Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Induction and Anarchism as an Ideal

By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

06/02/2012

I’ve come to a realization recently after having discussions with several anarchists, and the realization is that some of them are not being rationalistic (thinking of principles divorced from the facts), but rather they are making an inductive generalization based upon their own experience of dealing with various governments who insist on getting in their way of leading their lives in a rational, independent, and productive manner. What generally happens is that they seek to do something – like opening up a business in a convenient location – and the government steps in and tells them they cannot do that without specific permission from the government (local, regional, or national). For example, I once had a boss who decided to move his picture framing gallery across the street to a smaller venue. No problem getting the lease and the business name and signage and all that stuff, but the trouble was that the venue did not have a rear entrance to be used in case of emergencies, so the local government would not let him move in until they had an investigation. Said investigation took over eight months to come up with a legal solution, so he lost revenue for all of that time. Fortunately for him, he had a second location that was doing OK, but can you imagine not getting paid for eight months due to a government technicality? I’ve heard of similar stories, and while not all of the victims turn to anarchism, some definitely do, stating that it would be better if we had no government at all, which they think would solve the problem.

According to The Logical Leap by David Harriman, it does not take a lot of the same types of facts to be aware of to come to an inductive generalization. Turning on several light switches in a house can get even a young child to come up with the generalization, “Flipping the light switch will turn on the lights.” So, even a few times of dealing with a government can lead one to realize the generalization that, “The government is preventing me from living my life!” Is this a valid generalization? One based on the facts in terms of causation? And what should one do about it? An Objectivist would say to advocate for better government based upon upholding individual rights in such a way that the individual is free to live his life as he sees fit so long as he does not initiate force against others. To many people who turn towards anarchism (no government), this seems like a very far-fetched way of getting rid of entrenched governments who violate individual rights. However, a contextual research into the early decades of the United States (the first 150 years) will show that just such a government did indeed exist (sans slavery and taxes). That is, a government geared towards an extension of self-defense in an institutionalized manner did exist, and was lost over the years. But what made that loss possible; and, indeed, what made the United States possible in the first place?

Basically, it was the ideas of The Enlightenment that made such a free country possible, as the individual became sovereign in all walks of life due to the rational influence of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, who advocated that each man’s individual mind was capable of knowing reality unaided by Divine Intervention or government edicts. Prior to that, with the possible exception of Ancient Athens, there was a top-down approach to government whereby the government would set the terms for the life of the individual in that society – of the individual being the servant of the State instead of the opposite idea that the government ought to be the servant / protector of the individual. It was the Founding Fathers of the United States and the political theories they understood and advocated that led to the individual protection type of government. Unfortunately, these ideas really required a more philosophical approach – basically a new rational philosophy and a rational morality – to ideally translate into a politics that would stand the test of time and not become eroded as reason and individualism wavered due to bad philosophies (primarily Kant and his collectivism). Without that fully rational basis, the Founders presented the case of rights as being self-evident – as it states in The Declaration of Independence – whereas the concept of individual rights does require a whole host of more fundamental ideas to be completely validated. Lacking such a base, the political ideals of the Founders became chipped away almost from the beginning, but especially after the ideas of Kant swamped the field of philosophy.

And I think it is because the ideas of individual rights and proper government are not self-evident that collectivism on the one hand or anarchism on the other hand begin to take precedent in people’s mind. They tend to think that we need either more government (total socialism) or get rid of government altogether (anarchism) to solve the current problems. I have written elsewhere why I do not think that anarchism or competing governments will work, but I do think the anarchists just cannot conceive of a proper government or say that it has been tried and has always failed. Due to this, I think their initial inductive generalization is a false one, that the alternative is not Socialism versus Anarchism, but rather upholding individual rights in a fully institutionalized manner (Constitutional Republic) or dispensing with them in fully institutionalized manner (Communism). The idea of institutionalized protection for the individual is very difficult for the confirmed anarchist to accept, as individualist as some of them are, but anarchism is not the solution. A government dedicating to protecting the legitimate rights of the individual would leave one free to live one’s own life according to one’s own ideals while preventing others from interfering with said decisions with force (as this would be illegal and punishable by law). Anarchism, on the other hand, would not provide for such protection. Some anarchist claim to have thought it all through and have come up with solutions based on market principles, but I have yet to see a worked out solution that would not eventually lead to outright violence in the streets as one segment of individuals attempts to protect themselves from other individuals in an effort to protect their rights, which they claim were violated (real or imagined). With a Constitutional Republic and institutionalized systems of protecting the individual (police force, military, and courts for resolving disputes peacefully), I don’t see how one can protect oneself for large-scale enterprises, like a corporation that exists, say, in all states of the United States; nor for one’s own individual life as these competing agencies of force vie for protecting the individual without any sort of institutionalized system of resolving disputes (the court system). So, both myself and fellow Objectivists are for a clearly limited Constitutional Republic rather than anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some insightful thoughts here, I think.

Induction 'works' excellently - until it doesn't - or is not fully

backed up or checked by reason and principle.

For me, the Founding Fathers displayed vast good-will in their inductive

vision of men, and assumed that so would following generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent idea of a thread, Thomas.

At some moment in history, all governments denied women a chance to vote in elections. At some moment, all or nearly all considered homosexuality a crime.

Using inductive thinking, they could have concluded that this kind of discrimination was inherent to any government.

They could hardly imagine our time, where governments would think and act otherwise.

Induction, to be effective as a tool of cognition, has to consider the full context of knowledge available.

This means that, by knowing everthing we can know about the nature of man, rights, democracy, laws, etc. we can predict things about governments that we have not seen yet.

We can predict, for example, that under conditions A, B and C, a proper government can be formed and sustained.

Edited by Hotu Matua

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there seems to still be some confusions about how induction works even after the publication of The Logical Leap. Your own personal experience in and of itself is insufficient to come to a proper generalization, because all relevant facts must be taken into account. It's like coming to the conclusion that sunlight is bad for you because you have spent 40 days and 40 nights in the desert without proper food or water, discounting the fact that without sunlight, there would be no life on earth. So, while I do not disagree with those who come to the conclusion that if it wasn't for government they could live their lives more fully, they are not including the context of past history or examples of better government that was put in place (at least implicitly) to protect the individual from the initiation of force or fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another angle on this issue of induction is that while it is true that government does violate the rights of its citizens in many cases, in the USA the government will still protect your life and property from those who seek to do you harm through physical force or fraud. So, the inductive anarchist is not even taking all of the relevant current facts into account, let alone a good history of the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not sure about that argument.

The fact that some governments offer some level of protection to the rights of their citizens will not hold water in front of an anarchist.

They could reply: "That's exaclty my point. Goverments are gangs that protect their members from being screwed by people other than the gang's boss". Some drug cartels in my country behave that way. Being part of some criminal bands, in fact, offers you a more effective level of protection of some of your rights that some local governments do.

The induction process cannot go this direction: "Taxes are good for people because many governments I've seen do some nice things to their citizens with some of the money form their taxes".

Edited by Hotu Matua

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the whole point I was making about a **proper** government. A proper government is there to protect your rights. It is not a gang, and it does not order your or anyone else around unless individual rights were violated. You are making the same mistake they are -- you are going by your inductive experience of how governments currently operate and are not taking the Founding of this country into account nor projecting what the protection of individual rights entails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even to the proper government the ancient problem applies :Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who guard the guardians? What is the mechanism which can prevent an organization which possesses a coercive monopoly on the use of force to abuse it? In my view a force could be balanced only by force, and in this particular case the strong privately funded law enforcement organizations could guard the guardians. Who then could guard them? The market forces which provide their funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I totally disagree. One cannot have a proper society -- a civilization -- if one is going to have various agencies public or private aiming guns at each other and stating, in effect, that if you make a false move I am going to shoot you. It is not the threat of force that would keep a proper government in line, but rather the fact that the bad guys can be voted out of office and if they violated rights, their laws can be overturned and in extreme cases they can be impeached and thrown in jail. But you cannot have militia A overseeing government agency B overlooking criminal C. The monopoly on the use of force does not mean that the government can get away with whatever the hell it decides to impose upon the populous. The checks and balances of our Constitution is a great way of handling this whole issue -- we can get the bad guys out without having to resort to violence in the streets, by voting them out and changing the bad laws. That's one reason why living in the USA has been so peaceful and not having that revolution every twenty-odd years the way Jefferson predicted or advocated. The people have to know clearly what their rights are and be eternally vigilant not to let the rights suppressors into office or kick them out if they do get in. That's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As history shows the bad guys could be not only voted out but also voted into the office. Democracy as the rule of the majority never could be a safeguard of the individual rights. The best guardian of one's rights is man himself. He will never voluntary support with his money an agency which violates his or other people rights.Therefore all privately supported agencies would have to operate under one objective law which recognizes nature of man and his rights. The agencies which violate rights would be out of market in no time and those who would try to establish coercive monopoly would be crushed by united force of all other agencies if only in order to keep their clients. The same should apply to the government which may decide that it is a ruler and not a servant of the people. BTW, exactly for this reason American Constitution made a provision for the citizens to own arms-to keep the government at bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think it is a bunch of BS if you think a lot of private defense agencies will be motivated not to infringe on individual rights....why? how? by what law? And force against the government should only be used as a last resort and only when there are no more options. We may well reach that point, as the Supreme Injustice basically ruled that the government can order us about at will, so long as they use the tax code to do it. So, I am not going to pretend that we have those in our government who are currently insuring our individual rights are protected. But the Founders gave us many options to deal with them -- including the second Amendment as a last resort (revolution), but you are not offering anything better than our current Constitution, so I won't be following you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Personally, I think it is a bunch of BS if you think a lot of private defense agencies will be motivated not to infringe on individual rights....why? how? by what law?"

Private defense agencies exist in order to defend people rights and they get well paid for it. If they will infringe the rights instead of protecting them, they will lose their customers and their source of income. In other words they have a build-in mechanism which prevents them from the abuse of power. Government should legislate the objective laws which would regulate the use of retaliatory power and prevent infringement of rights. All agencies will operate in accordance to these laws. Those which don't would be out of market-people simply wouldn't sign up with them. From the other hand agencies wouldn't obey arbitrary government laws and for the same reason-no agency could enforce a law which infringes their customers' rights and stay in business. Government which has no power to enforce such a laws would avoid arbitrary legislation, unless it's willing to face a civil war. In other words without coercive monopoly on the use of force government wouldn't be able to implement arbitrary laws and to order people at will. Tell me now why it's BS?

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's BS because at one and the same time you want objective laws to uphold how defense agencies will operate, and yet you want them to ignore laws they consider to be non-objective and to be able to use counter-force against government agents that you and they deem to be a violation of your rights by your personal judgement. In other words, the law would not be the final arbiter of force, you and your agencies would. Now, maybe you would be careful and only hire those who would defend your rights, but it is an issue as to how they would do this. If your neighbor supposedly violates your rights, you could turn to either the government or the defenses agency to "set things straight" with or without having to go through the law courts to settle the dispute. So, you guys pull out your guns, and your neighbor pulls out his guns and the government pulls out their guns, and OK, you have a standoff and this will end things peacefully. Total BS. In other words, you would wind up with perpetual civil war because you have decided to use force at your discretion. No, you do not have a right to do this. The whole point of having a civil government is exactly so this sort of thing does not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's BS because at one and the same time you want objective laws to uphold how defense agencies will operate, and yet you want them to ignore laws they consider to be non-objective and to be able to use counter-force against government agents that you and they deem to be a violation of your rights by your personal judgement. In other words, the law would not be the final arbiter of force, you and your agencies would. Now, maybe you would be careful and only hire those who would defend your rights, but it is an issue as to how they would do this. If your neighbor supposedly violates your rights, you could turn to either the government or the defenses agency to "set things straight" with or without having to go through the law courts to settle the dispute. So, you guys pull out your guns, and your neighbor pulls out his guns and the government pulls out their guns, and OK, you have a standoff and this will end things peacefully. Total BS. In other words, you would wind up with perpetual civil war because you have decided to use force at your discretion. No, you do not have a right to do this. The whole point of having a civil government is exactly so this sort of thing does not happen.

Remember we are talking about objective laws, that is-laws which pertain to the nature of man. Their validity depends on consideration of this or that person no more that laws of gravitation. People who sign up with the agency which acts against these laws would learn very quickly that their rights are not protected. What you described is not a situation in which agencies protect their customers but mafia style gang war in which nobody has any rights at all. Who in the right mind would voluntary support agencies which instead to protect their customers will fight each other and the government? How such agencies would be able to make any money if only to cover the running costs of such a warfare, not to mention the profits?That would be indeed BS. In reality all agencies would operate under the objective law legislated by government, otherwise they simply wouldn't be able to function. The same applies to the courts even privately supported. People don't buy bread made out of clay. Why do you think they will pay for abuse instead of justice? Why they would resort to force in order to settle their disputes when dispute resolution courts offer to them much easier and cheaper option? Do you really think that people are that stupid?

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your whole argument is self-defeating: If the laws are objective, and made by the government, then there would be no need to fight them, except in cases to show you did not violate them. So, there would be no need for a private defense agency, since what would its purpose be? Sure, maybe if you are famous and have a lot of enemies, OK, you can hire private security guards -- people do that all the time -- but these operate within the confines of government approval and cannot be used to fight rights violators of the hiree without approval of the government. But that is not what you are talking about. You are talking about having the right to protect yourself from all rights violators (in your estimation) whether they be your neighbor or the government. Otherwise, why do you need them at all?

And how do you get those objective laws in the first place? Only by having a rational culture based upon a rational understanding of individual rights. And that can only come about via education as to proper rights and how laws ought to comply with that principle. Once that has been established -- i.e the Age of Enlightenment -- then you can get a government like the original United States and there is no need for private defense agencies, because the government takes care of rights violators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You witness the demise of the Great American Constitution with your own eyes-and no country ever had better constitution and never will. The proof that law alone cannot provide protection while government has a coercive monopoly on the use of force is all around you. The objective law exists as all others laws of nature-the function of legislation is to explicitly define it for the practical use. This is government responsibility. In spite been objective it could be violated or ignored as one can violate the law of gravity-with all consequences involved. To prevent this you need law enforcement agencies and institutions which administrate justice. They should act not on the approval of this or that government-governments are changing, but in accordance to the objective laws based on the principles of individual rights, honesty and justice. These values are basic and are part of implicit philosophy of most of the human beings, except criminals and governments which abuse their exclusive powers. Education, development of rational culture is a grass-root process and the opportunity to implement rational values on this level by removing government monopoly on force would be a good start. But even the Age of Enlightenment doesn't provide protection of individual rights as long as government has a monopoly on force. The Founding Fathers denied this monopoly for this very reason. They realized that such a power should be in the hands of people.

"In the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence, and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable, natural right to an honorable support from the same principle that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." But then the same community which they serve ought to be the assessors of their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants." The Rights of the Colonists by Samuel Adams The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting. November 20, 1772

http://www.constitut...p/right_col.htm

Observe that this document not only supports private law enforcement but also stipulates voluntary funding of government.

However this principle never been fully implemented. American presidents violated Constitution from the very beginning. For example " Alien and Sedition Act" signed by President John Adams in 1795 made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or certain officials. The result of this law was state assault on the freedom of speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

List of violation of constitutional rights from Adams to Obama is very long. As you can see, Enlightenment doesn't provide any protection for individual rights, as long as state possesses the monopoly on force.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are making two different arguments: the right to self-defense and the proper role of government. What the Founders were against was the idea that the government ought to have the authority to take whatever it wanted from the people it was governing. When the government of Great Britain stepped beyond the bounds of what the Founders thought was proper government (Locke et al), they fomented a revolution and overthrew the tyranny. Good for them, and yes, that can happen here as well. However, you do not offer a viable alternative.For while, yes, you have the right of self-defense, in a civil society ***you do not have the right nor the authority to use force at your sole discretion***. That is the whole point of a civil society -- to outlaw the use of force to settle disagreements in the general society. Yes, you can have your security guards, but No, you cannot use them to settle differences with other via force against them using your service. It doesn't matter that you believe your rights were violated, you cannot use force to settle the issue, not if you want a civilization beyond the range of the immediate moment. If you want to live that way, then move to Somalia, where no government authority will prevent you from using force against others at your sole discretion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*you do not have the right nor the authority to use force at your sole discretion**

In fact you do-that what is the 2nd amendment for-the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Would you consult your lawyer before you shoot an intruder who points his gun on you or will you shoot at your sole discretion? But in my scenario you don't even have to exercise any discretion. You just push the panic button and in 2 minutes the well paid and well armed security guards supported by the very professional legal team would be at your door to restrain the intruder and even to kill him if necessary. And of course, the privately funded dispute resolution court (DRC) is much better, cheaper and less messy way to settle difference with your neighbor then just killing him. Since both of you have a vested interest in the administration of justice you'd subscribe with the court which operates under objective laws provided by government. In the case of disagreement you always could appeal to the supreme or constitutional court. Private agencies also will create their internal dispute resolution mechanisms which allow them to operate smoothly. And this is the only monopoly which government has : a monopoly on legislation. The only proper alternative to the government abuse is a separation between legislation and enforcement of law. Enforcement should be be in the hands of people who pay for it.The private voluntary funded law enforcement agencies wouldn't enforce the explicitly abusive laws which contradict Constitution and existing objective legislation. They wouldn't enforce Obamacare or his Directive 1033 which allows indefinite detention of American citizens without trial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are both dropping the context of an emergency situation (a house break in) and evading the fact that not everyone acts according to his own self-interest, so if everyone could use force at their own discretion, it would not be the peaceful outcome you project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are both dropping the context of an emergency situation (a house break in) and evading the fact that not everyone acts according to his own self-interest, so if everyone could use force at their own discretion, it would not be the peaceful outcome you project.

If somebody acts against his own best interest why he seeks justice? If he wants to use force on his own discretion in non-emergency situation and to ignore the objective laws, then he is a criminal and law enforcement will take care on him.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If somebody acts against his own best interest why he seeks justice? If he wants to use force on his own discretion in non-emergency situation and to ignore the objective laws, then he is a criminal and law enforcement will take care on him.

What objective laws? If the government is operating under objective laws, then NO, you would not have the right to use force at your own discretion.That's the whole point of having objective laws -- to reign in the use of force. But since you continue to evade this fact, I will have nothing else to do with you, as I grow tired of arguing round and round with you. Good bye, I'm blocking you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" you would not have the right to use force at your own discretion."

You are tired and you don't read my posts. I don't argue with you and I never said that I justify the arbitrary use of force by anybody, including government. One's discretion doesn't have to be always arbitrary and irrational and besides, even in the emergency situation you don't have to exercise it-you pay for professionals to do so. What I said that private voluntary funded law enforcement agencies will use retaliatory force in accordance with the objective law provided by government legislation. Not only that, they, these agencies will also pay for the legislation, financing all legitimate government activities and resolving the problem of voluntary financing. However they will refuse to implement the explicitly arbitrary and abusive laws which contradict current objective legislation, and because this government will think twice before passing them. In such a situation there is no need for the civil war which possibility you implied in you recent post. The firm "NO" would be more then enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of a civil society is to eliminate the use of force to settle disagreements at the sole discretion of he who believes that his rights have been violated. Yes, you have the right to self-defense and the right to use your own mind to further your life by rational principles. That's the whole point. But this does not mean that the Founders gave you the right to bear arms so that you could settle disputes on your own without going through the government (police or the courts system). This is the fatal flaw of all anarcho-capitalist "solutions" that I have seen -- ultimately, they want the "freedom" to settle matters on their own with force; and NO, you do not have that right. What makes a rational civilization possible is the reigning in of force as a means of settling disagreements; along with the protection of individual rights in an institutionalized manner (proper government).

Those of you advocating for the use of force to settle disagreements via some private defense force operating at your discretion are violating that principle, and I don't care to have anything to do with you, hence the blocking of Leonid.

Under capitalism, it is the rational man who would be protected from the initiation of force as a primary grounding for the concept of individual rights. While the irrational man would also be protected from the initiation of force, this is only a secondary consequence and is not a justification for individual rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A further elaboration of the above:

On Civil Society

By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

07/14/2012

I’ve been having more discussions with anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, and they have a fatal flaw in their argument that will not support the protection of individual rights. That fatal flaw is their desire to be able to use force at their own discretion (either themselves personally or via their private defense service). The whole point of a civil society (of civilization at large) and of proper government is to eradicate the use of force (or fraud) to settle disagreements with others – of upholding the use of reason and not force to settle disagreements – of subordinating might to right. This means that even though you firmly believe that your individual rights have been violated, you do not have the right or the authority to settle matters on your own by using force against the supposed violators of your rights. The whole point of having laws, the police, and the court system is to make it necessary and obligatory that you must make your case to impartial observers that your intent to use force can be justified on rational grounds. And if it can be justified, then the proper authorities ought to be called upon to use force against those seeking to initiate force against you. To open up the use of force to the discretion of anyone and everyone in a society is to state that the use of force is the ruling standard and not reason. It is only in the case of actual life-threatening emergencies (a hold-up man or a house break-in, for example) that one is justified in defending oneself immediately with deadly force. Otherwise, one must make a case using reason that your intent to use force to correct a violation of your rights is justified.

Some anarcho-capitalists make the claim that since people operate according to reason, then we can basically trust the use of force as carried out by the rational man. Or that such private defense agencies will operate according to proper business ethics and seek profit and will not run-amuck with their use of force because it would be unprofitable in the long-run and they would go out of business. But following reason or discarding reason is a matter of choice – one’s fundamental choice – and so even the discretion of the rational man to use force must be nullified. It is not possible to know beforehand if he who wants to settle matters with force is rational or irrational, or that he will seek exacting justice according to rational principles. In this regard, the very fact that he seeks to use force to settle a disagreement must be held in suspicion and prevented in the name of living under civil terms of a proper society (one based upon reason as an absolute).

The point is to reign in the use of force – to eradicate force from society so that the rational man can prosper. The fact that under such a system the irrational would also be protected is of a secondary consequence. The primary purpose and function of a proper society with rational laws and a rational court system and police is to guard the rational man from the initiation of force. But this also means that he cannot use force to settle disagreements at his sole discretion, not if he wants to be protected from the initiation of force. To hold otherwise is to invoke a contradiction to the principle that individual rights ought to be protected. That is, even the accused has a right to be so defended against the use of force, and can thus seek protection and to have his side be heard by impartial observers. It has to go both ways if reason as an absolute will be the ruling factor of a proper society.

Under full capitalism, yes, it would be possible and even proper to have private security guards or even private arbitration specialists, but these cannot be permitted to become a law unto themselves in the greater society – that is, it cannot be left up to their sole discretion when and where to use force to settle disagreements. That is, your private security guards could be paid to protect oneself and one’s property, but they could not be judge, jury, and executioner against those believed to have violated your rights. Likewise with private arbiters, who can be called upon to settle disagreements over contracts. In the long-run, these, too, cannot become a law unto themselves, but must make their case to the law courts with impartial observers making the final determination if terms and agreements spelled out in the contract have been violated or not. Otherwise, there is the implication that one can use force at one’s sole discretion, which would be a violation of the terms that must be set to subordinate might to right.

In short, I am against the anarcho-capitalists on moral grounds, as their policies do not subordinate might to right, and do not uphold reason as a moral absolute.

http://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/on_civil_society.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×