Anarchy Vs. Government

[AisA]

I see no need to change the format.

On a different topic: Given the number of views this thread attracted, I am somewhat surprised that there have been no additional posts since we opened this up to others.

Is there any way to tell how many of those views were generated by visitors versus members of the forum? Is there any evidence to suggest that this debate has attracted new viewers?

[JMeganSnow]

I'd just like to mention that Nimble conceeded that some kind of government is necessary about halfway through the debate . . . after that you were just arguing specifics.

I'd also like to point out that there's another term for "competing governments", i.e. "war", and any such institution as "competing governments" would be, essentially, an institutionalized permanent war.

[DavidOdden]

On a different topic:  Given the number of views this thread attracted, I am somewhat surprised that there have been no additional posts since we opened this up to others.

Some of us were confused about what's going on. Some of us (partially-overlapping set membeship) are trying to dispell the confusion. For the moment, I have a suggestion -- posting a short (60 line or less) summary of the resolved and unresolved points would be helpful.

[softwareNerd]

I have a suggestion -- posting a short (60 line or less) summary of the resolved and unresolved points would be helpful.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. If both debaters create final "for" and "against" statements, it will be a useful starting point for others who want to comment, and also for a newbie who comes here and wants to understand the issue better.

[Cole]

At its root, the disagreement seemed to be whether individuals are better off supporting a single, monopolistic ("one-world") government or whether they are better off supporting competing protection agencies. I didn't see either side arguing for anything that violated rights.

[jrs]

Suppose the United States Government (USG) is taken over by Objectivists at some time in the future as a result of the spread of Ayn Rand's philosophy and a free election. And suppose that they make the changes to the constitution and laws required by Objectivism. Would USG still fit the definition of a government? Why or why not?

[AisA]

Suppose the United States Government (USG) is taken over by Objectivists at some time in the future as a result of the spread of Ayn Rand's philosophy and a free election.  And suppose that they make the changes to the constitution and laws required by Objectivism.  Would USG still fit the definition of a government?  Why or why not?

Miss Rand defines government as "an institution with the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area."

When Objectivism becomes the dominant philosophy in America, we will elect legislators and a President that will repeal many laws, dismantle a great deal of the Federal government, add a few new laws, repeal certain constitutional amendments and add others -- but none of this will change the fact that the government will still hold the exclusive power to enforce rules of social conduct within our borders; it will still be a government.

At its root, the disagreement seemed to be whether individuals are better off supporting a single, monopolistic ("one-world") government or whether they are better off supporting competing protection agencies. I didn't see either side arguing for anything that violated rights.

Here is the issue: should one institution (government) hold the sole power to enforce rules of social conduct in a given geographic area -- or should private individuals have the same power?

I was thinking exactly the same thing. If both debaters create final "for" and "against" statements, it will be a useful starting point for others who want to comment, and also for a newbie who comes here and wants to understand the issue better.

It is a challenge to summarize the debate and do justice to both sides. I assume Nimble will correct any inadvertent misrepresentations of his position.

Miss Rand has made Objectivism’s case for government in her essay, "The Nature of Government" published in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Essentially, her argument is that the precondition of a civilized society is the banning of force from all relationships and interactions. I am in favor of government because the enforcement of that ban requires an institution with authority over everyone in a given geographic area. That institution is government.

Nimble opposed this position on several grounds:

1) Individuals have a right to self-defense. Why force them to delegate that right to a government? Isn't that an initiation of force against the individual?

The right to self-defense includes the right to determine what constitutes a threat. No one can claim the right to make that determination unilaterally and arbitrarily. No one can claim the right to carry a gun and unilaterally decide who is a threat and how to respond. Such an action is itself inherently threatening and constitutes the initiation of force. By prohibiting such action, government is prohibiting the initiation of force. Thus, the requirement that one delegate one’s right to self-defense to a government is not an initiation of force.

Note that the individual retains the right to self-defense in emergencies, though his action will be subject to review by the government.

See post 3 in this thread for a more complete analysis and response to this objection.

2) Governments can become totalitarian. A Constitution does not guarantee rights.

Since men possess volition, ultimately nothing can prevent them from choosing self-imposed totalitarianism, just as nothing can prevent them from choosing mass suicide. However, this applies to anarchy as well.

The absence of a Constitution and all of the checks and balances provided by our form of government makes it easier to impose totalitarianism, not harder.

See post 23 for more on this point.

3) Government requires people to pay for government services they may not want or need.

Objectivism advocates voluntary funding of government and opposes coercive taxation.

4) Government requires the notion of “collective rights”. How can the government (the collective) have a right (the right to identify threats and use force) if the individuals do not have that right?

Individuals do have the right to identify threats. And it is a right they retain in emergencies. What individuals do not have is the right to use force in any manner they please, without question or review.

The right to use retaliatory force exists and is delegated to the government, in all but emergencies. The right to use force arbitrarily does not exist and is not delegated. Thus, there is no right attached to a collective that does not exist in the individual.

5) The existence of many governments today proves that there need not be a “sole institution” defending rights. What, logically, is to stop individual states from seceding, then individual counties, then individual people?

There is a right to leave a nation at any time. But there is not a right to declare that one is no longer subject to the ban on force and the government that is enforcing that ban. There is no right to secede from a proper government, i.e. one that protects individual rights and bans force.

Anarchists agree that force should be banned, but propose to do so by means of private protection agencies. My position is that anarchy ultimately fails because, rather than banning force, it establishes force as the final means of resolving disputes among the private protection agencies and among private individuals.

In this debate, Nimble proposed a form of anarchy comprising territory-based private protection agencies. The agencies would have exclusive power over their territories, and would enforce rules only on their territory and only with the consent of those who own the land comprising the territory.

I oppose this because it ties the authority to use force to land ownership alone. It means that if I own land, I can declare it a territory, declare myself to be a private protection agency and proceed to enforce whatever rules I wish on my land.

This negates the concept of individual rights. Individual rights are an attribute of all human beings (except those that forfeit them by criminal behavior), whether or not they own land. And an individual possess his rights at all times, wherever he goes.

This proposal also leaves force as the only means of resolving disputes among the private protection agencies.

See post 15 for a more complete analysis of my objection.

[Cole]

Here is the issue: should one institution (government) hold the sole power to enforce rules of social conduct in a given geographic area -- or should private individuals have the same power?

At what point does a grouping of private individuals become an institution? Is the existence of a single protection agency to which every person consents necessary to your position?

I think I'm having the most trouble with this phrase:

The right to self-defense includes the right to determine what constitutes a threat. No one can claim the right to make that determination unilaterally and arbitrarily. No one can claim the right to carry a gun and unilaterally decide who is a threat and how to respond. Such an action is itself inherently threatening and constitutes the initiation of force. By prohibiting such action, government is prohibiting the initiation of force. Thus, the requirement that one delegate one’s right to self-defense to a government is not an initiation of force.

It was my understanding that an individual cannot grant a right that he himself does not have; that collections of individuals cannot have any rights that the individuals who make up the collection do not have.

[AisA]

Is the existence of a single protection agency to which every person consents necessary to your position?

Yes. I advocate constitutionally limited, representative government of the type we have in the U.S.

That government may have many subdivisions (like states and counties) that handle local law enforcement. And there may exist private firms like Wells Fargo; however, any use of force by such a firm would be subject to government review.

I think I'm having the most trouble with this phrase:

QUOTE(AisA @ Aug 15 2005, 06:03 AM)

The right to self-defense includes the right to determine what constitutes a threat. No one can claim the right to make that determination unilaterally and arbitrarily. No one can claim the right to carry a gun and unilaterally decide who is a threat and how to respond. Such an action is itself inherently threatening and constitutes the initiation of force. By prohibiting such action, government is prohibiting the initiation of force. Thus, the requirement that one delegate one’s right to self-defense to a government is not an initiation of force.

It was my understanding that an individual cannot grant a right that he himself does not have; that collections of individuals cannot have any rights that the individuals who make up the collection do not have.

Here is point 4 from my summary:

4) Government requires the notion of “collective rights”. How can the government (the collective) have a right (the right to identify threats and use force) if the individuals do not have that right?

Individuals do have the right to identify threats and use force. And it is a right they retain in emergencies. What individuals do not have is the right to use force in any manner they please, without question or review.

The right to use retaliatory force exists and is delegated to the government, in all but emergencies. The right to use force arbitrarily does not exist and is not delegated. Thus, there is no right attached to a collective that does not exist in the individual.

The alternative to delegating the right to self-defense to the government is to allow each individual to determine what constitutes a threat and how to respond. It would mean that a person could decide that a threat consists of a suspicous look and a bulge in someone's pocket that might be a weapon -- and he could respond to that perceived threat by shooting first and asking questions later.

[jrs]

No one can claim the right to carry a gun and unilaterally decide who is a threat and how to respond. Such an action is itself inherently threatening and constitutes the initiation of force.

The police and military, agents of the government, carry guns and unilaterally decide who is a threat and how to respond. Thus your position implies that government itself initiates force.

Any rational basis for prohibiting competing "governments" (or private protection agencies) would apply the official government as well.

If one man can declare his intent to create and enforce his own laws ...  then any man can do the same.

No one may create laws. No one may enforce arbitrary "laws". Not even the government. Positive "law" is not valid. Only natural law is valid.

...  the individual’s actions are subject to review by the government against an objective standard to determine whether the use of force was justified.

Why is the standard "objective" when set by your government, but not when set by someone else or by nature? "Objective" does not equal "public". "Objective" means in accordance with REALITY.

[AisA]

The police and military, agents of the government, carry guns and unilaterally decide who is a threat and how to respond.  Thus your position implies that government itself initiates force.

The police evaluate threats according to standards established either by the legislature or by judges.

For instance, if a policeman considers you threatening and decides to search you, he must be prepared to show that he had probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed, or was about to be committed, and that you are somehow involved. The citizen has a right to appeal any such decision to a judge.

All police activities are subject to review by the judicial system and the legislature, which in turn are subject to review by the voters. How is this unilateral?

Any rational basis for prohibiting competing "governments" (or private protection agencies) would apply the official government as well.

The rational basis for prohibiting competing governments is the fact that the use of force cannot be left to the whims of individuals, not if the goal is to live in a civilized society.

No one may create laws.  No one may enforce arbitrary "laws".  Not even the government.  Positive "law" is not valid.  Only natural law is valid.

Well, you have made five assertions. Perhaps you will elaborate and support them.

If only natural law is valid, how do you plan to keep competing governments from enforcing non-natural law?

Why is the standard "objective" when set by your government, but not when set by someone else or by nature?  "Objective" does not equal "public".  "Objective" means in accordance with REALITY.

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon, Miss Rand says,

“Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic).”

A standard may be said to be objective if it has been arrived at by a process of reason (as applied to all of the relevant facts) governed by logic.

Since there is only one reality, there is, in any given situation, only one objective standard by which to judge the use of force. Once the objective standard is discovered, there is no justification for using any other standard. This is why the use of force cannot be left to the whim of the individual.

If men disagree on the standard, how is this to be resolved? There are only two alternatives: reason or force.

A constitutionally limited, representative government forces men to use reason, discussion and persuasion to resolve disputes; under such a government, no individual has the power to force others to agree. Anarchy, on the other hand, leaves only force as the final means of resolving disputes among the competing governments or private protection agencies.

The choice is between a constitution, a legislature, periodic elections and multiple levels of courts -- or a shoot-out.

[RationalBiker]

For instance, if a policeman considers you threatening and decides to search you, he must be prepared to show that he had probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed, or was about to be committed, and that you are somehow involved. 

If I may clarify, what you appear to be referring to is a Terry Stop, and probable cause is NOT the standard needed to conduct a limited open hand search (a frisk) of the outer clothing to determine if someone may have a weapon. Rather, reasonable suspicion (that a crime had been committed, or was about to be committed) is the legal standard of a Terry Stop and an articulable belief that the person is armed and may intend to do the officer harm is needed additionally to justify the frisk. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause.

Probable cause is the requirement for all other types of searches.

I know in totality this is of minor relevance to the thread, but I'm a nit-picker when it comes to such legal issues.

[DavidOdden]

The citizen has a right to appeal any such decision to a judge.

All police activities are subject to review by the judicial system and the legislature, which in turn are subject to review by the voters.  How is this unilateral?

There is some de facto unilaterality, if not de jure unilaterality. The right to appeal only means that if the search was found to be legally improper, the evidence might be ruled inadmissible. You don't have the right to refuse the search pending a court decision. You have the right to argue against a warrant, if you catch them requesting one, but they are not obliged to inform you that they are requesting a warrant. There is a strong (albeit not universal) "ask and ye shall receive" presumption, to the effect that the police would not ask to invade a person's privacy unless there were a compelling reason to do so, so the act of asking is prima facie evidence of a compelling reason. (Also, I don't believe that police actions are directly subject to review by the judicial system, but only indirectly so when a question arises as to whether particular evidence was obtained legally).

I think the issue is not whether such decisions are theoretically subject to review, but are actually reviewed in more than a pro-forma way. [Vern or Matt should feel free to whack me if I'm wrong about the law].

[jrs]

A standard may be said to be objective if it has been arrived at by a process of reason (as applied to all of the relevant facts) governed by logic.

Since there is only one reality, there is, in any given situation, only one objective standard by which to judge the use of force. Once the objective standard is discovered, there is no justification for using any other standard.

I agree with you on this part. You asked what natural law is. It is this unique standard.

Natural law is fixed by reality. It may be discovered, but not created.

Positive "law" consists of the arbitrary whimsical commands issued by the state. It is not law because it is not ethically binding on anyone.

The police evaluate threats according to standards established either by the legislature or by judges.

There is no more reason to assume that the official government will legislate natural law and its agents enforce it, than to assume that that will be the case for one of the competing "governments".

The rational basis for prohibiting competing governments is the fact that the use of force cannot be left to the whims of individuals, not if the goal is to live in a civilized society.

Why do you assume that the official government is not guided by whims? Why do you assume that its competitors are guided by whims?

If only natural law is valid, how do you plan to keep competing governments from enforcing non-natural law?

How will you keep the official government from enforcing non-natural law? It is the same problem. People are not omniscient nor always rational. And they have free will. So there are no guarantees.

We should all try to follow natural law and insist that others do so as well. But we cannot be sure of success.

If men disagree on the standard, how is this to be resolved? There are only two alternatives: reason or force.

A constitutionally limited, representative government forces men to use reason, discussion and persuasion to resolve disputes; under such a government, no individual has the power to force others to agree.

No one can be compelled to use reason. Elections and legislation are essentially power struggles -- ritualised substitutes for civil war.

Since unanimous consent is not required, the fact that some people disagree with the outcome does not prevent it from being enforced.

Anarchy, on the other hand, leaves only force as the final means of resolving disputes among the competing governments or private protection agencies.

The choice is between a constitution, a legislature, periodic elections and multiple levels of courts -- or a shoot-out.

The international community is in a condition of anarchy, yet wars between states are not more common than civil wars within states.

I think that one could expect diplomacy, negotiation, arbitration, and mutual deterrence to maintain peace among the defense agencies at least as well as among states.

[AisA]

AisA:  No one can claim the right to carry a gun and unilaterally decide who is a threat and how to respond. Such an action is itself inherently threatening and constitutes the initiation of force.

jrs:  The police and military, agents of the government, carry guns and unilaterally decide who is a threat and how to respond. Thus your position implies that government itself initiates force.

AisA: The police evaluate threats according to standards established either by the legislature or by judges.

Jrs:  There is no more reason to assume that the official government will legislate natural law and its agents enforce it, than to assume that that will be the case for one of the competing "governments".

Look at the exchange above. You are switching subjects. First you claimed that, with government, police can act unilaterally, that nothing regulates police activity. Now you are switching to the claim that it is “equally reasonable” to assume that one of the “competing governments” will also legislate and enforce only natural laws.

Do you, then, withdraw your claim that under government, police act unilaterally?

The fact that one of the “competing governments” may pass and attempt to enforce proper laws does not argue for allowing others to pass and enforce whatever laws they please.

Is it your position that the use of force should be left to the whim of the individual? If not, how do you propose to prevent such use of force?

The rational basis for prohibiting competing governments is the fact that the use of force cannot be left to the whims of individuals, not if the goal is to live in a civilized society.

Why do you assume that the official government is not guided by whims?

It is not an assumption. Under a proper government, the constitution and a whole host of laws and rules define the actions permissible to government; there is no freedom to act on whim.

Granted, since man possesses volition, ultimately there is nothing to prevent him from passing improper laws. However, this applies equally to any scheme of anarchy and is thus not an argument for anarchy.

Under a constitutionally limited, representative government, the constitution and all of the other checks and balances in the system make it much more difficult for such laws to come into existence. And if improper laws are passed, the citizens have recourse; they may elect new legislators to repeal the laws or they may appeal to the judiciary.

Under anarchy, any individual may make and attempt to enforce any law he pleases. He is only limited by what he can get away with.

Why do you assume that its competitors are guided by whims?

In the first place, there are plenty of individuals eager to enforce their whims: Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, environmentalists, labor unions, etc.

But more important, even fully rational and honest individuals can disagree. Anarchy leaves force as the only means of resolving disagreements. The biggest gun wins.

If only natural law is valid, how do you plan to keep competing governments from enforcing non-natural law?

How will you keep the official government from enforcing non-natural law?

I prevent them with a constitution, periodic elections, judicial review, etc. Why do you act as if these things do not exist in a proper government? So the question is back in your court. How will you prevent the competing governments from enforcing non-objective law?

It is the same problem. People are not omniscient nor always rational. And they have free will. So there are no guarantees.

We should all try to follow natural law and insist that others do so as well. But we cannot be sure of success.

What do you propose to do about those who do not follow natural law?

A constitutionally limited, representative government forces men to use reason, discussion and persuasion to resolve disputes; under such a government, no individual has the power to force others to agree.

No one can be compelled to use reason. Elections and legislation are essentially power struggles -- ritualised substitutes for civil war.

You are correct in one regard. Civil war is the alternative to elections and legislation (and all of the other elements of a proper government).

The international community is in a condition of anarchy, yet wars between states are not more common than civil wars within states.

I think that one could expect diplomacy, negotiation, arbitration, and mutual deterrence to maintain peace among the defense agencies at least as well as among states.

The international community (with a few exceptions) is not in a state of anarchy. I am not free, for instance, to start a “competing government” in other countries. Nor does the government of Canada compete with the government of the U.S. over the enforcement of laws on a common population.

There are a few places where anarchy reins. Take Somalia, for instance. What exists there is bloody tribal warfare and mass death, not “diplomacy, negotiation, arbitration, and mutual deterrence to maintain peace”.

Or take the Palestinian controlled areas of the West Bank. What exists there is bloody in-fighting between various terrorist organizations and the Palestinian authority.

Or take Sudan, where 2 million people have perished in civil wars between tribal factions over the last 10 years or so.

I am not aware of any cases where “competing governments” resulted in anything except bloody warfare, chaos and mass death.

[AisA]

I know in totality this is of minor relevance to the thread, but I'm a nit-picker when it comes to such legal issues.

I welcome such clarification. It is one of the benefits of this forum. I want to know and state the facts as accurately as possible.

[AisA]

There is some de facto unilaterality, if not de jure unilaterality. The right to appeal only means that if the search was found to be legally improper, the evidence might be ruled inadmissible. You don't have the right to refuse the search pending a court decision. You have the right to argue against a warrant, if you catch them requesting one, but they are not obliged to inform you that they are requesting a warrant.

Understood, and thanks for the correction. I should have used a different example.

[jrs]

First you claimed that, with government, police can act unilaterally, that nothing regulates police activity. Now you are switching to the claim that it is “equally reasonable” to assume that one of the “competing governments” will also legislate and enforce only natural laws.

Do you, then, withdraw your claim that under government, police act unilaterally?

Please do not put words in my mouth. If we both answered every point of the other, our debate would explode exponentially. So I try to focus on the points I think are most important. Since DavidOdden had already answered your question about unilaterality at least for the current USG, I chose to bypass it. If you really want me to address it, then please give your definition of "unilateral" since you used the word first.

Under a proper government, ...  there is no freedom to act on whim.

There is nothing in the constitution or laws to prevent senators, representatives, and presidents from abusing their discretion and enacting their whims or the whims of their constituents into law.

...  there is nothing to prevent him from passing improper laws. However, this applies equally to any scheme of anarchy and is thus not an argument for anarchy.

Actually it is an argument for anarchy. When government enforces its monopoly, it is using force. Unless it has an adequate justification, that is immoral and a violation of natural law.

Your purported justification is that government is more responsible and rational in its use of force than its competitors. Yet you have not proved that.

Even if constitutions, elections, and such actually made government more rational than it would otherwise be, there is no reason to assume that there could not be competitors which use those methods to achieve a similar level of rationality. If such competitors exist, government could not ethically prohibit them.

Under anarchy, any individual may make and attempt to enforce any law he pleases.

No. Natural law already exists. It cannot be changed by anyone.

If someone tries to enforce a "law" of his own invention which is outside of natural law, then he is violating someone's rights and others may use retaliatory force against him.

...  even fully rational and honest individuals can disagree. Anarchy leaves force as the only means of resolving disagreements.

People are free to submit their disputes to arbitration rather than fight.

You are correct in one regard. Civil war is the alternative to elections and legislation (and all of the other elements of a proper government).

The point I was making is that elections and legislation are no more rational (albeit less violent) than the civil wars for which they substitute.

Competitors may also use these methods to reach decisions. And negotiation, arbitration, and mutual deterrence among the competitors may also serve as substitutes for civil war.

The international community (with a few exceptions) is not in a state of anarchy.

What I meant was that there is no world government to force nations to abide by decisions of a world supreme court. And yet war is not continuous or even common among capitalist countries. They have found voluntary methods of resolving their disputes. Those methods could be used by government's competitors.

There are a few places where anarchy reins. Take Somalia, for instance. What exists there is bloody tribal warfare and mass death, ...

Just as there are different types of government, so there are different types of anarchy. Somalia had just emerged from a very oppressive dictatorship, so it is natural that they would not go straight to anarcho-capitalism. Instead, they went to anarcho-fascism (gang warfare).

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any well documented cases of anarcho-capitalism. So my position is vulnerable to the charge that it is idealistic and seeks an impossible goal. If it were otherwise, this debate would be unnecessary.

[AisA]

Please do not put words in my mouth. If we both answered every point of the other, our debate would explode exponentially. So I try to focus on the points I think are most important.

I truly must say that I do not understand what you are talking about. What words have I put into your mouth? You made the statement that under government, police can act unilaterally. I demonstrated that such is not the case. Now you say that the point is unimportant?

Since DavidOdden had already answered your question about unilaterality at least for the current USG, I chose to bypass it. If you really want me to address it, then please give your definition of "unilateral" since you used the word first.

Unilateral in this context means decided or acted on by only one involved party irrespective of any other party’s position. My original statement was: No one can claim the right to carry a gun and unilaterally decide who is a threat and how to respond. Such an action is itself inherently threatening and constitutes the initiation of force.

David has suggested that there is an element of de facto unilaterality under current law. But the issue is not what exists under the current government, but what would exists under a proper government. Under a proper government, the use of force will not be “decided or acted on by only one involved party”.

I now repeat two questions from my last post that you did not answer: Is it your position that the use of force should be left to the whim of the individual? If not, how do you propose to prevent such use of force?

Under a proper government, ...  there is no freedom to act on whim.

There is nothing in the constitution or laws to prevent senators, representatives, and presidents from abusing their discretion and enacting their whims or the whims of their constituents into law.

This amounts to saying the following:

There is nothing in the constitution or law to prevent people from committing murder on whim. Therefore, the constitution and the law have no effect on the incidence of murder. Therefore, the constitution and the law have no effect on whether or not senators, representatives and presidents commit murder. Therefore, the constitution and the law do not provide any protection against government officials committing murder on whim. Therefore, senators, representatives and presidents are free to act on whim.

Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the officials of a proper government will be any less likely to commit murder just because there is a constitution and the law. The constitution and the law provide no protection and do nothing to prevent government officials from implementing and enforcing bad laws. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that a government under a constitution and laws will be any less likely to implement and enforce bad laws than will a private protection agency not subject to a constitution and law.

According to this view, the U.S. constitution has had no effect on the history of the country. It has done nothing to restrict government power and protect our rights. The fact that we still have a large measure of freedom is a mere accident, and at any moment, we can expect officials of the U.S. government to eliminate all of our remaining freedoms and send us all to concentration camps as slaves.

Such is the nature of your argument. Apparently, to you, the fact that people can break the law means that the law has no effect.

The purpose of government and law is not to prevent people from acting on whim. Its purpose is to provide a means of dealing with those who do. Under a proper government, the constitution, the laws, the checks and balances, elections and judicial review provide a means of dealing with government officials who act improperly.

Under anarchy, the only recourse against an official of a private protection agency is to take up arms against them. Do you truly see no difference between the two? In your view, is assassinating a misbehaving official of a private protection agency the equivalent of electing a different legislator? The two are equally desirable processes? Everyone should just carry a gun and shoot any official they find objectionable?

Even if constitutions, elections, and such actually made government more rational than it would otherwise be, there is no reason to assume that there could not be competitors which use those methods to achieve a similar level of rationality. If such competitors exist, government could not ethically prohibit them.

The concept of competing governments can have only one meaning: gang warfare. Since, with competing governments, no institution has the final word, the only way to resolve disputes is by force. It is irrelevant that some may choose to accept arbitration; the fact is that some will not. Anarchy leaves only open, armed warfare as a means of resolving such disputes.

The rationality of the various “competitors” is irrelevant. Even the most rational, honest men can disagree to the extent of refusing to accept arbitration. In the absence of an institution that holds the power to make the final call, such disagreements are settled only through armed conflict. Anarchy has no other answer.

Under anarchy, any individual may make and attempt to enforce any law he pleases.

No. Natural law already exists. It cannot be changed by anyone.

If someone tries to enforce a "law" of his own invention which is outside of natural law, then he is violating someone's rights and others may use retaliatory force against him.

So there is no possibility that people will disagree over what is or is not a violation of someone’s rights? There will be unanimous, universal agreement about the proper course of action? The environmentalists, the Muslims, the fundamentalist Christians, the animal rights advocates, the peaceniks, the Catholics, the Teamsters, the AFL-CIO, the anti-war crowd and all convicted felons – all of these groups are going to agree? There is no need for a mechanism for resolving disputes?

...  even fully rational and honest individuals can disagree. Anarchy leaves force as the only means of resolving disagreements.

People are free to submit their disputes to arbitration rather than fight.

People are also free not to commit crimes. That does not mean that we can dispense with all laws and just proceed on the assumption that no criminals will exist.

You are correct in one regard. Civil war is the alternative to elections and legislation (and all of the other elements of a proper government).

The point I was making is that elections and legislation are no more rational (albeit less violent) than the civil wars for which they substitute.

So reason, discussion and persuasion are no more rational than force? They are all equally valid means of settling disputes? An exchange of blows is just as rational as an exchange of views? An election and a shoot-out are equally likely to produce the proper course of action?

In the end, the argument for anarchy amounts to the assertion that since men might choose to submit their disputes to arbitration instead of choosing to fight, since they might find voluntary methods of resolving their disputes instead of resorting to violence, we do not need an institution to enforce the ban on the initiation of force.

And what about those that do not choose to submit to arbitration, or those that do not agree with the outcome of the arbitration? What happens next? Gang warfare, an event that does not appear to trouble you, is all that is left.

[jrs]

Let me try to make my position a little clearer:

I am not advocating that the USG should disappear. I would like it to be reduced substantially, as you would, to just those functions which are necessary to protect americans from war and crime. USG should enforce natural law; and it should obey natural law.

Where we differ, I think, is in how the USG should treat other entities which perform or attempt to perform functions similar to what USG itself does. If those entities take care to comply with natural law, then USG should not punish them merely because some other entities might not be so careful. Of course, those other entities which disregard natural law should be suppressed.

I truly must say that I do not understand what you are talking about. What words have I put into your mouth?

Sorry, I was not clear. I meant that you sometimes jump to erroneous conclusions about my position. For examples:

Do you, then, withdraw your claim that under government, police act unilaterally?

.....

Now you say that the point is unimportant?

.....

Apparently, to you, the fact that people can break the law means that the law has no effect.

.....

Everyone should just carry a gun and shoot any official they find objectionable?

.....

There will be unanimous, universal agreement about the proper course of action?

.....

That does not mean that we can dispense with all laws and just proceed on the assumption that no criminals will exist.

.....

An exchange of blows is just as rational as an exchange of views?

.....

... we do not need an institution to enforce the ban on the initiation of force.

.....

Gang warfare, an event that does not appear to trouble you, is all that is left.

These statements of yours all misrepresent my position.

Under a proper government, the use of force will not be “decided or acted on by only one involved party”.

The question here is what is a "party". If each competitor of USG is just one party, then I would regard USG as one party. So its actions are equally unilateral.

I now repeat two questions from my last post that you did not answer: Is it your position that the use of force should be left to the whim of the individual? If not, how do you propose to prevent such use of force?

As I said in my previous message, "If someone tries to enforce a 'law' of his own invention which is outside of natural law, then he is violating someone's rights and others may use retaliatory force against him.".

If someone violates natural law as a result of acting on his whims, then either USG or one of its competitors may punish him.

This amounts to saying the following: There is nothing in the constitution or law to prevent people from committing murder on whim.

There is a law against murder. There is no law currently against voting for the wrong side on a legislative issue.

Under a proper government, the constitution, the laws, the checks and balances, elections and judicial review provide a means of dealing with government officials who act improperly.

Yet the history of the United States and the world shows that such checks and balances are not sufficient to prevent a slide into tyranny.

The monopolistic character of government results in placing some government officials above the law when acting within a certain range of their official capacity. Some opportunistic people will seek out those positions of power. There they expand government power for their gain or glory.

The public is usually too busy with its own affairs and too cowed by the power of the state to resist these encroachments.

In the absence of an institution that holds the power to make the final call, such disagreements are settled only through armed conflict.

Whether there is one government or many defense agencies, either force or the threat of force is the final resort when dealing with people who will not be reasonable and will not accept the judgement of a judge or arbiter. Having a government does not magically make the use of retaliatory force unnecessary.

There is no need for a mechanism for resolving disputes?

There is a need for arbitration. But I do not see how that implies that there must be a unique pre-defined hierarchy of judges topped by a supreme court.

So reason, discussion and persuasion are no more rational than force?

Reason is an attribute of individuals, not groups. Neither the electorate nor Congress is rational qua group.

I do not know whether there would be elections under anarcho-capitalism. But I am sure that there would be public opinion polls. And I am sure that there would be public debates about the issues. And I am sure that defense agencies and arbiters would pay attention to them.

[AisA]

Let me try to make my position a little clearer:

I am not advocating that the USG should disappear.  I would like it to be reduced substantially, as you would, to just those functions which are necessary to protect americans from war and crime.  USG should enforce natural law; and it should obey natural law.

Where we differ, I think, is in how the USG should treat other entities which perform or attempt to perform functions similar to what USG itself does.  If those entities take care to comply with natural law, then USG should not punish them merely because some other entities might not be so careful.  Of course, those other entities which disregard natural law should be suppressed.

In the interest of improving my understanding of your position, I propose we take one hypothetical situation and see where it leads. This will be a separate discussion in addition to our point-by-point exchange. By keeping it separate, perhaps we can keep it focused enough to reach a conclusion.

A man is shot dead in his neighbor’s home. The shooter claims it was an act of self-defense. The USG police conduct an investigation. A “competing entity”, hired by the dead man’s wife, also conducts an investigation.

The USG police conclude that the shooting was probably an act of self-defense and that no charges should be filed. The “competing entity” concludes it was probably murder and that the man should be put on trial.

The police of the “competing entity” show up to arrest the shooter. The USG police show up to protect the shooter. The police of the “competing entity” propose to use arbitration company "A" to resolve the dispute. The USG police refuse, claiming that arbitration company "A" is soliciting bribes from the clients of the “competing entity”, bribes in exchange for finding in the client’s favor. Arbitration company A denies this charge, claiming that the funds involved are only a fee for impartial services rendered.

What happens now?

[AisA]

These statements of yours all misrepresent my position.

Then you should explain your position on each of the issues involved.

You advocate anarchy. I say that by eliminating government as a final arbiter, anarchy leads to gang warfare. You cannot simply dismiss my claim as a misrepresentation of your views. You must either show some error in my reasoning or show positively that anarchy does not lead to gang warfare. Otherwise, my statement stands.

You say that if someone violates rights, others will see it and may use retaliatory force to punish him. I point out that there is a vast range of views on rights, and that we cannot assume universal agreement. Some may wish to punish the the rights-violator while others may wish to protect him. You cannot simply dismiss this as misrepresentation of your views. You must either show that there is not a wide range of views about rights, or you must show that anarchy has some mechanism for dealing with the diversity of views.

You equate elections and legislation with civil war. If that does not mean that you consider “an exchange of blows just as rational as an exchange of views”, please explain what it does mean. (I should give credit to Miss Rand for the wording of that expression. I don’t know which of her works it is from, but I am sure it is hers.)

Under a proper government, the use of force will not be “decided or acted on by only one involved party”.

The question here is what is a "party". If each competitor of USG is just one party, then I would regard USG as one party. So its actions are equally unilateral.

You are dropping context. The party we were discussing is the individual. I said an individual does not have the right to unilaterally determine threats and how to respond to them. When you say that “governments act unilaterally” you are ignoring the fact that the government consists of many different individuals, none of which has the right to use force unilaterally.

I now repeat two questions from my last post that you did not answer: Is it your position that the use of force should be left to the whim of the individual? If not, how do you propose to prevent such use of force?

As I said in my previous message, "If someone tries to enforce a 'law' of his own invention which is outside of natural law, then he is violating someone's rights and others may use retaliatory force against him.".

If someone violates natural law as a result of acting on his whims, then either USG or one of its competitors may punish him.

They may punish him? It’s optional? Please elaborate.

There is nothing in the constitution or laws to prevent senators, representatives, and presidents from abusing their discretion and enacting their whims or the whims of their constituents into law.

This amounts to saying the following: There is nothing in the constitution or law to prevent people from committing murder on whim.

There is a law against murder. There is no law currently against voting for the wrong side on a legislative issue.

Yes, there is a law against voting on the wrong side of an issue: the constitution. A law that violates the constitution may be challenged in court. And that has happened many times.

Are you not aware that laws have been found unconstitutional and thus null and void? Take, for instance, the anti-abortion laws of the several states. These were challenged in court, declared unconstitutional and null and void. Abortion is now legal in every state.

How, under anarchy, would such laws against abortion be overturned?

In addition to the constitutional constraint against voting on the wrong side of an issue, there is the fact that the legislator must face the voters every 2 or 6 years. He can be replaced.

What mechanism is there for removing a "competing government legislator" that passes improper laws?

Under a proper government, the constitution, the laws, the checks and balances, elections and judicial review provide a means of dealing with government officials who act improperly.

Yet the history of the United States and the world shows that such checks and balances are not sufficient to prevent a slide into tyranny.

The monopolistic character of government results in placing some government officials above the law when acting within a certain range of their official capacity. Some opportunistic people will seek out those positions of power. There they expand government power for their gain or glory.

The public is usually too busy with its own affairs and too cowed by the power of the state to resist these encroachments.

In the first place, the constitution of the United States is not the last word in constitutions. It contains errors and flaws that have permitted the growth of the government far beyond its proper limits. A better constitution can be written. It is within man's power to do so.

Nonetheless, the United States has not slid into tyranny. People have successfully invoked the constitution many times to protect their liberties.

But before getting into the constitutional history of the U.S., please answer one question: Is it your position that since one particular constitution has not provided perfect protection, all constitutions must be flawed and doomed to fail?

In the absence of an institution that holds the power to make the final call, such disagreements are settled only through armed conflict.

Whether there is one government or many defense agencies, either force or the threat of force is the final resort when dealing with people who will not be reasonable and will not accept the judgment of a judge or arbiter.  Having a government does not magically make the use of retaliatory force unnecessary.

You are cherry picking part of a quote and dropping the rest of the context. That is one reason these debates tend to go in circles.

Look at the full context of my remark:

Jrs said: 

Even if constitutions, elections, and such actually made government more rational than it would otherwise be, there is no reason to assume that there could not be competitors which use those methods to achieve a similar level of rationality. If such competitors exist, government could not ethically prohibit them. 

AisA replied:

The concept of competing governments can have only one meaning: gang warfare. Since, with competing governments, no institution has the final word, the only way to resolve disputes is by force. It is irrelevant that some may choose to accept arbitration; the fact is that some will not. Anarchy leaves only open, armed warfare as a means of resolving such disputes.

The rationality of the various “competitors” is irrelevant. Even the most rational, honest men can disagree to the extent of refusing to accept arbitration. In the absence of an institution that holds the power to make the final call, such disagreements are settled only through armed conflict. Anarchy has no other answer.

You cherry picked the bold statement and responded with this: "Whether there is one government or many defense agencies, either force or the threat of force is the final resort when dealing with people who will not be reasonable and will not accept the judgment of a judge or arbiter. Having a government does not magically make the use of retaliatory force unnecessary. "

As you can see in the exchange quoted above, the context of my remark was a discussion of what happens when rational, honest men disagree under government versus anarchy. I was not discussing what happens with unreasonable men; I was not discussing a situation where retaliatory force was involved. By completely dropping context, you make it appear as though I am advocating the ridiculous position that government makes the use of retaliatory force unnecessary.

So reason, discussion and persuasion are no more rational than force?

Reason is an attribute of individuals, not groups.  Neither the electorate nor Congress is rational qua group.

That does not answer the question.

I do not know whether there would be elections under anarcho-capitalism. But I am sure that there would be public opinion polls. And I am sure that there would be public debates about the issues. And I am sure that defense agencies and arbiters would pay attention to them.

This also does not answer the question, though it raises some.

[RationalBiker]

USG should enforce natural law; and it should obey natural law.

Can you please define "natural law" in the context of this discussion. I looked through the thread, but I saw no previous definition.

What "crimes" exist under "natural law"?

Is "might makes right" a "natural law"?

Would the discovery, adoption and enforcement of "natural law" be an inherently (or naturally if you prefer) objective process?

What prevents a person or group of people from "creating" a "natural law" under the disguise of "discovering" one?

VES

[jrs]

A man is shot dead in his neighbor’s home. The shooter claims it was an act of self-defense. The USG police conduct an investigation. A “competing entity”, hired by the dead man’s wife, also conducts an investigation.

The USG police conclude that the shooting was probably an act of self-defense and that no charges should be filed. The “competing entity” concludes it was probably murder and that the man should be put on trial.

The police of the “competing entity” show up to arrest the shooter. The USG police show up to protect the shooter. The police of the “competing entity” propose to use arbitration company "A" to resolve the dispute. The USG police refuse, claiming that arbitration company "A" is soliciting bribes from the clients of the “competing entity”, bribes in exchange for finding in the client’s favor. Arbitration company A denies this charge, claiming that the funds involved are only a fee for impartial services rendered.

What happens now?

This would depend on tradition and the judgement of the parties involved. What I would suggest they do in this situation depends on additional facts not included in your scenario, such as:

1. Do I think the competitor is acting in good faith?

2. Do I think USG is acting in good faith?

3. How do I evaluate the charges against "A"?

4. Do they have a prior agreement on which arbiter to use or how to select one?

Generally, absent a prior agreement and assuming each defense agency thinks that the other is acting in good faith, then they should try to find an arbiter in whom they both have confidence. This could be done by exchanging lists of acceptable arbiters. If there is at least one who is on both lists, then one of those in the intersection would be selected at random. Otherwise, one would be selected at random from the union of the lists.

[jrs]

You must either show that there is not a wide range of views about rights, or you must show that anarchy has some mechanism for dealing with the diversity of views.

First, anarcho-capitalism would probably only arise AFTER many, not all, people had come to an agreement on major issues.

Second, most people choose not to involve themselves in situations where they have no personal stake even though they may have an opinion about it. They are deterred from intervening by considering: the financial cost; the risk to their personal safety; the possibility that they could be wrong; and the possibility that they could be subject to criminal penalties or civil liability. I think that these factors would apply almost as strongly under anarcho-capitalism as under a government.

You equate elections and legislation with civil war.  If that does not mean that you consider “an exchange of blows just as rational as an exchange of views”, please explain what it does mean.

It means that political struggles are just as IRRATIONAL as civil war, albeit not as directly violent. What guarantee is there that the more rational side in a discussion will convince the less rational side? And even if that could be accomplished, why could it only be done in the halls of Congress and not in discussions among: defense agencies, arbiters, and the public?

I said an individual does not have the right to unilaterally determine threats and how to respond to them. When you say that “governments act unilaterally” you are ignoring the fact that the government consists of many different individuals, none of which has the right to use force unilaterally.

Many competitors of USG will be groups with a complex structure (just as USG has). So if "party" means an individual, then those competitor's agents are not acting unilaterally.

Since rights are supposed to be vested in the first instance in individuals, how do you justify discriminating against individuals merely because they are individuals?

They MAY punish him? It’s optional? Please elaborate.

Independent of this discussion of anarcho-capitalism versus government, I believe that no one is obliged to take any positive action. All obligations are negative, that is, obligations to avoid doing things which hurt other people.

I would certainly hope that some defense agency would choose to enforce the law. And failure to do so could cost them some of their clients.

How, under anarchy, would such laws against abortion be overturned?

.....

What mechanism is there for removing a "competing government legislator" that passes improper laws?

See my answer above about diversity of views. Since it would not be in the interest of a defense agency to have a policy of enforcing erroneous "laws", their constitutions should provide some means of removing officers who promote such policies. Also they should avoid selecting arbiters who misunderstand or misapply the law.

Is it your position that since one particular constitution has not provided perfect protection, all constitutions must be flawed and doomed to fail?

Not for that reason. After my reference to history, I gave a general reason why failure could be expected for any government.

Even the most rational, honest men can disagree to the extent of refusing to accept arbitration.  In the absence of an institution that holds the power to make the final call, such disagreements are settled only through armed conflict.

.....

...  what happens when rational, honest men disagree under government versus anarchy.

If one of the disputants misunderstands the facts or the law and also refuses arbitration, then I would question whether he could be correctly characterized as rational and honest. In any case, if he chooses to fight against the administration of justice, then he will probably get what he deserves.

How is this different from those people who choose to resist the government because they have a sincere but mistaken belief? Take your example of the fanatical abortion protestors who persist in attacking abortion clinics and doctors. Government finds it necessary to use force against them.

Can you please define "natural law" in the context of this discussion. I looked through the thread, but I saw no previous definition.

What "crimes" exist under "natural law"?

Is "might makes right" a "natural law"?

Would the discovery, adoption and enforcement of "natural law" be an inherently (or naturally if you prefer) objective process?

What prevents a person or group of people from "creating" a "natural law" under the disguise of "discovering" one?

Natural law consists of that part of Objectivist ethics which deals with issues relating to the use of force in a social context.

The crimes under natural law include: murder, mayhem, rape, kidnapping, robbery, breaking and entering, theft, assault, battery, extortion, arson, etc..

"Might makes right" is NOT a natural law. "Right makes might" is closer to the truth.

The conditions which determine natural law are inherent in reality. And discovering it is objective.

People can pretend whatever they want. But others can verify for themselves whether their claims concerning natural law are correct.