlier here but no one was was sniffing it:

    "Rand never grew up. Although she relinquished God, she still believed in Government. Read the finest book written to demonstrate her adolescence: The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill (https://mises.org/books/marketforliberty......) and listen to Roy Child’s gentle chiding and deserved hiding of Rand in his “An Open Letter to Ayn Rand” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se0VmSaJD...... and http://www.dailypaul.com/54196/objectivi...... ). Then come and view me at: www.ResourceForYourSource.com and perhaps you will be interested in joining with me to create a “Galt’s Gulch” of the Mind, in which case, email me at: themesofjack@gmail.com and I will respond.
    CHeers, FreeEach/Jack, in CHarming and CHaotic CHina where Responsible Freedom is CHurning a CHange."

    Let's see who takes the bait now!

    You are only as free as you take the responsibility to be.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
      Let's see. You put a post up on a Friday before the first major holiday of the summer, and then want to proclaim self-congratulation that nobody bothered to answer - proclaiming this a victory for the argument. Sheesh. How juvenile.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo