OBJECTIVIST ANARCHISM

Posted by helidrvr 4 years, 9 months ago to Government
37 comments | Share | Flag

Objectivist Anarchism? If anything comes close to describing that idea, this has to be it. No semantics, just plain common sense. Maybe we can finally come together?
SOURCE URL: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/bionic-mosquito/freedom-is-possible-in-the-modern-world


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 9 months ago
    The title of the post strikes me as an oxymoron.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 9 months ago
      Zen, I agree that the title does bring focus to a problem. We have Christians here in the Gulch. It has been asserted that Objectivism is a religion because people quote Ayn Rand as an authority. This discussion is a perfect example of why Objectivism is not (necessarily) a religion (though for some or many it may be). Although "Christianity" must include the Manichean Heresy, our local Christians never quote the Bible to prove that Jesus was not Divine. On the other hand, libertarians do quote Ayn Rand to show why justifications for government are contrary to the remaining body of Objectivism. Mathematician David Hilbert at Goettingen proposed a famous set of problems. "Gödel demonstrated that any non-contradictory formal system, which was comprehensive enough to include at least arithmetic, cannot demonstrate its completeness by way of its own axioms. In 1931 his incompleteness theorem showed that Hilbert's grand plan was impossible as stated." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbe... Turing's work supported Goedels: some numbers are not computable. If not for that, we would not be here via the Internet on our home computers. So, if we do not question "Objectivist Anarchism" we may not develop some future formalism that provides truly useful theory and practice.

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 9 months ago
        Mike; Not sure where you're headed with your comment. Religion and philosophy do not equate, regardless of Christians' or other's desire to attempt to make them comparable. Simple definitional semantics, particularly with Objectivism, separate the two and forever shall. Quoting a real person or her works that others can follow and replicate using rational logic, doesn't compare to quoting a hypothetical supernatural being or works allegedly inspired by that same hypothetical supernatural being, relying on faith alone and the hope for immortality. Fearing death doesn't stop it and a dream of immortality on another non-evidential plane to justify living a life of suffering and poverty strikes me as a little irrational, at best.

        I'm not sure where a dualistic religion that briefly threatened Christianity and mathematical logics enters into a discussion or even thinking about the philosophy of Objectivism or the writings and art of the definer of that philosophy.

        But, it remains that Anarchism takes the position that man will, given the freedom to do so, accept, live within, and flourish in a society that only has voluntary contact and trade between individuals and voluntarily will follow the nonaggression principle and that private property isn't necessary. A utopian dream, at best.

        Objectivism, on the other hand, understands the reality that many individuals will not or cannot live rationally, accepting all other men's natural rights, particularly private property, and that the necessary evil of a societal or community enforcement mechanism must be and that it is by any other name or description, government. Though objectivist wish still for an absolute means to limit that government in perpetuity.

        So I guess, that's my address to the idea of Objectivist Anarchism.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 9 months ago
          >> Anarchism takes the position [....] that private property isn't necessary <<

          This is a complete fabrication, utter nonsense. Whole books have been written by leading proponents of the NAP in support of their conclusion that property is the cornerstone of social success. I for one am absolutely convinced that a society which does not recognize property rights is doomed to fail. Yet, in spite of my frequent declarations to that effect I find myself accused over and over of being "anti property". Why do I bother?

          Even tolfa.us has an entire chapter on "Markets" and another on "Justice" which obviously presupposes trade in privately owned property and disputes arising from individuals' failure to adhere to the NAP.

          So please, all of you who keep insisting that adherence to the NAP implies a rejection of property, quit that silly lie.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 9 months ago
            helidrvr: I can find no ability within Anarchism to adequately enforce private property. Without such an enforcement means, there is no private property, or it's subject to faith that no one else will want or take it. Faith in the good actions of others begins to sound more like religion.

            You've stated in various posts that you don't agree with patents and patent enforcement, so how can you then claim support of private property? Remember that a title or deed to real property is no different than is a patent, except for longevity. I own myself including my mind as well as what my mind produces. No one else has any right to just use any of that or take it as their own.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 years, 9 months ago
              You must not have looked very hard then; or did you search at all?

              Butler Shaffer has written a fascinating 325 page book on the subject - "Boundaries of Order: Private Property as a Social System".
              You can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Boundaries-Order-P...

              If that is too much for you, then the TOFLA course devotes an entire chapter to Free Market Justice, i.e. non-coercive contract enforcement.
              It is available here: http://tolfa.us/L6.htm
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 9 months ago
                What I said was "to adequately enforce". I'll stand by my opinion. Thanks
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -1
                  Posted by 4 years, 9 months ago
                  Wow! What an impressive intellectual tour-de-force. You said "to adequately enforce". Never mind a pesky little detail as to WHO determines exactly WHAT is "adequate". Oh I guess that would be you? No? Don't tell me, "the people"?

                  And what is your response when presented with some seriously hard factual evidence to refute your rediculous claims about anarchism and private property? Thoroughly study it and maybe learn something? Nooo, not you. You don't need to read no 325 page book. No, you have an OPINION. And that is far more valid than mere facts.

                  So you'll stand by your opinion. Facts be damned.

                  Well, I hate break this to you, but opinions require no proof and therefore are cheap and in limitless supply. Careful my hero. You may find yourself standing all alone one day, just you and your opinion.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 9 months ago
                    WHO determines what is adequate? It's not a who--it's the continued existence of private property that demonstrates the adequacy. At this point, little of it is left in this country, so we currently live under an inadequate enforcement.

                    "some seriously hard factual evidence to refute your ridiculous claims". Still waiting to see some, rather than simply referring me to some book. That's like referring me to the Bible which I'm not going to waste my time reading either. Explain the factual evidence to me and demonstrate how it works in a logically rational manner and I might give it some attention.

                    "Facts be damned". Once again, I can't find any facts in any of your comments, just references to a book or so and some online propaganda nonsense.

                    As to opinions, an objectivist's opinions are generally based on knowledge and facts known to date but need some additional knowledge or facts to fully develop from an opinion to an acknowledged reality. And, yes, I may well find myself standing all alone one day. It won't be the first time, but then I'm not much on caring for the accolades or agreements of others to give me my sense of worth or accomplishment.

                    Other than that, I think the old adage applies here that 'It's often better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.' If you're only response to others that you disagree with is ad hominem personal attacks rather than facts, you so arrogantly claim, yet fail to elucidate, you simply demonstrate you're sophomoric level of knowledge when discussing things with serious men of the mind.

                    In the meantime, go back to your coloring books and devise another anarchist fantasy world in which your intellect matches your ego.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 9 months ago
                    "Wow! What an impressive intellectual tour-de-force. You said "to adequately enforce". Never mind a pesky little detail as to WHO determines exactly WHAT is "adequate". Oh I guess that would be you?"
                    If you said this nicer you'd have a better chance of being understood.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 4 years, 9 months ago
            Real property and once you have an enforcement system you have a form of govt. Anarchy doesn 't mean that no matter how many descriptirs you try to put with it. Plus you stated outright you do not support patents, the single most important property right of all! Owning land does not propel, propagate tehnology to individuals, create millions of jobs across hundreds of industries. Every nation with poor protection of property rights also have the lowest economic freedom indices. Economic freedom is a major goal of most anarchists. Or is it not?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 years, 9 months ago
              Patents are a coercive legal construct used to enforce claims of property right. They are not a property right in and of themselves. By objecting to patent law AS IT EXISTS TODAY and the trolling "industry" it has spawned, I am in no way rejecting the premise of property rights as a governing principle for social success.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 4 years, 9 months ago
    Why is it that almost all who comment on these issues are invariably more interested in proving their particular interpretation of "Freedom" to be the one that trumps every one else's. When push comes to shove, I don't give a rodent's hindquarters who wins these largely semantic arguments.

    You want to claim the intellectual high ground on the meaning of Freedom? Knock yourself out. For my part I just want to be successful at being free. So when I look at an idea, I am not interested in proving how wrong it is. I read everything with one purpose in mind - to glean from it what can help me in that quest.

    Don't worry about being right about Freedom. Worry about being successful at Freedom, whatever it takes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 9 months ago
      OK, helldrvr, demonstrate the fact about anarchism that lets you increase your own personal freedom here and now.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 4 years, 9 months ago
        With the simple realization that no one has a right to coerce me, that I have a natural right to be left alone, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that I am free to avoid, subvert, resit and come up with whatever creative device I can to achieve and maintain my freedom.

        Anarchism teaches me that I do NOT have to obey any self-appointed ruler(s).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 4 years, 9 months ago
      I'm not sure who you are ranting at.
      For myself," proving their particular interpretation of "Freedom" to be the one that trumps every one else's..."
      its about property rights. I do care who "wins" these arguments, because "losing" may mean I lose rights. Supporting anarchism is a threat to my property rights.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 4 years, 9 months ago
        Given your definition of anarchism as not supporting property, I totally agree with you. I want no part of that either. And that is exactly my point. Instead of quibbling over semantics, I prefer to latch on to practical ideas which result in greater freedom for us both.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 4 years, 9 months ago
          patents. They are the only property right enumerated in the Constitution. They are the single most important reason billions of people have escaped out of the Malthusian Trap. Anarchists want them abolished. That means millions of property owners would lose rights. It's an important intellectual battle to "win."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 9 months ago
            Khalling, you fallaciously extended the claims of one (or a few) self-identified "anarcho-capitalists", Roderick Long and others in and around the Mises Institute, with _all_ others of similar (but notably different) idea. I point you directly to THE MARKET FOR LIBERTY by Linda and Morris Tannehill, pages 58-59 which describes their suggestions for protecting intellectual property rights without government. Whether that is attainable is a different discussion but it is important that you realize that not all "anarchists" are opposed to patents.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 4 years, 9 months ago
              there is no such thing as "without government." as soon as you have an enforcement mechanism you have government. How it's funded is a separate question.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 9 months ago
                Having just agreed, I am going to offer a different and wider view: government is just one way to instantiate law. Law is antecedent to government. That is not my idea. I got if from Wolf Devoon. You can find his "Constitution for Galt's Gulch" here on Galt's Gulch: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/9f...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 4 years, 9 months ago
                  I would love to have a look at this. so would db. sadly, it is difficult for me to get a copy where I am. I'll get it when I'm next in the states. I wonder why it isn't in electronic form.? so, I cannot give an opinion one way or the other.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 9 months ago
                I can agree with that, k. That makes this a broader or deeper question. It is a matter of anthropology: all cultures have a,b,c..., x,y,z. All cultures have an institution of government, just as all have rites of passage, technology, language, and religion. If anarchism is a different form of government, then philosophy is a kind of religion, and atheism is a sect.

                For those who interpret human relations in terms of dominance and submission (alpha leaders, beta followers), capitalism and socialism are both dominance-submission structures. You might disagree with the premise; maybe you explain dominance and submission - titles, handshaking, modes of introduction, the McDonald's order counter as a control structure demanding obedience - in some other broader system.

                Anarchist Bob Black - Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Black - asserts in THE ABOLITION OF WORK that both capitalism and socialism are all about where you work and for whom you work. No one gets to enjoy life, unless you enjoy working for other people. I mention that just to point out that there are many ways to order the facts of society. So, if you want anarchy to be a kind of government, then you need to be explicit when you discuss these topics lest other people be left uncertain about your intentions.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 4 years, 9 months ago
                  My fear is Anarchists use the word anarchy. It has a meaning. get everyone feeling all self-contained in their NAP then bam! some property rights are gone...others aren't far behind....well you should have known...we always said anarchy...
                  We're waiting on critiquing this. Tom Woods, all reasonable sounding interviewing Stephan Kinsella-a dangerous thinker. all that open source for stone axes. cannot wait.
                  hey on another topic, can people mint their own gold coins? Obviously not as currency, but numbered and limited?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 9 months ago
                    Khalling asks: "... can people mint their own gold coins? Obviously not as currency, but numbered and limited?" This is not clear, as much of what you write is muddy because you do not take the time to develop an idea. Do you mean to ask whether under CURRENT US LAW one can mint one's own coins, tokens, or medals? Under current US law you cannot mint your own coins. However, you can issue your own tokens and create your own medals; and many people have for over 40 years. I assume that you are not asking a wider philosophical question. In _Atlas Shrugged_ the gold coins of Galt's Gulch were minted on the "authority" (taken, not given) of the United States of America. Absent a government monoopoly on coins -"Article I Section 8: "... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures..." we discussed this - or, I tried to - in the topics on Contradictions in the Constitution. You cannot enter into a treaty with Spain to goto war against France if Spain is attacked, but can you not agree by contract to sell Star Wars Action Figures to the government of Spain? The common concept here is what is allowed or permitted to an individual in a limited constitutional republic. In both 1800 and 1802 Republicans in the Senate introduced legislation to close the Mint as a burden on the Treasury. So, does the government have an objective monopoly on the coining of money? Or did you have a different question entirely?


                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 years, 9 months ago
              Well said. Once again it is mostly a matter of semantics. Let's say that I am the first human to come up with the idea of making a mouse trap. Retaining some or all of the design and manufacturing knowledge as my own is perfectly legitimate in a free market. While my particular PROCESS of trapping a mouse can be property, the actual IDEA of trapping a mouse on the other hand cannot be owned by me. The rub with the current setup is that the latter is being coercively done and that has produced the whole patent trolling mess we are now saddled with.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 4 years, 9 months ago
                you can have the idea all you want. But if you sell my patented idea, that's going to be a problem without a license
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 4 years, 9 months ago
                  That's where you are wrong. Ideas as opposed to processes pop up randomly and simultaneously all over the world without there being any connection between them. So if I and a few other neat freaks around the world happen to come up with the same thought of "let's find a way to trap a mouse" and each proceed to develop our own solutions to the problem, then we are not infringing on your property rights. If on the other hand MikeMarotta - sorry Mike :) - attempts to blatantly copy your design and manufacturing process, then you have a legitimate claim of property theft against him.

                  Maybe it helps to think in terms of homesteading. You simply can't in nature come up with a legitimate way to homestead thought. This is just a matter of practical reality.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 4 years, 9 months ago
                    Teh US Patent and Trademark Office have had programs on that very thing off and on over the years. It almost never comes up. In fact, they keep discontinuing the program because simultaneous invention is a myth. There are almost always differences in function or design. Besides, it is so easy to check in the age of information. You do a title search before you buy your house.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 4 years, 9 months ago
                      There are almost always differences in function or design. Absolutely, different mouse traps every time, but the underlying idea of trapping a mouse remains the same for all. Age is not a valid determinant either. A in Key West comes up with the idea of trapping a mouse today, B in Thailand comes up with the idea of trapping a mouse a few hours later. It does not follow that A has any more rights to claim ownership of the idea than does B.

                      In the mean time, patent trolling has reached epidemic proportions.

                      http://blog.independent.org/2014/08/19/p...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 9 months ago

    I don't know why you got voted down on an old topic discussion. We go through this often here. But neither am I going to rescue it. The problem with these anarcho-whatevers is that they are mired in rationalism, i.e., theoretical suppositions lacking in evidence. Suppose I said that the world should be run by libraries; librarians should be world governors. I can cite all the positives about libraries, but then admit that nowhere in the world was this ever done; but I can point to the lawful and orderly business in libraries and bookstores; and suggest that it might work... Or maybe the world should be run by pastry chefs. Who could refuse a nice cheesecake? ...

    When they do have "evidence" it is always some esoteric time and place; and always a narrow window at that, i.e., a failure mode. From that article above:
    "With that out of the way…I have written about anarchic – or at least vastly decentralized – societies that have existed in our past. Two such examples include the highland people of Southeast Asia and much of the European Middle Ages (here and here). These examples are found, obviously, in a much simpler time and place – not in anything resembling a complex division-of-labor society. In other words, while the “laws” might have been friendlier to my anarchic way of thinking, the successful application within a more complex society and global economy is, at minimum, in question."

    That said, the fact is that we really do have such social structures here and now. We have them in exactly the areas needed, and claimed, by the anarcho-wishers: private security; and private adjudication. The two largest security firms, Securitas of Stockholm, and G4S of London, have rosters the size of the armies of France and Germany, both competing in about 30 nations. But unlike France and Germany. few private firms fire on each other. It is a matter of culture, which is the basis for law. In Africa private armies have and do carry out horrific wars. In Europe, not so much...

    Similarly, adjudication, arbitration, and negotiation, are services commonly offered by law firms. Every anarcho-person must know the fine history of the American Arbitration Association. Read your own contracts for credit cards, or home loans, or even employment. You probably have several arbitration agreements in force right now.

    Moreover, private law is successful: the Uniform Commercial Code was created whole by a self-appointed committee of jurists.

    The anarcho-crowd never addresses these facts, either the actual reality of the structures they claim are "possible" (someday) or their very real _failures_ here and now. Failures, really, because the UCC seems not to apply to ISIS.

    Some anarcho-utopians bashfully admit that for their system to work, the whole world (or much of it) would need to be committed to their Non Initiation of Force (NIOF) principle; and antecedent to that would be a commitment to reason and rights. Others assert that left to itself, the free market would impel toward peace, as it does toward prosperity. People would be economically rewarded and punished for rational behavior. It has never worked in the past; and it seems not to be working now. Every nation in the world has a glorious-sounding constitution. Few actually have rights by our standard. Even we are losing ours. The lootiing in Ferguson, Missouri, and the looting by police officers in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, pretty much argue against the claim that external incentives shape human behavior. The door to motivation swings open from the inside.

    We all honor ancient Athens as "the school of Hellas" even though they exiled Anaxagoras, tried Aspasia, and arranged the death of Socrates. We all honor the Renaissance in which glorious individualism was celebrated in wonderful new art for churches (even Protestants) that taught original sin as an unquestionable doctrine. Every radical in America puts their roots in the Revolution; except, maybe, those who were counted as 3/5 of a person. Perfection is always so hard to achieve...

    Robert V. Hine's _California's Utopian Colonies_ tells of the failures of people who were highly motivated to succeed in a land that was arable, habitable, and hospitable.

    The warning here, however, also applies to the Gulchers who think that they actually will live well, long, and happy with 50 of their ideologically pure comrades.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo