What's wrong with anarchism?

[nimble]

I see the benefits and even the reasoning behind governments. But I do not think that one can say that anarchism is evil. There are often many environments where governments are necessary (small communities away from the majority of society). Also, wasn't Galt's Gulch an anarchist state. All they had was a independent judge (private) who charged as a form of law. There was no government in that "utopia."

[Godless Capitalist]

I think a small group of rational people could have a functioning anarchy. One real-life example is a group going on a wilderness canoe trip. They usually manage fine without killing each other.

However, all it takes is for one person to start violating rights and things break down. Without an objective system of laws and judges, everything is "solved" by brute force.

I don't think I would use the term "evil," either, just impractical.

[dark_stranger]

I see the benefits and even the reasoning behind governments. But I do not think that one can say that anarchism is evil. There are often many environments where governments are necessary (small communities away from the majority of society). Also, wasn't Galt's Gulch an anarchist state. All they had was a independent judge (private) who charged as a form of law. There was no government in that "utopia."

Objectivism holds that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights. The government's tool to do this is the exclusive use of retaliatory force. That is, by being the police and the military and using that power against those who initiate force against others.

Anarchism is a state in which there is no government at all. Thus there is no group or body with the vested authority to use retaliatory force exclusively. As has been pointed out numerous times in a mountain of Objectivist works, this will lead to warring clans or gangs and "might makes right" rules of society. This is the epitome of evil, and undermines the very *possibility* of morality. If you cannot see why, you should go back to the begninng and read or re-read everything you can about Objectivism, especially the Objectivist ethics.

[stephen_speicher]

Also, wasn't Galt's Gulch an anarchist state.

Anarchy, is a (silly) social system. Ayn Rand created Galt's Gulch as a "private club," not as an organized society.

[Godless Capitalist]

If you look at it that way, couldn't some of the original US colonies be considered private clubs? Where do you draw the line between a private club and an organized society?

[stephen_speicher]

If you look at it that way, couldn't some of the original US colonies be considered private clubs? Where do you draw the line between a private club and an organized society?

The United States of America is an organized society. A nudist colony is a private club. The former is what delimits the latter. The difference is one of purpose, power, and scope. A political system, in the form of government, is what integrates and organizes a society, which is why I said that anarchy, as opposed to capitalism, was silly. Anarchism is a floating abstraction that only has meaning by reference to real and actual political principles. Read Ayn Rand for the principles and then you can draw the lines yourself.

[nimble]

well what makes you think that objective law is necessary. I do not believe that morality is a responsibility of the government, so i dont consider the 'objective law is moral' argument to hold. I dont think that there would be warring factions of people. How would they make enough money to gain access to that type of power. And who would pay them for their "brute" services. (im not actually an anarchist, because i believe its impractical. But i dont see a huge problem with it philosophically)

[dark_stranger]

well what makes you think that objective law is necessary.

If objective law is unnecessary, how are disputes resolved? If there are no laws, what governs the interactions between men?

I do not believe that morality is a responsibility of the government, so i dont consider the 'objective law is moral' argument to hold.

The government's responsibility is to protect individual freedom. This is a consequence of moral views, not the source. This means: the government is not dictating what is moral, it is acting on what is moral. As objective laws (when properly formulated) are consistent with the facts of reality, your rejection of such laws is tantamount to a rejection of objective reality.

I dont think that there would be warring factions of people. How would they make enough money to gain access to that type of power. And who would pay them for their "brute" services.

What would there be to prevent people from organizing into gangs with the intent of exploiting others through theft and coercion?

Also, it takes no money to be a brute. One need not become wealthy before becoming a thief or a murderer.

(im not actually an anarchist, because i believe its impractical. But i dont see a huge problem with it philosophically)

Hmmm... a pragmatist who doesn't see anything philosophically wrong with anarchy. What a shock.

If you believe that anarchy is 'impractical', then please explain why. On what basis is practicality judged?

d_s

[nimble]

If objective law is unnecessary, how are disputes resolved?

Independent companies make and enforce laws and trade and contracts.

The government's responsibility is to protect individual freedom.  This is a consequence of moral views, not the source.  This means: the government is not dictating what is moral, it is acting on what is moral. 

okay...i can agree here, but i think this will only work, if and only if the majority of people under that government comes to some kind of consensus about morality.

What would there be to prevent people from organizing into gangs with the intent of exploiting others through theft and coercion?

private protection agencies would be your protection...its in everyone's best interest to be rational. Those who arent will be "weeded" out of society quite quickly by the protection agencies.

Also, it takes no money to be a brute.  One need not become wealthy before becoming a thief or a murderer.

okay, but it does take money to sustain a large gain of looters, how will they get their weapons, and how will they last against a trained army (private protection) if they dont have funding. And is it worth fighting for your life just to steal a bit here and there?

Hmmm... a pragmatist who doesn't see anything philosophically wrong with anarchy.  What a shock. 

Ill ignore that ad hominem, and im not a pragmatist.

If you believe that anarchy is 'impractical', then please explain why.  On what basis is practicality judged?

its impractical because it will never be like that. We'll be lucky if we ever elect someone other than democrats and republicans. Its a huge stretch to demand some change in govt style.

[Capitalism Forever]

nimble, please use proper capitalization in your posts or else I'll delete them.

In addition, you should be advised that the forum rules do not allow spreading ideas contrary to Objectivism, and libertarianism IS contrary to Objectivism.

[nimble]

nimble, please use proper capitalization in your posts or else I'll delete them.

In addition, you should be advised that the forum rules do not allow spreading ideas contrary to Objectivism, and libertarianism IS contrary to Objectivism.

First, I would like to say that I am very upset by your reaction. I don't see how proper capitalization is necessary, even you didn't capitalize the beginning of your sentence, yet I somehow managed to derive some meaning from the statement.

Second, I am not libertarian, anarchist or any party affiliation. I simply enjoy a discussion where people's views are challenged. I see no problem with "speading" ideas, if the person doing so is respectful. If the ideas are incorrect, then show the flaws in the argument. If the person is correct then it is your moral and epistemic duty to change your views to conform to that which is true.

However, it is your forum and you can do as you wish. I just find it sad that you would boot an arguer based on his argument without addressing it first. (also, i was arguing devil's advocate)

[erik]

nimble, you do not capitalize your name so that is why his sentence did not start with a capital letter. The timing was a bit odd however. Not my forum though. As to Anarchism as a philosophy I agree it would be bad for the reasons already suggested. It may work for those with the biggest guns but I for one would not like to live there. Eventually thuggism would become the norm and no-one would produce anymore because it would be pointless. Armed marauders would roam the countryside raping and pillaging. It would be like the Middle Ages with bigger better ways to kill people. If that is appealing I think there is something very wrong with you.

[nimble]

nimble, you do not capitalize your name so that is why his sentence did not start with a capital letter. The timing was a bit odd however. Not my forum though. As to Anarchism as a philosophy I agree it would be bad for the reasons already suggested. It may work for those with the biggest guns but I for one would not like to live there. Eventually thuggism would become the norm and no-one would produce anymore because it would be pointless. Armed marauders would roam the countryside raping and pillaging. It would be like the Middle Ages with bigger better ways to kill people. If that is appealing I think there is something very wrong with you.

Well the beginning of a sentence ALWAYS starts with a capital letter, but that is trivial and off topic, and that's why I was curious why he brought it up. Also, I DO NOT SUPPORT ANARCHISM.

[dark_stranger]

Independent companies make and enforce laws and trade and contracts.

And when honest disputes happen and the two sides cannot agree on the outcome, what then?

private protection agencies would be your protection...its in everyone's best interest to be rational. Those who arent will be "weeded" out of society quite quickly by the protection agencies.

Ah, so the protection agencies will *kill* all the people who do not follow their rules. Sounds like a centralized authority brewing... if they can beat down the other protection agencies that is.

okay, but it does take money to sustain a large gain of looters, how will they get their weapons, and how will they last against a trained army (private protection) if they dont have funding. And is it worth fighting for your life just to steal a bit here and there?

Yes it does take a large amount of money to sustain a large group of looters. When the producers have been wiped out, such a group implodes, paving the way for individual rights, freedom and productive individuals to come back into the picture.

Ill ignore that ad hominem, and im not a pragmatist.

If practicality is your standard of good and evil, then you are indeed a pragmatist.

its impractical because it will never be like that. We'll be lucky if we ever elect someone other than democrats and republicans. Its a huge stretch to demand some change in govt style.

While it is true that the impossible is not practical (or impractical for that matter), the impractical is not always impossible. Rather, the impractical is destructive.

I think I am done with this thread. If you are just trying to incite people to argue for the sake of it, I'm not interested in carrying on. If you really believe what you are saying, then I release you into Capitalism Forever's tender care.

d_s

[nimble]

I think I am done with this thread.  If you are just trying to incite people to argue for the sake of it, I'm not interested in carrying on.  If you really believe what you are saying, then I release you into Capitalism Forever's tender care.

d_s

I won't argue this or with you any longer, but just as a curious person, why does believing what I say have anything to do with the argument itself?

[Capitalism Forever]

Well the beginning of a sentence ALWAYS starts with a capital letter

I ALWAYS write screen names literally.

I don't see how proper capitalization is necessary

It isn't necessary, but it is required.

More precisely, you are required to pay some basic attention to your spelling and grammar...

Spell-check and review your posts before submitting them. Posts with excessively bad spelling or grammar will be deleted at the moderator’s discretion.

...which in my view includes following at least the most basic rules of capitalization.

Second, I am not libertarian, anarchist or any party affiliation.

Great, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to abstain from making libertarian-inspired arguments.

If the ideas are incorrect, then show the flaws in the argument.

It has been done so on this thread as well as on several other threads of this board.

However, it is your forum and you can do as you wish.

For the record, the forum's owner is GreedyCapitalist.

[dark_stranger]

I won't argue this or with you any longer, but just as a curious person, why does believing what I say have anything to do with the argument itself?

Your beliefs would not change the argument against anarchy. What they would change is my participation in it, owing to the difference in your motive for starting the thread. If you are an honest student of Objectivism who says, "Gee, I'm working on this idea here and I would like some help understanding why Objectivism says x," then I am happy to help you if I can. If you are a libertarian/anarchist who is just looking to stir up trouble, then you are violating the forum rules and the moderators will deal with you as they see fit.

d_s