Libertarians

[DavidOdden]

No, I have described in a previous post how a criminal can be driven out of society or brought to account for past wrongs without the use of force.

Can you please clarify which post and what words indicate this? I don't see how you are going to achieve this miracle, unless you mean "might". I want an "is", not a "maybe".

Human reason is adequate to the task of determining what is in accord with natural law, and what is in contradiction to it. I do not need a government to tell me these things.

You need someone to tell you whether your reasoning is correct, and a definite resolution of conflicts since pure rationalism does not resolve these matters.

It is, however, beneficial for me to put to paper what I understand to be natural law, and to publish a code of conduct derived from natural law. By publishing my understanding of natural law, others, even those with a defective understanding of moral philosophy, have the opportunity to avoid my defensive use of force by refraining from transgressing against me and my customers.

Are you suggesting then that a company may not enforce its interpretation of rights unless it has first announced what its laws are? Now, how am I supposed to know which company Smith deals with and which law will therefore be enforced against me?

It matters not to me how others understand the law, so long as I am able to purchase the protection that I desire, based on my understanding of the law.

So in other words, whoever hires the most powerful company, the one that wins in the war of force-companies, those are the laws that will prevail. AKA might makes right.

It's also my right not to live there, to decline invitations to visit, and to chuckle and shake my head.

Except if his company decides that you actually do have to life there and abide by their rules, and his company is big enough to enforce that decision.

Companies have to adhere to natural laws to produce virtually all worthwhile products and services. As with ethical laws, they're free to disregard these laws. The consequence is that their products don't perform as advertised and they go out of business.

Then you're arguing that prudent predators may flourish in the short run, but in the long run they will not prevail.

The problem here is that you're not advocating a moral philosophy. You are not promulgating a conceptual code of conduct that prescribes what man must do in order to live qua man, since you're accepting that rights can get violated right and left, with just the long-term hope that rights violations will stop. But that's a self-defeating approach, because the use of force is no longer immoral from a rational perspective, it's just a stipulation "force is immoral" equivalent to a Catholic declaration "sex is immoral".

However, since this is a subject on which natural law is largely mute, the proper solution is to solve these ambiguities by contractual means.

IP is beyond the pale for contract law: you cannot bind a third party.

That would simply have to be specified in the contract to avoid ambiguity.

But we have no contract, no dealings. You are a guy on the street, I am another. When we interact without a prior contract (a logical necessity -- no contract can exist without prior interaction), we have no independent means of determining whose law will hold. Most human interactions do not involve a prior contract.

International trade proceeds apace despite the fact both parties to the trade are subject to different, sometimes contradictory, legal systems.

In their own respective countries. Note that Swedish law is not enforced in the US, and US law is not enforced in France. Obviously, US law should prevail.

[kainscalia]

Intellectual property is problematic for precisely the reasons you state. However, since this is a subject on which natural law is largely mute, the proper solution is to solve these ambiguities by contractual means.

And here is the cornerstone of why your position is so shaky. You refer to 'Natural Law' as your movement's standard... except when it can't work for you or give you any examples. Objectivism's standard is reason related to objective reality. You cannot suddenly abandon your standard for another when it does not provide you with the necessary answers and then pretend that it is still solid. To have a solid position you may only resort to the standard of 'natural law', in which nature gives you all the examples you need to set up your society, or recognize the primacy of reason over animalistic totemism and abandon 'natural law' for objective reality. You speak of 'natural law', and I realize that your lot usually refers only to a very selective aspect of natural existence--- if you were consistent you would have to adhere by the Predation aspect of all other species in the natural world, and come to the conclusion that man's only moral action, according to 'natural law', is to be a predator to others and take from them what he requires, by force if necessary. Therefore the concept of non-aggression is improper, since aggression, violence and despoiling are all part of the natural order of things, to a naturalist. Forget copyright and intellectual property, they do not exist in 'the natural world' and therefore are not part of 'natural law' and are not, consequently, proper concepts at all by your stance.

Edited February 2, 2009 by kainscalia

[Jake_Ellison]

You said that Objectivism allows for the government to initiate agression, here:

No coercive state (no matter how "limited") can be justified morally because it must necessarily initiate aggression or cease being a state.

At which point I called you out by saying that Objectivism explicitly prohibits the initiation of force, here:

Ayn Rand's perfectly clear and impossible to misunderstand limit on the Capitalist State is that it may not initiate force.

At which point you just go ahead and repeat the claim that Objectivism would allow for initiation of force, here:

Forceful exclusion of peaceful competition is initiation of aggressive force.

, claiming some sort of contradiction which you never explain by giving an example of an instance of initiation of force against someone peaceful, which Ayn Rand's politics allows for. Surely, the easiest thing to do, when you claim that someone is initiating force against peaceful people, is to give a nice concrete example.

For instance:

Mr. X, a man who never initiated force against anyone, is walking his dog. The State comes up and bashes him over the head with a bat.

That's a short, concrete example of the State doing something immoral against a peaceful Mr. X. Note how all the elements are necessary to complete the story: The two parties, their relationship, if relevant; what Mr. X is doing, exactly (necessarily something peaceful); what means The State is employing to commit said infraction (a bat).

I hope your example will contain all those elements, for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings. The only problem with my example is that Objectivism would not allow for the State to do that. I'm counting on you to give an example in which Ayn Rand authorized the State to commit the infraction you shall describe, thus backing up your claim.

Edited February 2, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[themadkat]

I agree. However, I go further, no entity, not even government, should use force in retribution. Force should be limited exclusively to defense that is the immediate repulsion of force with force. If someone wrongs another, and is not successfully defended against, does this imply that they have got away clean? No, I have described in a previous post how a criminal can be driven out of society or brought to account for past wrongs without the use of force.

No, no, a thousand times no. Rights violators, especially those who commit the most grievous rights violations such as physically harming someone else, absolutely must have retaliatory force used against them. You mean to tell me you want to pin nothing more on a serial killer than a lifetime of debt? He needs to be locked up or, probably better, killed outright. If he manages to escape whatever firefight he may start with your "security firms", he gets to roam free and kill some more? I don't think so. I second the criticism of your position that there needs to be one set of laws pertaining to the protection of individual rights, and that only in this situation can people truly be free.

[MartianHoplite]

Jake_Ellison said:

You said that Objectivism allows for the government to initiate agression

give a nice concrete example.

I live in an objectivist country. I decide that, while I basically agree with the laws in place, the courts, which are a legal monopoly, are too expensive and slow. The police, who also don't face competition, are not as flexible and responsive to consumer demand as they could be. I decide to create an alternative system of law, arbitration and security.

I announce that I will insure your property and person against damage, theft, injury or death for a monthly premium, with active measures taken by my security firm to prevent said occurrences. This allows customers an extra measure of confidence, since I am liable for any damage due to criminal malfeasance that my people fail to prevent.

I announce that my personnel will only use force when it can be justified on the basis of immediate self-defence.

Ayn Rand was strictly against all taxation, so neither I nor my customers have to worry about being forced to pay for a service (objectivist courts and police) that we do not use.

In The Virtue of Selfishness Rand proposed an alternative source of voluntary funding for the minimal state, contract insurance. Contracts are insured by the state. if one party breaches the terms, the other is covered by the state for the losses they suffer as a result. Surpluses from the sale of contract insurance pay for the courts and police as well.

I sell contract insurance also, but because my arbitrators charge a flat fee for hearing a case, and because I offer security on a subscription basis, I can sell contract insurance for much less and still fully indemnify my customers against any losses sustained by breaches of contract.

Because of my lower prices, firms start insuring their contracts with me. The objectivist state sees a fall in revenue.

I have, to this point, aggressed against nobody. I have merely offered services, each of which can be fully justified on objective grounds.

Does the objectivist state permit my operation to continue, in direct competition to it? If yes, then we have market anarchy.

Or does the objectivist state step in to shut down all or part of my business by force, to exclude competition through the initiation of aggressive violence?

kainscalia said:

And here is the cornerstone of why your position is so shaky. You refer to 'Natural Law' as your movement's standard... except when it can't work for you or give you any examples. Objectivism's standard is reason related to objective reality.

Ok, explain for me how reason related to objective reality can decide which side of the road we should all drive on.

I contend that you can't Reason related to objective reality can tell us that we should all drive on the same side of the road. The choice of which side, specifically, will be arbitrary. It is important that we choose, not what we choose. This is just once example of a class of problems that exist. There are many such situation where reason can get us started but cannot fill in all the details. Don't come after me about being ambiguous when the ambiguities are real, that is to say, have their basis in the real world.

DavidOdden said:

Can you please clarify which post and what words indicate this? (that a criminal can be driven from society or brought to account without using force)

My earlier description of this process follows:

If I break into your house while you're away and steal a bunch of your stuff what happens will probably be something like the following. Your insurance company will indemnify you for the amount of the loss. Then they will investigate and try their best to find me. Since they're on the hook for the amount I stole, they have a huge incentive to find me. They will build a case against me and take it to a reputable arbitrator. The arbitrator will contact me and give me the opportunity to defend myself, but will not force me or any witnesses to come in or give testimony. I will be tried, either in person or in absentia. If a judgement is passed against me, restitution will be demanded and entered with a credit bureau as a debt. I can appeal with an arbitrator of my choosing. If my arbitrator is reputable, my arbitrator and the insurance company's arbitrator will have to choose a third, mutually acceptable arbitrator to hear a final appeal. If my arbitrator is not reputable, and in fact, is know to take payments from his clients to give specific rulings, he will be ignored. Until I make good the damage my theft caused, the debt will follow me like a black cloud, shutting me out of the mainstream of society. I will have trouble buying a car, renting an apartment, getting a job or a cell phone, I will have to live in the cash economy. I will be hounded by collections agencies, my personal property will be taken in lieu of repayment. I will be unable to contract for protection and will stand alone and unprotected against such other thieves and criminals as I associate with. If I am a repeat offender, I will be surveiled by insurance detectives and thwarted even in the criminal means of earning my sustenance. In short, it will be far cheaper for me to go legit and make good my past crimes than to continue the criminal life.

You need someone to tell you whether your reasoning is correct, and a definite resolution of conflicts since pure rationalism does not resolve these matters.

I'm free to consult a philosopher regarding my reasoning, or to hire an arbitrator to hear disputes to which I am party. Indeed, it is an ancient precedent that disputes be heard before a neutral party before rash action is taken, and I should like to see this tradition continue. In fact, this is one of the reasons I'm against all state governments. John Locke stated that one of the reasons we need a government is that nobody can be trusted as a judge in their own disputes. Therefore, he concluded, there must be an arbitrator to which all people can take their disputes, the state.

Here's what Roderick Long has to say about this argument.

http://mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf

But I think, most interestingly, the argument about being a judge in your own case really boomerangs against Locke’s argument here. Because first of all, it’s not a good argument for a monopoly because it’s a fallacy to argue from everyone should submit their disputes to a third party to there should be a third party that everyone submits their disputes to. That’s like arguing from everyone likes at least one TV show to there’s at least one TV show that everyone likes. It just doesn’t follow. You can have everyone submitting their disputes to third parties without there being some one third party that every one submits their disputes to. Suppose you’ve got three people on an island. A and B can submit their disputes to C, and A and C can submit their disputes to B, and B and C can submit their disputes to A. So you don’t need a monopoly in order to embody this principle that people should submit their disputes to a third party.

But moreover, not only do you not need a government, but a government is precisely what doesn’t satisfy that principle. Because if you have a dispute with the government, the government doesn’t submit that dispute to a third party. If you have a dispute with the government, it’ll be settled in a government court (if you’re lucky – if you’re

unlucky, if you live under one of the more rough-and-ready governments, you won’t ever even get as far as a court). Now, of course, it’s better if the government is itself divided, checks-and-balances and so forth. That’s a little bit better, that’s closer to there being third parties, but still they are all part of the same system; the judges are paid by

tax money and so forth. So, it’s not as though you can’t have better and worse approximations to this principle among different kinds of governments. Still, as long as it’s a monopoly system, by its nature, it’s in a certain sense lawless. It never ultimately submits its disputes to a third party.

Moving on

Are you suggesting then that a company may not enforce its interpretation of rights unless it has first announced what its laws are?

No, but making things clear to others usually simplifies things.

So in other words, whoever hires the most powerful company, the one that wins in the war of force-companies, those are the laws that will prevail. AKA might makes right.

First, you misunderstood my whole point. My point wasn't that the strongest company wins, my point was that a diversity of companies can coexist without stepping on each others toes, so long as they keep to their respective enclaves.

Secondly, might doesn't make right. Right makes might. Aggression is irrational and anti-life. Peaceful cooperation is rational, selfish, and pro-life. Now, who's going to be more mighty, the many who realize that peaceful cooperation, industry and exchange are in their best interests, or the few who are too dense to get it? Furthermore, say I want to kill you and take your stuff. I'm a psychopath, so I'm going to get some pleasure out of the aggression itself. I'm also going to get some (probably greatly less than all) of your stuff, which I'll have to fence for well below market value. So is it going to be worth more to me to kill you and take your stuff, or is it going to be worth more to you to avoid being killed? Who would a security firm make more money working for? For the purposes of this example we can even exclude long term consideration. Defence of life and property wins handily.

IP is beyond the pale for contract law: you cannot bind a third party.

You also can't charge for broadcast television. You can, however charge to run adds. There's always a creative way around any difficulty. Business finds a way to make money, even if there are complexities involved. I'll give you just one example, I've been thinking lately about how to make money off of video games without having to worry about piracy and without resorting to government IP enforcement. Now that broadband is ubiquitous, you can have part or all of the game software run on a remote server. Input and output could be streamed to the player's computer. Access to a server can be strictly controlled, and as a bonus, brand new games could be played on lower end computers, since they're just doing the interface, and not actually running most of the game.

But we have no contract, no dealings. You are a guy on the street, I am another.

Who owns the street, and on what terms did he allow us onto it?

we have no independent means of determining whose law will hold.

All human interactions must occur in a place. All places that host human interaction have owners, or would if governments allowed people to homestead them. It is the law of the owner of a particular piece of property that prevails on that particular property. If you don't like the conditions an owner sets on granting permission to enter his property, you are free not to enter. If you don't like the rules set by the owners of Rothbard Ave, you're free to use Rand Rd. instead. If you don't like the fact that one store prohibits concealed weapons on its premises, you're free to patronize its competition, etc...

Marc K. said.

Do you consider the situation in the US in the early 1800's to be acceptable? That is, would you agree with the South's characterization of the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression"?

As a white male, I would probably find the conditions then prevailing somewhat more agreeable than those today. However, the early American system, which Rand praises so effusively, led directly and, I believe, logically to the America of today. Therefore I do not approve of it.

I do regard the "Civil War" as a "War of Northern Aggression." It is fundamentally despotic to wage a war so that "the government, of the people, by the people and for the people" can be imposed on the people at the point of a bayonet. However, the South's support of slavery and their principle of "states rights" (as opposed to individual rights) were egregious and cost them any moral legitimacy they might have had. As is often the case in war, both sides were wrong.

[prosperity]

reason for edit...david odden provided a pretty good reply, so what was going to go here would be redundant.

***

I would like to emphasize though that I think Mr. Odden made many excellent points, one in particular about "might makes right"....because this is really what these competing quasi-security firms would be engaged in.

As MartianHoplite admitted:

In actual fact, security firms would be driven by two factors to prevent this outcome. First is public opinion.

...and herein lies the downfall. David is right. When you get enough socialists together to make a huge security firm, the rest of us wouldn't stand a chance. Or...suppose you had the KKK security firm, ugh. or the KGB security firm....yikes.

Edited February 3, 2009 by prosperity

[kainscalia]

Ok, explain for me how reason related to objective reality can decide which side of the road we should all drive on.

I contend that you can't Reason related to objective reality can tell us that we should all drive on the same side of the road. The choice of which side, specifically, will be arbitrary. It is important that we choose, not what we choose. This is just once example of a class of problems that exist. There are many such situation where reason can get us started but cannot fill in all the details. Don't come after me about being ambiguous when the ambiguities are real, that is to say, have their basis in the real world.

1) On a two way road system, logic dictates it will be split in half between both directions.

2) Whichever side eventually is chosen -whether you must always keep your right or your left- is irrelevant- the important thing is that a two-way traffic system be established. Thus, one side will be designated.

The situation seems to be extremely clear and unambiguous. The choice of lane is non-essential, it does not deal with principles, merely with mechanics. The matter of principle is whether a road should be build, whether man has the right to build a road (he does) and whether he can trust his mind to create an effective system of traffic (he can), not what side of the road he should drive on. The road is made possible by and built by reason, it is monitored and systematized by reason, and it is driven on by vehicles created by reason. There are no situations where "reason can get us started but cannot fill in the details," that is a platitude that is as trite as "logic can only take you so far, after that you have to get off and walk the rest of the way."

This is precisely the reason why you anarchists consistently fail in applying any amount of reason: you are stuck on trivialities and non-essentials and seem incapable of thinking in principles, nothing goes beyond the concrete for you.

[Nacirema]

While most of the arguments this excerpt is taken from were addressed, this caught my eye:

I agree. However, I go further, no entity, not even government, should use force in retribution. Force should be limited exclusively to defense that is the immediate repulsion of force with force.

Now, I realize that in this situation, Mr. Hoplite is discussing retaliatory force against an individual. However, if we take this moral premise to its final conclusion, then it is my understanding that the government would not be allowed to attack opposing nations as well.

This is not to say attack opposing nations from an imperial stand point, but we certainly wouldn't be able to (under this moral precept) attack a nation that has called for our heads on a platter, or even do anything more than repel an invasion force, but let the enemy country stand. Assuming a war can even be fought simply on the grounds of repeling invaders, all it does is give the invaders a chance to regroup, mobilize again, examine their strategies, and possibly even gives them time to develop weapons that are sure to wipe out our very way of life.

As someone pointed out, the same works true for the individual who is a serial killer. Another problem presents itself: Mr. Hoplite is assuming that the person who breaks this law in his system is simply a rational man who, for some reason, had a lapse in judgement and decided to break into someone's house, or kill a man. He is therefore, assuming (I infer), that this man will be upset ot have his credit ruined, out of a job, unable to successfuly purchase goods, etc. And while such a case may arise, it is much more likely that the criminal will be an illogical man.

This is another area where this idea falls apart, because an illogical man (especially one who apparenlty has no problem with murder or theft) will not care if his credit is ruined - he can simply take what he wants. An illogical man won't care if no one is willing to trade with him - he can just kill them, and then they have no say. Under this anarchistic society as I have understood it from the posts, as long as he is never caught in the act/constantly catches people off-guard and overpowering them, then even if all the evidence points to him there is nothing that can legally be done against this man, except to drag his credit score through the mud.

This of course, done on a large enough scale, will lead to vigilantism when people who have been hurt act out in anger and take retribution into their own hands. Why would they worry about being punished? As long as they're not caught, then they can't be imprisoned. All it will take is for a few people to act out in anger (or even a group if my afformentioned killer-thief has eliminated enough loved ones around the area), and he wil be lynched. There credit scores may drop, but what if an insurance CEO is with them and agrees to keep their rates the same? What if hired guns under the new security system are there, but wish to see "actual justice" dispensed? In that case, everything is fine. Then the next person who harms them, even if to a lesser extent, faces the same wrath.

We are then left with groups of people, prepared to kill anyone who disobeys the simplest laws (all of which could be easily avoidable under a system of one, objective law and a system that allows for retribution). Now, I don't claim to be a mystic, but it is not hard to see how this would lead to xenophobia, and even proverbial "witch trials" of the group's own members: Mr. Smith doesn't like the fact that Mr. Jones is making more money than him? Convince the group that he has stolen it somehow, and they're ready to gather around the tree with a nice piece of rope, custom-tailored for Mr. Jones. Then they begin warring with other factions, trying to accomplish their own justice, all the while making sure that their own next-door neighbor is not preparing to stab them in the back.

...And so, anarchy descends into the chaos that it is so commonly, and rightly, associated with.

[Zip]

I realized tonight that of everyone on this forum I have probably come the closest to experiencing first hand the final results of MartianHoplite's competing government idea.

It was in 1994 in a small city called Visoko about 24km south of Sarajevo. Visoko was remarkable in a place full of such futile misery for a couple of reasons. There, all three of the competing factions met. We had Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats all within a 5km radius of each other. What a viciously fucked up place Visoko was.

And it all started off in much the same way as MartianHoplite posited. The Bosniaks decided that the Serbs were abusing their natural rights. The Croats blamed the Serbs for atrocities committed before most of them were even born and the Serbs demanded that their law was the law of the land and all other law was illegitimate.

When I got to Bosnia in 94 most of the worst was over in the city of Visoko. I distinctly remember driving down the road and looking at the houses.

You would see a couple of occupied ones with people in the front yard, working the fields or what have you then you would have a couple that were burned out shells then another occupied, then another shell...

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happened. House 1, 2 and 5 were "protected" by government "A", the stronger or more bloodthirsty group of thugs, houses 3, 4 and 6 backed the looser, government "B" or "C".

Bosnia in the early 90's was MartianHoplite's political theory put into exact practice, and in a matter of weeks from the collapse of the former Yugoslavia the entire region was in a rush to the bottom of a very Hobbesian hole.

MartianHoplite you can theorize all you want. I've seen the result of both anarchy and competing governments and I don't relish the idea of it writ large upon my country or any other.

When men start nailing babies to telephone poles as a "warning" you can pretty well assume that you are not on the road to utopia.

[MartianHoplite]

Zip said:

Bosnia in the early 90's was MartianHoplite's political theory put into exact practice, and in a matter of weeks from the collapse of the former Yugoslavia the entire region was in a rush to the bottom of a very Hobbesian hole.

You're right, the collapse of a failed communist state is exactly like free market anarchism. (rolls eyes)

Nacirema said

then it is my understanding that the government would not be allowed to attack opposing nations as well.

First of all, there would be no government. Secondly, the competitive free market defence firms would be able to defend their customers from aggression by external statists.

I don't believe that it is possible to "attack opposing nations" because I am a methodological individualist. Words like "nation" and "society" do not represent entities which exist in reality. They are, at most, merely shorthand ways of refering to large numbers of individuals.

If the residents of a market anarchist society are under attack by statists invaders, they can employ various means to defend themselves. Han-Herman Hoppe has a very good essay on the subject.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

Nor would they be limited to merely repelling the invasion force. In their own defence, they can legitimately target anyone who is materially aiding the criminal invasion. That would include the foreign leaders who ordered the attack, the arms industries in their countries, any lobbyists or interests who may have pressed for the attack, etc... Since a foreign "nation" is a collection of individuals, each with individual rights (until they forfeit them through their actions) care must be taken to limit the use of force to those culpable for or directly participating in the acts of aggression.

Thus, indiscriminately targeting voters or taxpayers is not a legitimate use of force, since taxes are taken involuntarily and voting is not a contractually binding practice. In other words, a voter who casts a ballot for someone no longer has any direct control over their actions until the next election. It is not, therefore, correct to think of an elected leader as a "representative" of his "constituents" for he acts on his own authority and at his own whim, pleasure and discretion. Furthermore, if he is elected by secret ballot, there is the added difficulty of determining who voted for him, and who voted against him.

Now, I don't claim to be a mystic

For a non-mystic, you've just produced a highly elaborate prediction of exactly how the free choices of many individuals would play out. Your deductive prowess must be formidable indeed.

kainscalia Said:

and herein lies the downfall. David is right. When you get enough socialists together to make a huge security firm, the rest of us wouldn't stand a chance.

Yes we would "stand a chance." Socialists or racists would not be able to impose their views on everyone. I find socialism and racism perverse. However, so long as I enjoy the protection of my person and property, I care not whether someone else is a socialist or a racist on their own property so long as neither I nor others are forced to associate with them, and so long as they are unable to impose their idiotic program on me or my friends on our property. The economics of free market anarchism place the advantage on defence of rights rather than their violation. Without a state to take over, a violator has to bear the entire expense of their undertaking. It is usually worth much more to people to defend their rights against being transgressed, than it is worth to the transgressors to violate the same rights. Rights violations are so prevalent under statist systems because those in charge of the state can force their victims to bear the expense of victimising them.

[kainscalia]

kainscalia Said:

That post was by prosperity, not by me.

[Zip]

You're right, the collapse of a failed communist state is exactly like free market anarchism. (rolls eyes)

The free market is irrelevant when there is no one to ensure it is free. There is only one defining attribute of your theory, the complete and utter lack of government, and like I said, been there, done that, got the tee shirt and no fucking thank you.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Zip

[Zip]

MartianHoplite, a direct question for you...

Do you deny the possibility that two competing forces, each thinking of themselves as defending the "rights of individuals" fighting what amounts to a war over some transgression of those self defined rights?

[Jake_Ellison]

In The Virtue of Selfishness Rand proposed an alternative source of voluntary funding for the minimal state, contract insurance. Contracts are insured by the state. if one party breaches the terms, the other is covered by the state for the losses they suffer as a result. Surpluses from the sale of contract insurance pay for the courts and police as well.

I sell contract insurance also, but because my arbitrators charge a flat fee for hearing a case, and because I offer security on a subscription basis, I can sell contract insurance for much less and still fully indemnify my customers against any losses sustained by breaches of contract.

Because of my lower prices, firms start insuring their contracts with me. The objectivist state sees a fall in revenue.

I have, to this point, aggressed against nobody. I have merely offered services, each of which can be fully justified on objective grounds.

Does the objectivist state permit my operation to continue, in direct competition to it? If yes, then we have market anarchy.

Or does the objectivist state step in to shut down all or part of my business by force, to exclude competition through the initiation of aggressive violence?

I have two separate points:

1. Why on Earth would an Objectivist State have a problem with that? What in Ayn Rand's writings suggests that she would be against such a business venture?

You certainly haven't offered anything that does. The suggestion you mentioned that she made certainly doesn't even hint to any type of monopoly on contract insurance or arbitration by the government, or any action it might take to prevent peaceful (your word, and I intend to hold you to it) competition. And how could it, when she was so clearly and unmistakably against the initiation of force by government?

Which brings us to the elephant in the room: Your moral argument for anarchy (a system which prohibits government, and thus allows everyone so inclined to attack anyone who may be, at any point, for any reason, weaker than them), as opposed to Ayn Rand's political system, is that her description of Government contains some type of contradiction, and allows the State to 1. "initiate aggressive force", to "forcefully exclude peaceful competition" 2. any government, no matter how limited (and definitely the government she describes), "must necessarily initiate aggression". You said both those things, and you said that you read this "in the relevant passages of hers I've read" (exact quote), they "contain a contradiction" to her previous, and quite famous, statement, which says "The State may never initiate force".

All I asked of you is to give one concrete example that would initiate force against the peaceful, or forcefully exclude anyone who is peaceful, and which Ayn Rand condoned or at least hinted at condoning. (thus contradicting herself.) Surely you must realize how basic and reasonable a request that is, and how ridiculous it is that after claiming all those things I listed in red, you can't come up with one concrete, be it hypothetical example.

2. I don't agree with your assessment that private enterprise could drive the State out of business in this area-precisely because private enterprise can't enforce that arbitration decision (definitely not while remaining peaceful):

What if I have a contract with someone, insured with your firm, and I decide to breach it, and I refuse to submit to any arbitration, instead I just say screw you. The State at that point can enforce the contract, by responding with force to what is technically fraud (and force) on my part. What would you, the arbitrator do?

Also, I can show up at your hearing, and if I don't like your decision, just say screw you then. (maybe even cancel the check I payed for your services, just to be a dick) You never say what you would do at this point.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Nacirema]

For a non-mystic, you've just produced a highly elaborate prediction of exactly how the free choices of many individuals would play out. Your deductive prowess must be formidable indeed.

My predictions are predictions based on what I have seen and experienced, as well as simple common sense.

If logically approaching conclusions makes me a mystic, or gives you grounds to attack my "deductive prowess" as you so snidely put it, then tell me this: How can you be so sure that people will make those same choices in any of your scenarios? How can you be sure the government would attack an insurance company, or how can you be sure that people wouldn't do the very same thing that I described?

You are given the exact same tools as me, so to attack me using them in the same way (without addressing how your system would fix this scenario, I might add), is the equivalent of stating "you just don't understand the question."

Also, as for the attack on my use of my "formidable" "deductive prowess," I don't see it as that deductive. I never claimed the names of people who would do these things (save for simply a qualifier, unless you though I was predicting that a specific Mr. Smith would do what he did), nor in what region, nor in what exact manner, etc. As I stated in my last paragraphs, I have used no more fancy/advanced deductive reasoning then you have in assuming that competing governments/insurance companies/Mafiosos would manage to remain peaceful.

[MartianHoplite]

From Jake_Ellison

1. Why on Earth would an Objectivist State have a problem with that? What in Ayn Rand's writings suggests that she would be against such a business venture?

If she's not, then she's not advocating an Objectivist State, but a competitive, Objectivist defence firm. States must necessarily be monopolistic. If they're not monopolistic, they're not states.

According to Rand herself,

The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled. (emphasis mine, MH)

For what I consider to be a strong argument against anarco-capitalism See Robert Bidinotto's The Contradiction in Anarchism.

http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writin...nAnarchism.html

Trying to deny that governments are monopolistic just simply doesn't cut it.

Zip said:

Do you deny the possibility that two competing forces, each thinking of themselves as defending the "rights of individuals" fighting what amounts to a war over some transgression of those self defined rights?

No I don't deny it. Humans have free will, which means that in principle, they can choose to do a wide range of stupid things. Meanwhile, the bloody history of states proves pretty conclusively that governments do go to war with each other on a regular basis.

A more important question would be, which is more likely to go to war against a rival, a government, or a private firm?

I contend that a private firm, which has to bear the costs of aggression out of pocket, and whose customers can easily defect to rival firms. would be less likely to engage in aggression, vs. a government whose leaders can get themselves fame, power, and plunder at the expense of taxpayers and conscripts, without personally having to bear any of the risks or costs.

[Jake_Ellison]

Trying to deny that governments are monopolistic just simply doesn't cut it.

What doesn't cut it is having an idea (that in Rand's Capitalism you cannot do as you wish, while peaceful), and not being able to come up with a concrete example of when you would be stopped.

As for anyone being "monopolistic", I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean that someone initiates force to protect their monopoly on an area of human activity, that's not monopolistic, that's dictatorial.

If you mean someone who is too strong a competitor (which is what it actually means), because of some advantage he has that is justified, then I don't have a problem with monopolies. Those who do are the ones on the wrong side of justice and morality in that case.

I'm also not trying to deny that I think government should have a monopoly on retributive force, as long as there is someone willing to fund such a government, and others willing to fulfill the role of its agents. What I'm trying to get here is one concrete example of how such a government would stop you in any peaceful activity whatsoever.

Since you clearly cannot come up with one, you should admit that it wouldn't, and drop your claim that you are justified to be against such government, because it would restrict you even if you do not wish to initiate force, or do not wish to use retributive force against criminals beyond what they objectively deserve for their crimes.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Jake_Ellison]

If she's not, then she's not advocating an Objectivist State, but a competitive, Objectivist defence firm. States must necessarily be monopolistic. If they're not monopolistic, they're not states.

First you started out by reducing everything to "thou shall not initiate force", and deducing all your ideas from that. While I don't agree with that, and I think that's what's wrong with the Libertarian movement (they have no philosophical basis for this commandment), I do agree with the principle itself, in the proper context. In fact, this principle was borrowed from Ayn Rand, and when used properly (with initiation of force meaning what she meant by it), there's nothing wrong with it. That's why you cannot find that contradiction you're talking about.

However, now, because you can't pin initiation of force on the Capitalist State, you're switching to "thou shall not me a monopoly", out of thin air.

Why would that be a rule that makes everyone who doesn't abide by it immoral?

Sure, Capitalism allows competition, and that's one of the reasons why it works. However, what you are suggesting now is that we forget about all the tenants of Capitalism: the sanctity of property and individual rights, the rule of an objective law, and focus on this one consequence which those tenants produced, namely that it allows for competition and for those who are good at producing what is needed to rise to the top.

Why that? Why not do what Obama did, and focus on another consequence of the Capitalist system, prosperity? The same way you can be an advocate of a system based on competition, you can be the advocate of a system based on unprecedented prosperity for all. They are both consequence of the same individual freedom and property rights, which define Capitalism, and neither one of them would exist without those.

Saying that [b]"thou shall not initiate force" works for building a Capitalist society, because it is the equivalent of saying "individual rights are the law". In both cases, you need to ensure that the commandment is enforced. And what causes that commandment to be enforced is not competition. Peaceful competition is the consequence of that commandment being enforced.

What causes this commandment to be enforced is civilization: the sense of justice people have, which causes them to form a government to enforce this rule. I'd much rather have someone like Obama, who has a warped sense of justice, but at least believes in civilization, then an anarchist who desires no justice, and is in fact against it. That is what separates Objectivists from Libertarians, not some slight nuance in the way we interpret "natural law".

P.S. Sorry for all the colorful highlights, but I went a little long, and I feel that this last part is the most important idea in all my posts on this topic. If you (the casual browser) are to read something, read that, and perhaps some of the not highlighted arguments that support it, in this very post.

[prosperity]

The free market is irrelevant when there is no one to ensure it is free. There is only one defining attribute of your theory, the complete and utter lack of government, and like I said, been there, done that, got the tee shirt and no fucking thank you.

Maybe he's never seen The Postman with Kevin Costner. I know it wasn't a very popular movie though...I thought that was a rather good portrayal of anarchy on film.

[Axiomatic]

Maybe he's never seen The Postman with Kevin Costner. I know it wasn't a very popular movie though...I thought that was a rather good portrayal of anarchy on film.

The first season of Jericho was better.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

If you don't disagree with the law but want it to be implemented better get into politics or donate a new police department building to the government were you want a better more efficient implementation of the law.

If you want to protect the property of others start a security firm.

You could even enforce contracts when you get both parties to agree on your authority.

What you cant do is set up a court system and say that you'll uphold the law to your interpretation if one party agrees to your authority and pays you.

If you then enforce the law in such a way against those who don't agree to your authority within the bounds of the government of the land you are initiating force and the government of the land has the right and obligation to retaliate against you.

[MartianHoplite]

FrolicsomeQuipster said:

What you cant do is set up a court system and say that you'll uphold the law to your interpretation if one party agrees to your authority and pays you.

You're right, such a biased court would not serve the cause of justice. However, even today it is possible to take a dispute to the American Arbitration Association instead of the Government courts. The AAA, for their part, cultivate a reputation for scrupulous impartiality and provide speedy, low-cost service, because that's what their customers want. If they didn't have a reputation for settling cases justly, or if they were slower and costlier than the government courts, nobody would hire them to arbitrate disputes. This is something we can reasonably assume that they know.

Jake_Ellison said:

they [libertarians] have no philosophical basis for this commandment [the non-aggression principle]

That's not true. One example of a libertarian philosophical justification of the non-aggression principle is Hans-Herman Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics.

http://www.hanshoppe.com/sel-topics.php

Now, if you want to criticise Hoppe's justification of the NAP, or anyone else's, that's fine. It may be your opinion that libertarians put the NAP on the wrong philosophical basis, but that's not he same thing as having no philosophical basis.

In both cases, you need to ensure that the commandment is enforced. And what causes that commandment to be enforced is not competition. Peaceful competition is the consequence of that commandment being enforced.

Under an anarcho-capitalist system, as in any other, what causes justice to prevail generally is people's understanding of and desire for justice. It is the measures individuals take to protect themselves, and the arrangements they make with others to more effectively provide protection. It is this, and not competition, which enforces justice. Competition just ensures that it is enforced in an efficient and cost-effective manner. This is no small benefit, but is a happy side effect rather than the main reason to adopt an anarcho-capitalist system.

The most important reason to adopt anarcho-capitalism is ethical. If "government by the consent of the governed" is to be anything more than a platitude, then statism, even in its minimal, "limited" form, must be discarded. Consent, to mean anything, requires that one be able to withhold it. Government by consent, voluntary government, leads to competititon in the provision of "government services", as in the provision of other services.

Now, if this turns out not to be the case, and the economies of scale dictate that some one firm attains a monopoly over the provision of government services in a given area, and it does so without initiating aggression against others, without violating the principle of consent, then that is a legitimate government. and I have no beef with it. However, I highly doubt that this is how it would turn out, since these cases are rare, competition is the norm in a free market, and there is vigorous competition even now in private security, insurance, credit reporting, claims collection, bounty hunting, private arbitration, and other related fields.

What I'm trying to get here is one concrete example of how such a government would stop you in any peaceful activity whatsoever. Since you clearly cannot come up with one, you should admit that it wouldn't

I have already stated that if this is the case, then I have no problem with an Objectivist state.

I base my contrary belief that it necessarily would on a range of evidence.

Rand describes government as a "monopoly" which has strong connotation of anti-competitive coercion. Surely Rand was aware of this connotation. I think I am on firm ground in assuming she meant the full meaning of the word when she chose to use it. Rand was not a fan of imprecision in language.

Rand vehemently denounces "anarchism" and the idea of "competing-governments" which seems to be her way of describing competition in the provision of government services, from which I conclude she is against it.

Rand says that all government funding should be voluntary, yet she only puts forward alternative ideas for funding that would not be viable without some coercive element. Funding a government through the sale of "contract insurance" is not viable if private insurance companies are also permitted to offer "contract insurance" but can charge less because they don't have to bear the expense of providing unrelated products and services out of the proceeds. Likewise, lotteries are not a viable way of funding a government if private firms are permitted to run lotteries but can offer bigger payouts because they aren't having to subsidize the provision of unrelated products and services.

Now if, despite all this, I am wrong, and an Objectivist state would not forcefully shut competitors down, then I I will once again reiterate that I would have no problem with it.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Arbitration services, etc., as they stand today are merely a mechanism for going somewhere else first before going to the courts. An arbitration, even a binding one, can be ignored by one party or another, at which point the matter gets tossed into the court system which has the power of the state behind it to compel restitution. Arbitration simply puts one more level of recourse into the system before it goes to the *last* resort, the courts.

If there were two separate court systems with jurisdiction in an area, it would eventually become necessary to arbitrate between them (or make it clear that one is "higher" than the other as with local and federal courts in the US), and there would either be a physical fight or some mutually agreed on arbitration scheme--the question would be by whom and the answer would be by the new final authority.

There will be a final authority; it's inevitable. Talk of completely open competition is nonsense.

[Jake_Ellison]

Rand describes government as a "monopoly" which has strong connotation of anti-competitive coercion. Surely Rand was aware of this connotation.

Yes she was aware of that connotation. That's why she made sure to mention (and you made sure to forget to mention) on what government has this monopoly: monopoly on force.

Meaning that there's a coersion against force.

One form of coersion against force is self-defense. Another form is the defense of the innocent against force. The third form is defense of the guilty against unjust punishment. That ends the list.

You are, above, declaring yourself against all these three forms of coersion, including the right to self-defense. In fact, your new operating commandment, deduced directly from the one against any monopoly, is: "Thou shalt not coerce!", not even in self-defense. That's a pretty sweet reductio ad absurdum of your fundamental principle (No monopoly), you managed to provide all by yourself.

Rand vehemently denounces "anarchism" and the idea of "competing-governments" which seems to be her way of describing competition in the provision of government services, from which I conclude she is against it.

Yes. I believe we established that she's against anarchy. The question is how is she against peaceful competition.

Remember, government applies retributive force (in Capitalism objectively) , so it is not peaceful. Nor would someone attempting to provide government services (i.e. punishing criminals according to rules they made up themselves, which are different from rules other criminals, in other jurisdictions are punished by) be peaceful. They would be using retributive force, and delivering subjective punishment.

As an aside, surely you agree that subjective punishment (one man being sentenced to a year for stealing a bike, another to twenty) is not justice. Justice requires objective punishment.

What we're looking for here is an example of the State coercing peaceful (still your word) individuals or firms, not the State stopping some jackass with a gun from declaring himself "Government QR2!!21^&#-A1" and shooting the guy who stole his sister's purse. And yes, that's how many governments there would be (that it would require that many symbols to name a new one) , and yes, this particular example of a government fits your description of competing governments to the letter.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Tordmor]

A good discussion so far except for some post which contain mainly assertions without arguments. Special thanks to MartianHoplite for the link.

What I am still missing is an argument about the scope of government. I take it that any government would be instituted by a majority vote of the inhabitants of the area the government governs. But how isthat area determined? How to determine who gets to vote? E.g. in germany there is a strong support for a leftist party (SPD) in the north while there is an equally strong support for an alledgedly rightist party (CDU) in the south. Taking these results I'd say the rational thing to do would be to cut germany in half. But if you agree on the right of the southern german states to secceed from the union then where do you stop this right of secession? Can a city secceed? What about an individual with his property? In the latter case I guess we arrive at the rothbardian model.

What bothers me a bit is that objectivists seem to tend to advocate large area governments. Do you consider a one-world-government a desireable thing?