Anarchism and Objectivism

[DarkWaters]

Split from another thread.

now that I am a hardcore Objectivist/anarchist

How can you be both an Objectivist and an Anarchist? They are incompatible.

Edited February 8, 2007 by softwareNerd
Added 'Split' notice

[aequalsa]

How can you be both an Objectivist and an Anarchist? They are incompatible.

I would say if you were a pessimistic objectivist you would be an anarchist. Of course, that leads immediately to the question of whether pessimism and objectivism are compatible...

[BrassDragon]

How can you be both an Objectivist and an Anarchist? They are incompatible.

What do you do if there aren't enough donations (or other revenue) to fund police, courts and military? It's a topic Objectivism doesn't address other than saying "that would never happen," as far as I know, and it's something I'm rather frustrated with at the moment.

That said, of coruse, you're absolutely right that Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy) is incompatible with anarchism.

[Inspector]

What do you do if there aren't enough donations (or other revenue) to fund police, courts and military?

I'm going to pull out one of my favorite Heinlein quotes here:

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!

Replace "Conscription" with "taxes," replace "the draft" for "the income tax," and twenty years with one hundred and some odd.

[aequalsa]

I'm going to pull out one of my favorite Heinlein quotes here:

Replace "Conscription" with "taxes," replace "the draft" for "the income tax," and twenty years with one hundred and some odd.

only 94 years actually...based on ratification of the 16th amendment. I seem to remember them trying to steal income before then but having a more honest court system then we have today, disallowed it. So maybe it is over a hundred.

I'm going to pull out one of my favorite Heinlein quotes here:

Replace "Conscription" with "taxes," replace "the draft" for "the income tax," and twenty years with one hundred and some odd.

I did...heres the modified version.

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Tax is one of them. Tax is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the Income tax for 94 years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!

[BrassDragon]

I'm going to pull out one of my favorite Heinlein quotes here:

Replace "Conscription" with "taxes," replace "the draft" for "the income tax," and twenty years with one hundred and some odd.

I like the quote, and I love Heinlein (some of him, anyway). I think this quote applies well to America (a large, relatively free, and prosperous nation). I'd just hate to be a general or president of a small country in Africa and know that without mandating some taxes, the military will be too small, and the country will be overwhelmed by another country at some point in the near future. I guess freedom trumps even that situation; without freedom, the country's not worth saving (and I say "I guess" because this is still hard to swallow).

only 94 years actually...based on ratification of the 16th amendment. I seem to remember them trying to steal income before then but having a more honest court system then we have today, disallowed it. So maybe it is over a hundred.

I'm pretty sure all states within the Union have had taxes since their transitions from colonies to states. Let me know if I'm wrong.

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Tax is one of them. Tax is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the Income tax for 94 years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!

So do you passively advocate the deterioration of the US government? Would you be unwilling to serve in the military (assuming you otherwise would like such a career) because you want to see the US "go down the drain?"

[bobsponge]

What do you do if there aren't enough donations (or other revenue) to fund police, courts and military? It's a topic Objectivism doesn't address other than saying "that would never happen," as far as I know, and it's something I'm rather frustrated with at the moment.

That said, of coruse, you're absolutely right that Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy) is incompatible with anarchism.

Anarchist, defined, via merriam-webster: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power.

I find that perfectly compatible with Objectivism. Especially in today's context regarding the USA. Government should NOT BE authority. It should be maintenance ONLY. The only authority you should truly have is the self.

[bobsponge]

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Tax is one of them. Tax is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the Income tax for 94 years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!

That's a fairly anarchistic statement to come from an Objectivist who does not believe that Obj'ism and anarchism are compatible

[Inspector]

Anarchist, defined, via merriam-webster: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power.

(emphasis mine)

So you are saying that you would rebel against the sort of government advocated in the book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, i.e. a full, laissez-faire capitalist state in which the government never initiates force against the citizens, and does serve its proper function of protecting their rights?

[Cogito]

(emphasis mine)

So you are saying that you would rebel against the sort of government advocated in the book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, i.e. a full, laissez-faire capitalist state in which the government never initiates force against the citizens, and does serve its proper function of protecting their rights?

To try to speak for bobsponge here... Would such a government really be an authority? Would it be a ruling power?

Edited February 7, 2007 by Cogito

[Inspector]

To try to speak for bobsponge here... Would such a government really be an authority? Would it be a ruling power?

Hmmm. Yes to the first. Possibly no to the second, depending on how you're using "rule."

The fact is that an anarchist is someone who is against all forms of government (except, presumably, the rule of gang warfare that is anarchy in practice). Objectivism, on the other hand, advocates Laissez-faire Capitalism (a form of government) and holds that anarchy is monsterously bad as individual rights are most certainly not protected under it. There are dictatorships that do a better job of protecting rights than anarchy; from the perspective of rights, anarchy might very well be the worst situation possible.

So I have to ask Bobsponge: What do you think of the laissez-faire capitalism advocated by Objectivism? Would you rebel against it? Are you perhaps not an anarchist after all?

[Inspector]

A much, much better defintion of "Anarchist" is "someone who advocates anarchy."

an·ar·chy /ˈænərki/ Pronunciation Key - [an-er-kee]

–noun

1. a state of society without government or law.

2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.

3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

All definitions are valid, I think. Note for definition 3 that Objectivism advocates a coercive government because it holds a monopoly on the use of force. When a robber robs, an Objectivist government uses force to coerce him to stop.

Note that both philosophically and historically, anarchism is a Marxist position.

[aequalsa]

I like the quote, and I love Heinlein (some of him, anyway). I think this quote applies well to America (a large, relatively free, and prosperous nation). I'd just hate to be a general or president of a small country in Africa and know that without mandating some taxes, the military will be too small, and the country will be overwhelmed by another country at some point in the near future. I guess freedom trumps even that situation; without freedom, the country's not worth saving (and I say "I guess" because this is still hard to swallow).

What you have to keep in mind when taking a small african country as an example, is that they are dirt poor because of their government, not because they are small. A small wealthy nation with a well armed populace has much less need for a standing army. Consider switzerland as an example.

I'm pretty sure all states within the Union have had taxes since their transitions from colonies to states. Let me know if I'm wrong.

No, you are absslutely right, though the amount was much less then anything we pay to day. I was referring specifically to federal income tax.

So do you passively advocate the deterioration of the US government? Would you be unwilling to serve in the military (assuming you otherwise would like such a career) because you want to see the US "go down the drain?"

I don't advocate the deterioration but that is undoubtedly what is happening. The USSR floated along for 80 years stealing from it's people before collapse. With our mixed system, we undoubtedly can buttress our sham economy for a good deal longer then a communist nation, but eventually there is a price to pay. If the debt get's to high, the US credit rating goes down, and china might not want to loan us anymore money. If the 75% socialized healthcare system continues to rise in cost(currently it is 16% of gdp) and the government gets more involved(like it currently plans to) The cost will rise even more. Shifting demographics will soon play a huge role when we have 1 person working for every 2 retirees collecting social security and medicare(and soon free prescription drugs, as well). I am not an advocate of suicide if that's what you mean, but I wont pretend that the reality is different then it is. As I see it, the reality is that we are heading in one direction that is down, and like any other drug addict living in his fantasy world, I expect rock bottom has to be hit before we can see how bad socialism is for us and head back up.

I would not join the military, but not for the reasons you mentioned. I disagree that their strategy is in our or our military's best interests ie go to foreign lands on foot to help them become civilized while they shoot at us. With our current technology, I think a much better approach would be to carpet bomb ever city of every country that funds terrorism until the populace completely looses it's will to fight, and then occupy them with a few bases for 50 years or so if necessary. It worked well in germany and japan, no reason why it wouldn't work anywhere else. I wouldn't have any interest in risking my life to help some backward country depose a dictator and set up a religious oligarchy while all of the real enemies from iran keep pooring across the border(which we can't cross) to continue what ends up being a defensive(read unwinnable) war for our soldiers. There are reasons I would take a bullet, but what we are doing now is not one of them.

[aequalsa]

That's a fairly anarchistic statement to come from an Objectivist who does not believe that Obj'ism and anarchism are compatible

Oops...I should have put that in quotes...that was the heinlein quote modified as inspector suggested making the necessary alterations. Not my own words. Not that I think the quote inaccurate exactly. I don't differentiate between taxation and slavery. If I have to work every other day for free I might as well spend 6 months out of every year in a slave camp building a pyramid-it would make no functional difference to me.

Morally I think any government that initiates force on it's citizens loses all moral justification. Meaning, they have no right to exist, because their right to exist is tied directly to the preservation of rights. If they are the primary destroyer of rights, they are acting counter to the social contract charter from which they derive their proper justification.

That being said, an individual need not act in rebellion and usually does not so long as the circumstance is at all tolerable. So in the same way a capitalist country has the right but not the reposibility to invade a dictatorship, the population has the right but not responsibility to rebel when their rights are infringed, even a bit.

I don't think I said that objectivism and anarchism are incompatible. That would depend on the definition of anarchism used.

[Inspector]

What does Objectivism have to say about anarchy?

In unthinking protest against this trend, some people are raising the question of whether government as such is evil by nature and whether anarchy is the ideal social system. Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: for all the reasons discussed above, a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

Leaving aside some close-knit, short-lived communes, anarchism cannot even be tried in practice. Anarchy, the breakdown of law and order, is possible for a brief time, but not anarchism as a guiding philosophy. The immediate result of anarchy, assuming a society has no rational leadership, has to be men's establishment of some semblance of order by means of gang rule and/or the rule of a strongman. Even savages on the perceptual level understand that lawless chaos is incompatible with survival.

If words have to stand for objects in reality, then the only referent of "anarchism" - the only possible political system it designates - is some variant of statism. This is why Objectivism dismisses as foolish the notion that republican government is a "middle of the road" between statism and anarchism. Statism is one extreme; individualism is the other. Anarchism is merely an unusually senseless form of statism; it is not an extreme of "freedom," but the negation of the concept.

(bold mine)

You will also notice, as I said above, that Objectivist politics explicitly advocates Laissez-faire Capitalism, not anarchism.

I don't think I said that objectivism and anarchism are incompatible. That would depend on the definition of anarchism used.

What possible definition would be compatable? According to Dr. Peikoff, above, "the only referent of 'anarchism...' is some varient of statism." (bold mine)

You're being far too kind to what anarchism is and what it means. While your understanding of the meaning of the word isn't quite as naive as bobsponge's appears to be, I think you had both better re-examine its meaning and your opinion of it as a political philosophy. (not to mention its compatability with Objectivism)

Edited February 7, 2007 by Inspector

[aequalsa]

You're being far too kind to what anarchism is and what it means. While your understanding of the meaning of the word isn't quite as naive as bobsponge's appears to be, I think you had both better re-examine its meaning and your opinion of it as a political philosophy. (not to mention its compatability with Objectivism)

I was thinking that one could view it as a temporary alternative to statism as opposed to an ideal. Civil war often leads to a temporary state of anarchy, and that anarchy in some cases can be better then the original circumstance. If I were a jew in a concentration camp, I would be all for anarchy. It really couldn't be worse.

As a political ideal, it is undoubtedly opposed to capitalism. After all, it can't last for more then a few historical minutes. Not really even considering as a system.

[BrassDragon]

What you have to keep in mind when taking a small african country as an example, is that they are dirt poor because of their government, not because they are small. A small wealthy nation with a well armed populace has much less need for a standing army. Consider switzerland as an example.

What I have in mind is the problem of a state in transition. This has been a huge problem throughout history - take the Reign of Terror and the "vanguard of the proletariat" that was to bring about a "moral" government in Russia. It often seems that without a strong leader taking charge, the state in transition will collapse due to external or internal pressures.

I think the solution to this is to realize that using tyranny to create a moral government is a contradiction in terms. But that's hard for me to completely swallow.

Let's say you're an Objectivist leading a revolution in a small African country. Wealth has been concentrated in the hands of warlord-oligarchs who aren't willing to contribute to your government; they'd be just as happy for the nation to be invaded, giving them a chance to seize power. But they're not initiating force against you. Is it moral to seize their wealth to fund your military? If not, why not in very specific terms? (I have a basic conception of why this is immoral, but not why moral ends cannot justify immoral means in a case like this.)

If I were a jew in a concentration camp, I would be all for anarchy.

If I were a Jew in a concentration camp, I'd be all for laissez-faire capitalism.

Edited February 7, 2007 by BrassDragon

[Inspector]

I was thinking that one could view it as a temporary alternative to statism as opposed to an ideal.

You're confusing anarchy: the state of affairs where there is no govenment, with anarchism: the idea that there should be no government.

I got that definition here, btw:

This brings me to another topic: to an alleged opposite of statism that, in fact, entails it. I mean anarchism.

Anarchism is the idea that there should be no government. In Objectivist terms, this amounts to the view that every man should defend himself by using physical force against others whenever he feels like it, with no objective standards of justice, crime, or proof.(26)

"What if an individual does not want to delegate his right of self-defense?" the anarchist frequently asks. "Isn't that a legitimate aspect of 'freedom'?" The question implies that a "free man" is one with the right to enact his desire, any desire, simply because it is his desire, including the desire to use force. This means the equation of "freedom" with whim-worship. Philosophically, the underlying premise is subjectivism (of the personal variety).

[aequalsa]

What I have in mind is the problem of a state in transition. This has been a huge problem throughout history - take the Reign of Terror and the "vanguard of the proletariat" that was to bring about a "moral" government in Russia. It often seems that without a strong leader taking charge, the state in transition will collapse due to external or internal pressures.

I think the solution to this is to realize that using tyranny to create a moral government is a contradiction in terms. But that's hard for me to completely swallow.

Let's say you're an Objectivist leading a revolution in a small African country. Wealth has been concentrated in the hands of warlord-oligarchs who aren't willing to contribute to your government; they'd be just as happy for the nation to be invaded, giving them a chance to seize power. But they're not initiating force against you. Is it moral to seize their wealth to fund your military? If not, why not in very specific terms? (I have a basic conception of why this is immoral, but not why moral ends cannot justify immoral means in a case like this.)

That is really difficult to answer because it is so context dependent. If they are warlords, for example, they likely get their wealth through some use of force. Enforcing the peace would likely drain their coffers and take pressure off of their victims allowing them to become productive again.

There is a PBS series called Commanding Heights that I highly recommend. In it are some examples of economic transitions of backward countries. It's strange, but when you lift economic restrictions, the turn around is pretty fast....as in days, not years. There would be some period of risk of invasion, but the context again must be thought of. If you were in power, you had to have got there...some money and man power were at your disposal.

The problem with trying to apply a proper ideal to reality, isn't that it doesn't fit reality, it's that reality is far to complex to invent. The actual circumstances must be known and understood before you can realistically consider how best to go about it in the details. If I were to ask "Should I do it?" You couldn't answer without filling in a few details. Do what? Who am I? So now, "How do I institute a capitalist country in africa?" More then a few details are necessary. A case study of a country and after a few years you might be able to make reasonable suggestions as to the best course of action for that particualr country in some particular ways.

If I were a Jew in a concentration camp, I'd be all for laissez-faire capitalism.

Well sure, but your actual choices are not always inclusive of the best. In fact usually we get to choose between bad and worse.

[Inspector]

You know, I post this stuff up, then I read a few paragraphs down where Dr. Peikoff says the exact same thing that I did. It makes me wonder if I need to cover these bases at all; it seems he already has...

Anarchists in America pretend to be individualists. Philosophically, however, anarchism is the opposite of individualism; as its main modern popularizer, Karl Marx, makes clear, anarchism is an expression of Utopian collectivism. In the Utopian view, the state by its nature is an exploitative, but temporary, aberration; after men are properly reconditioned, this aberration will disappear, along with all disputes and injustices; mankind will be suffused by loving harmony. The harmony will come when men learn at last to blend into the "organic" One or Whole that they really are. In other words, social problems and the need of government will wither away when individuality withers away.

The theory of anarchism does not recognize that honest disagreement and deliberate evil will always be possible to men; it does not grasp the need of any mechanism to enable real human beings to live together in harmony. The reason is that the theory has no place for real human beings, i.e., for individuals.

Leaving aside some close-knit, short-lived communes, anarchism cannot even be tried in practice. Anarchy, the breakdown of law and order, is possible for a brief time, but not anarchism as a guiding philosophy. The immediate result of anarchy, assuming a society has no rational leadership, has to be men's establishment of some semblance of order by means of gang rule and/or the rule of a strongman. Even savages on the perceptual level understand that lawless chaos is incompatible with survival.

(edit: bold mine)

Edited February 7, 2007 by Inspector

[aequalsa]

You're confusing anarchy: the state of affairs where there is no govenment, with anarchism: the idea that there should be no government.

Ok..fair enough. So, "what is, an objectivist would not advocate anarchism but might advocate anarchy, based on this differentiation of the terms." for $800 Alex.

[Inspector]

Ok..fair enough. So, "what is, an objectivist would not advocate anarchism but might advocate anarchy, based on this differentiation of the terms." for $800 Alex.

Confused!

[BrassDragon]

That is really difficult to answer because it is so context dependent. If they are warlords, for example, they likely get their wealth through some use of force. Enforcing the peace would likely drain their coffers and take pressure off of their victims allowing them to become productive again.

There is a PBS series called Commanding Heights that I highly recommend. In it are some examples of economic transitions of backward countries. It's strange, but when you lift economic restrictions, the turn around is pretty fast....as in days, not years. There would be some period of risk of invasion, but the context again must be thought of. If you were in power, you had to have got there...some money and man power were at your disposal.

The problem with trying to apply a proper ideal to reality, isn't that it doesn't fit reality, it's that reality is far to complex to invent. The actual circumstances must be known and understood before you can realistically consider how best to go about it in the details. If I were to ask "Should I do it?" You couldn't answer without filling in a few details. Do what? Who am I? So now, "How do I institute a capitalist country in africa?" More then a few details are necessary. A case study of a country and after a few years you might be able to make reasonable suggestions as to the best course of action for that particualr country in some particular ways.

Well sure, but your actual choices are not always inclusive of the best. In fact usually we get to choose between bad and worse.

I really appreciate your answer, and you have a good point.

But are you saying one can't rule out the use of moral ends to justify "immoral" means? Or simply that if the context were fully known, such a thing would always either be unnecessary, or the country would not be worth trying to save?

[aequalsa]

Confused!

What I mean is, what I stated before. An individual might choose the dangers of lawlessness over a particular statist circumstance. The jew in a concentration camp or even spongebob preferring the relatively unmanaged sea to living within the confines of the US is making a fair choice. Choosing anarchy or frontier land or the wild west is not necessarily a bad choice. If he were choosing between laissez faire capitalism and anarchy on the ocean, it would be an odd and probably bad choice, but that is not what he is choosing. He is choosing between quasi-socialist paradise and anarchy. Choosing anarchy over statism isn't the same as advocating anarchism as an ideal choice. I understand the differentiation you are making between anarchy and anarchism as a political philosophy.

[aequalsa]

I really appreciate your answer, and you have a good point.

But are you saying one can't rule out the use of moral ends to justify "immoral" means? Or simply that if the context were fully known, such a thing would always either be unnecessary, or the country would not be worth trying to save?

The latter. Immoral means cannot justify moral ends. And usually(probably always) when the context is fully known, a moral path is possible even if it isn't seen or realized.