Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Anarchy'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Introductions and Local Forums
    • Introductions and Personal Notes
    • Local Forums
  • Philosophy
    • Questions about Objectivism
    • Metaphysics and Epistemology
    • Ethics
    • Political Philosophy
    • Aesthetics
  • Culture
    • Current Events
    • Books, Movies, Theatre, Lectures
    • Productivity
    • Intellectuals and the Media
  • Science and the Humanities
    • Science & Technology
    • Economics
    • History
    • Psychology and Self Improvement
  • Intellectual Activism and Study Groups
    • Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality
    • Study/Reading Groups
    • Marketplace
    • The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
  • Miscellaneous Forums
    • Miscellaneous Topics
    • Recreation and The Good Life
    • Work, Careers and Money
    • School, College and Child development
    • The Critics of Objectivism
    • Debates
  • The Laboratory
    • Ask Jenni
    • Books to Mind – Stephen Boydstun
    • Dream Weaver's Allusions
    • The Objectivist Study Groups
    • Eiuol's Investigations
  • About Objectivism Online
    • Website Policy and Announcements
    • Help and Troubleshooting

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start




Other Public-visible Contact Info





Website URL




Interested in meeting

Chat Nick


Digg Nick

Experience with Objectivism

Real Name

School or University


Member Title

Found 1 result

  1. Here we go again... It has been said that government must monopolize force and therefore cannot operate the same way the free market does, since that would lead to violence. But is it really true that privatized enforcement of the law inevitably leads to violence between the private enforcers? Even if that is so is there no way to prevent such a scenario without a absolute governmental monopoly? Is there no way to limit the government even further so that they may not abuse their current position in which they and they alone may appoint the head of the police and courts. I propose a constitutional republic in which government cannot come into contact directly with its citizens. It would look like this: Public sector Democratically elected government, that has the power to write laws State Guards, who protect state employees and buildings Military, to be deployed against foreign enemies and to protect government buildings, if the state guards aren't enough They should have more fire-power than all the private security combined. Supreme court Secret Service Private sector Private Police to enforce the law. Anyone could run a police business, but they would have to abide by govt. regulations and laws. If the private police refuses to follow the law the supreme curt may issue a purge that would allow the state to make a contract with another police to capture or eliminate the lawbreakers. If that doesn't work, the military should step in as a final solution. Private Curts, to handle dispute. They would be contracted to the police. A person may contract and pay for the police, if he needs their service. Others such as charities or insurance companies may also pay the cost if applicable. The government would put on a tax on the private courts and private police as payment for the laws and that would be the only source of funding for the government in peacetime. The government may also hire the public police and courts if the government was damaged in some way. The private police would have to deal with government and market laws which should increase the quality of the service. This article is probably incomplete in many ways, but I think it has enough detail to it to start a conversation. Is there any reason why the proposed system could not work?
  • Create New...