What is the rational justification for limited govt over no govt?

[mano22]

Lately I have been having trouble defending one of Ayn Rand's positions.

For the longest time I have taken for granted that the only "service" the federal government should provide is the protection of individual rights. That is, courts, police, and military. This is Rand's stance, and it always seemed so obvious to me that I never even thought to question it. But in arguing with leftists (I dread using the world liberal as the mainstream media does, since most "liberals" are anything but) against universal health care, it was pointed out to me that it is arbitrary for the govt to provide these 3 services (courts, police, military) and not more or less. And after thinking about it a little bit, I cannot figure out a reason why this is not true.

In any of Rand's works does she talk about why exactly it is proper for the govt to provide these 3 services and not less? I know that I would never want the govt to do more than this, but is it possible that in an ideal society there would be no government at all? I feel like Rand must have thought this through and written about it somewhere, but I cannot find anything on it. There must be a specific rational justification for it, even though it seems so obvious.

I also have read some works by Murray Rothbard of the Austrian school of economics (whose opinion I greatly respect), and he advocates going a step further than Rand to anarchy. This is only adding to my confusion.

Anarchy does not seem like a good social system to me at all. I assume that I am simply missing a piece of Rand's argument, and that once I find it everything will click. If anyone can shed some light on this it would be greatly appreciated.

[fountainhead777]

in anarchy the only means of justice is vigilantism and retaliation. ie you kill one person another kills you, your family kills him and it never ends. a third party impartial justice system is required to protect individual rights and administer justice. Additionally anarchy offers no unified security system against a large army from another nation.

So basically no government is no security in the end. the only job of government is security without violating rights

[softwareNerd]

In her published essays, Rand does not go very deeply into an argument against anarchy or against the "competing governments" or "private governments" advocated by some libertarians. She does spend a paragraph of so on the topic, in her essay "The Nature of Government". Check that out for starters.

There have been quite a few discussions of this on the forum. Search should bring up some of them.

[freestyle]

It is not arbitrary at all.

"The only proper function of the government of a free country is to act as an agency which protects the individual's rights, i.e., which protects the individual from physical violence. Such a government does not have the right to initiate the use of physical force against anyone—a right which the individual does not possess and, therefore, cannot delegate to any agency. But the individual does possess the right of self-defense and that is the right which he delegates to the government, for the purpose of an orderly, legally defined enforcement A proper government has the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect men from criminals; the military forces, to protect men from foreign invaders; and the law courts,to protect men's property and contracts from breach by force or fraud, and to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws.

These, implicitly, were the political principles on which the Constitution of the United States was based; implicitly, but not explicitly. There were contradictions in the Constitution, which allowed the statists to gain an entering wedge, to enlarge the breach, and, gradually, to wreck the structure."

(source - listen here at about 7 min mark)

You should have no problem arguing why "less" than this would amount to anarchy. Understanding why there need not be more rests on identifying why the government is necessary at all. If you support the principle that a government of free people should protect those individual's rights and nothing more, then anything more or anything less would be arbitrary.

The issue I always find a bit tricky is how these things are to be paid for without mandatory taxes. Rand has argued that those with wealth would stand to lose much w/o these protections so voluntary contributions would be in their best interest. She also argued that it would lessen the chance of interventionist wars since the focus of a military would be more clearly placed on the defense of the nation and its resources. I wonder about this, but I do tend to think that people would organize institutions based around the support of police, courts and defense and would raise money to contribute it to the government for those purposes.

Edited October 31, 2009 by freestyle

[2046]

It's not arbitrary, it's a line drawn at matters of force. There is no right to "compete" in matters of force. There is no right to use force according to your whim. Force is not for sale. Any agency or group that does not use force according to an objective system of law put in place by government is nothing more than a lynch mob, or a gang.

[Eiuol]

in anarchy the only means of justice is vigilantism and retaliation. ie you kill one person another kills you, your family kills him and it never ends. a third party impartial justice system is required to protect individual rights and administer justice. Additionally anarchy offers no unified security system against a large army from another nation.

So basically no government is no security in the end. the only job of government is security without violating rights

This is not a good response really, since vigilantism and retaliation is not the only means of justice. That is only true if there is no private court system and no private police system (a government by definition has to have those systems, but anarchy may or may not have them). That would be unlikely, since people would want to pay for such systems. They wouldn't have a monopoly on force though, making them not governments. If you are arrested by a police system that you weren't a part of, it would either be a violation of rights or a kind of declaration of war. It probably wouldn't be war though, since the problem would probably be dealt with rationally, since no rational person would *want* war (just as you would hope that a proper government wouldn't one day simply expand its power like the US government has since its founding). A similar situation can still happen with a government, such as a case of kidnapping by a foreign government.

Really the discussion should rest on the exact meaning of monopoly on force and what it means to enforce that. The line between a government that doesn't violate rights and a rights protection agency (it would simply make sense to bundle a police and court system together) that doesn't violate rights is pretty blurry to me, and I know I don't know where exactly draw the line because I do not know exactly what a monopoly on force really means.

[G.L. Coddington Old]

"The only proper function of the government of a free country is to act as an agency which protects the individual's rights, i.e., which protects the individual from physical violence. Such a government does not have the right to initiate the use of physical force against anyone—a right which the individual does not possess and, therefore, cannot delegate to any agency. But the individual does possess the right of self-defense and that is the right which he delegates to the government, for the purpose of an orderly, legally defined enforcement A proper government has the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect men from criminals; the military forces, to protect men from foreign invaders; and the law courts,to protect men's property and contracts from breach by force or fraud, and to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws.

These, implicitly, were the political principles on which the Constitution of the United States was based; implicitly, but not explicitly. There were contradictions in the Constitution, which allowed the statists to gain an entering wedge, to enlarge the breach, and, gradually, to wreck the structure."

This is a weak argument.

Rand says that "the individual does possess the right of self-defense and that is the right which he delegates to the government, for the purpose of an orderly, legally defined enforcement".

But this presupposes that the individual is willing to delegate that right to the government. What if a person does not wish to delegate that right to anyone, and does not believe that he or she needs the collective protection of a state? What, then, gives the collective the right to initiate force against that individual—compelling him through coercion or threats of violence—to pay tribute to the state? Rand's political philosophy, based upon her starting principles, simply has no answer for this question that I can see. She wishes to seem as if she is building upon a system of absolute principles, when in fact those principles are prima facie in her own application. Rand's actual argument appears to be that "government does not have the right to initiate the use of physical force against anyone", unless it is for levying funds for a defense state. But of course, this severely weakens the moral force of her argument, and introduces "contradictions" which allow "the statists to gain an entering wedge, to enlarge the breach, and, gradually, to wreck the structure."

Edited October 31, 2009 by J_Anderson

[2046]

This is a weak argument.

Rand says that "the individual does possess the right of self-defense and that is the right which he delegates to the government, for the purpose of an orderly, legally defined enforcement".

But this presupposes that the individual is willing to delegate that right to the government. What if a person does not wish to delegate that right to anyone, and does not believe that he or she needs the collective protection of a state?

Quoting from "The Nature of Government" (The Virtue of Selfishness Ayn Rand)

"The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government-of a proper government-its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control-i.e., under objectively defined laws."

What this means, in reference to your question "What if a person does not wish to delegate that right to anyone" is that the individual dos not have a right to use force however he pleases, so if he believes he can, then he is a threat.

From "Anarchism vs Objectivism" (Harry Binswanger)

"A proper government is restricted to the protection of individual rights against violation by force or the threat of force. A proper government functions according to objective, philosophically validated procedures, as embodied in its entire legal framework, from its constitution down to its narrowest rules and ordinances. Once such a government, or anything approaching it, has been established, there is no such thing as a "right" to "compete" with the government—i.e., to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Nor does one gain such a "right" by joining with others to go into the "business" of wielding force.

To carry out its function of protecting individual rights, the government must forcibly bar others from using force in ways that threaten the citizens' rights. Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision.

The government has to regard such private force as a threat—i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat."

What, then, gives the collective the right to initiate force against that individual—compelling him through coercion or threats of violence—to pay tribute to the state?

There are no collective rights and a government that does not initiate force against any individuals does not compel him to pay any sort of tribute to the state.

Rand's political philosophy, based upon her starting principles, simply has no answer for this question that I can see. She wishes to seem as if she is building upon a system of absolute principles, when in fact those principles are prima facie in her own application. Rand's actual argument appears to be that "government does not have the right to initiate the use of physical force against anyone", unless it is for levying funds for a defense state.

Please cite where Rand's actual argument states that government has a right to initiate force in order to levy funds for government.

[freestyle]

I think you are making unwarranted assumptions.

This is a weak argument.

Rand says that "the individual does possess the right of self-defense and that is the right which he delegates to the government, for the purpose of an orderly, legally defined enforcement".

But this presupposes that the individual is willing to delegate that right to the government. What if a person does not wish to delegate that right to anyone, and does not believe that he or she needs the collective protection of a state?

In a free society you are allowed to act in self defense. In a free society every law would make that clear. If you wish to live in a society where each person can "CLAIM" self defense and use force at their whim, then what you are wishing for is anarchy. What Rand is describing is not delegating the actual right of your own self-defense so much as you are allowing for an OBJECTIVE measure to be established for when there is a conflict.

Rand's actual argument appears to be that "government does not have the right to initiate the use of physical force against anyone", unless it is for levying funds for a defense state.

Where did you get that impression? All of what I've read is that her vision of capitalism does not include mandatory taxes. I'd have to scour everything she's ever said/written to be sure, but I'm pretty sure she has stated taxes should be voluntary contributions made by people because they believe it in their best self interest.

Edit: Here ya go - http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html

Edited October 31, 2009 by freestyle

[Eiuol]

But this presupposes that the individual is willing to delegate that right to the government. What if a person does not wish to delegate that right to anyone, and does not believe that he or she needs the collective protection of a state? What, then, gives the collective the right to initiate force against that individual—compelling him through coercion or threats of violence—to pay tribute to the state?

He doesn't have to pay, and if he doesn't, nothing happens to him. Rand was pretty explicit I think in saying that taxation is force and thus immoral. 100% voluntary funding. 0% forced funding.

[G.L. Coddington Old]

I'm afraid that Rand has still reduced her principle to prima facie. Observe:

Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future.

and

The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.

In other words, we should tolerate initiation of force for government financing so long as voluntary taxation is not "practicable". Maybe in some "distant future" we can accomplish such goals. Presumably, if voluntary taxation turns out never to be "practicable" (even under conditions of the minimal state), then her principle is falsified. I don't think this is what Rand wants. It's either always wrong for the government to initiate force for taxation, or it's only prima facie wrong. Since Rand is willing to wait for "a distant future" to enact voluntary taxation, this suggests to me that there is some other implicit value which she holds above the principle that "a government does not have the right to initiate the use of physical force against anyone". What might this implicit value be? As I said above, I believe that it is national security. I think what Rand is saying with her "practicable" qualification is that the state has the right to force taxation if it is necessary to prevent an even greater violation of rights (e.g., foreign invasion, anarchic disorder, etc.). Unfortunately, once we start admitting of such exceptions, the rule becomes watered down to the point where it is no longer clear why the defense state, and not the welfare state, is justified. The leftist can then argue that violation of property rights is necessary to prevent an even greater evil, and so forth. If we're serious about individual rights, then it's for the individual—and no one else—to decide what is done with his property. If this rule becomes prima facie, then the moral arguments carry considerably less force, and seem much less convincing. Of course, one could argue for the minimalist state on strictly pragmatic grounds. But this would probably require acknowledging that a justification for the minimal state based upon general moral principles is problematic. Moralization is extremely popular with libertarians (and even more so with Objectivists), so this would be a bitter pill to swallow, and would require more intellectual honesty than most persons are capable of.

A few responses to the above comments will follow:

What this means, in reference to your question "What if a person does not wish to delegate that right to anyone" is that the individual dos not have a right to use force however he pleases, so if he believes he can, then he is a threat.

The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.

I'm afraid I don't see how this answers my question. It seems to just back up my point that Rand's non-initiation of force principle was prima facie, and not absolute (despite that it can appear so from the way she presents her principles). The only thing I take from the above arguments is that the government has no right to initiate force, unless it is doing so to create an "objective" legal system. But then it's just not clear why the government cannot initiate force for other reasons also. Say, an "objective" welfare state. Just for the sake of argument, would the welfare state be justified if lack of one resulted in "mob rule," "lynch law," and "an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas"? If not, why?

Edited October 31, 2009 by J_Anderson

[freestyle]

In other words, we should tolerate initiation of force for government financing so long as voluntary taxation is not "practicable". Maybe in some "distant future" we can accomplish such goals.

The question of how to get there and how long it might take was asked in the Q&A liked here: listen to the first question and her response

Try not paying your taxes starting today and see how that works out. Are you saying you agree on the principle (voluntary taxation) you just disagree that there is a reality in the way of getting there instantly?

[Eiuol]

In other words, we should tolerate initiation of force for government financing so long as voluntary taxation is not "practicable". Maybe in some "distant future" we can accomplish such goals. Presumably, if voluntary taxation turns out never to be "practicable" (even under conditions of the minimal state), then her principle is falsified.

To me, that isn't a philosophical point (like what IS a proper government) as much as it is an opinion of what is the best way to achieve a proper government.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Eiuol

[2046]

* Rand's actual argument appears to be that "government does not have the right to initiate the use of physical force against anyone", unless it is for levying funds for a defense state.

* Please cite where Rand's actual argument states that government has a right to initiate force in order to levy funds for government.

So (after someone gave you a link, where you found the quotes, after you had already made the comments) you come up with:

"Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future."

and

"The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions."

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where -quote- 'Rand's actual argument appears to be that "government does not have the right to initiate the use of physical force against anyone", unless it is for levying funds for a defense state.' Please try again.

Now, if you want to argue "how best to impliment voluntary government financing" that's a different topic and we can have that argument, (there is already a thread on that) but that is only possible after you accept the fact that Objectivism holds that all taxation is immoral and in no way rationalizes or justifies theft. You seem to disagree that Ayn Rand supported voluntary government financing? If so, you are saying that Ayn Rand said something that she obviously didn't. So why do you keep making statements like "I think what Rand is saying with her "practicable" qualification is that the state has the right to force taxation if... blah blah blah..." when she hasn't said that and that is obviously not true?

Nonetheless, Ayn Rand's actual argument is that voluntary financing of government would fail to work under a welfare state, mixed economy, or the present system etc., which is one of the reasons why government uses force to take money in the first place. Now certainly, you would agree, as an aside, that a government on the path towards total laissez-faire, which protects its citizens rights except it initiates force only to collect money in order to protect rights, while immoral to the extent that it taxes, is still better than the present system, no? Certainly, you would agree, that we can advocate for the abolishion of all taxation on principle and that we can start right now by abolishing the federal income tax, and that that would be an improvement, no? Do you really think it is a reasonable possibility, given the dominant philosophy of the times, that the abolition of all taxation is acutely possible overnight? Does the recognition of these facts somehow amount to "an argument that government has a right to initiate force in order to levy funds for government" in your mind?

I'm afraid I don't see how this answers my question. It seems to just back up my point that Rand's non-initiation of force principle was prima facie, and not absolute (despite that it can appear so from the way she presents her principles). The only thing I take from the above arguments is that the government has no right to initiate force, unless it is doing so to create an "objective" legal system.

How does it initiate anything on you? To the anarchist that says "I don't want to delegate my right to anyone and I don't believe that I need my rights protected by government" that is to say go right ahead and not delegate his right if that's what he wants, but if he choses to act on those whims and attempts to initiate force, as a vigilante or a lynch mob, then he will be dealt with by the government to which we have delegated our right according to objective law. He can believe whatever he wants. As long as he doesn't do anything to me, he will be left alone as indicated. How does that not answer your question?

[G.L. Coddington Old]

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where -quote- 'Rand's actual argument appears to be that "government does not have the right to initiate the use of physical force against anyone", unless it is for levying funds for a defense state.' Please try again.

You seem to disagree that Ayn Rand supported voluntary government financing?

I'm arguing that the Objectivist position (e.g., Rand and Binswanger) on voluntary taxation is dubious, and perhaps disingenuous, as I will explain again.

Nonetheless, Ayn Rand's actual argument is that voluntary financing of government would fail to work under a welfare state, mixed economy, or the present system etc., which is one of the reasons why government uses force to take money in the first place.

I agree that this seems to be Rand's argument. Which is why I say that her argument contains an implicit value which she holds above individual rights. That argument can be found in my other posts, and I find no reason to modify it based upon the posts which followed. I take it that Rand believed that a voluntary tax system under current circumstances would lead to chaos or social collapse. Now, we can argue whether this is true, or whether—if true—it would justify compulsory taxation, but what seems inarguable is that this contains an implicit value; Rand values national security above individual rights. Whether or not this is a justified position is another matter, what is important is to recognize that this reduces individual rights to a prima facie value of secondary importance. I argue that this undermines the moral force of her position.

How does it initiate anything on you? To the anarchist that says "I don't want to delegate my right to anyone and I don't believe that I need my rights protected by government" that is to say go right ahead and not delegate his right if that's what he wants, but if he choses to act on those whims and attempts to initiate force, as a vigilante or a lynch mob, then he will be dealt with by the government to which we have delegated our right according to objective law. He can believe whatever he wants. As long as he doesn't do anything to me, he will be left alone as indicated. How does that not answer your question?

No, and in fact this seems like an inaccurate interpretation of the sources. For instance:

Rand:

The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.

Binswanger:

Once such a government, or anything approaching it, has been established, there is no such thing as a "right" to "compete" with the government—i.e., to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Nor does one gain such a "right" by joining with others to go into the "business" of wielding force.

To carry out its function of protecting individual rights, the government must forcibly bar others from using force in ways that threaten the citizens' rights. Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision.

The government has to regard such private force as a threat—i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat.

They're not talking about forbidding initiation of force, they're talking about retaliatory force. This is a critical distinction. So lets say that person X wants nothing to do with the state. X doesn't want to pay taxes, and doesn't want the state's protection. If Rand is serious about voluntary taxation, then X should be totally free to do this. However, Rand and Binswanger then seem to suggest that X would have no right to use retaliatory force to defend himself. He's not allowed to "compete with the state" in the use of force. Some option. So it seems the "voluntary" taxation system Objectivists have in mind is one where you either hand over the right of self-defense to the state, or you lose it entirely. This is what I mean by "disingenuous". Rand was an extremely skilled writer, and a master of persuasion. Her writing is analogous to the expert magician; she distracts the audience with high-minded idealism with one hand, and sneaks the state in with the other when nobody is paying attention. By the end of the show, everyone remembers the high-minded rhetoric, and they forget all about the state which comes with it.

[RationalBiker]

Rand values national security above individual rights.

'

I think this is the flaw in your position. I would assert that what Rand valued was some semblance of a rights-respecting society in which she could live over anarchy in which rights would disappear. That was in her rational self-interest if she believed those are the only two real choices. You don't throw away ALL of your rights simply because circumstances beyond your control require that you relinguish one of your rights. The value is not national security, the value is still protecting individual rights to the extent possible given facts of reality.

[Eiuol]

I take it that Rand believed that a voluntary tax system under current circumstances would lead to chaos or social collapse. Now, we can argue whether this is true, or whether—if true—it would justify compulsory taxation,

How so? Even if she thought one option was worse than another, that doesn't mean that force should be used to be sure to have the better option.

So lets say that person X wants nothing to do with the state. X doesn't want to pay taxes, and doesn't want the state's protection.If Rand is serious about voluntary taxation, then X should be totally free to do this.

It's pretty clear that nothing will happen to the individual if they don't pay. If a person doesn't want a state's protection, that would be secession, which I don't think the quote you mentioned really deals with. I interpreted the "not being allowed to compete" if you were part of the government. I don't know of any writing on this topic, but to me, if you seceded, the government would have no jurisdiction whatsoever of your property. The government does not own your property, which is why taxation is immoral. But if you violated someone's rights in that government's jurisdiction, you could be attacked.

[2046]

They're not talking about forbidding initiation of force, they're talking about retaliatory force. This is a critical distinction. So lets say that person X wants nothing to do with the state. X doesn't want to pay taxes, and doesn't want the state's protection. If Rand is serious about voluntary taxation, then X should be totally free to do this.

That X doesn't want to have his rights protected by the Objectivist state doesn't have anything to do with Rand's position taxation. Even people who do want their rights protected by the state can choose to not fund government and are totally free to do this (because there are no taxes.) In your example, as long as X doesn't decide to weild force against citizens, then he will be left alone. If he chooses to weild force, the government will retaliate with force to the extent that he has made possible by his choices.

However, Rand and Binswanger then seem to suggest that X would have no right to use retaliatory force to defend himself.

He does not give up his right of self-defense.

Binswanger ("Anarchism vs Objectivism"):

"Note that a proper government does not prohibit a man from using force to defend himself in an emergency, when recourse to the government is not available; but it does, properly, require him to prove objectively, at a trial, that he was acting in emergency self-defense."

He's not allowed to "compete with the state" in the use of force. Some option.

Of course he's not. To suggest so would be to evade the meanings of "force" and "compete." Force cannot be controlled through competition. There is no right to compete in the realm of weilding force. Anarchists demand the "freedom" to use force arbitrarily and subjectively, simply because it is "private force," and isn't that supposed to be a legitimate aspect of freedom?

Peikoff ("Anarchism is Evil"):

'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).'

This is the reason why private force is outlawed by the proper government: psychological subjectivism. There is no fully free market, until all force has been outlawed. No man, including government, may use force at his whim, just because he thinks that is part of being "free." Individual rights, which ban the initiation of the use of force against others, leave people free to act on their individual, even subjective, value judgments, without directly violating the rights of others.

"Thus, a fundamentally harmonious system of voluntary exchange to mutual benefit (i.e., trade) is possible among individuals. Competition among businesses and for jobs takes place in this context, and law and the system of rights constrains the means that economic competitors can use (or at least, those they can use with impunity: anyone can try to rob and defraud; but succeeding in the face of the law is another matter)." (Long and Machen, "Objectivism against Anarchy")

If you are to form a society of full freedom, then you need an institution tasked to weild force only objectively and is barred from doing anything else.

"There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement. Or, to put it another way, he must accept the separation of force and whim (any whim, including his own.)" (Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government," The Virtue of Selfishness)

But this is precisely what the anarchists are against.

Binswanger ("Anarchism vs Objectivism"):

The real target of the anarchist's attack is objectivity. Objectivity requires one to prove that one is acting within one's rights; they do not want to be held accountable to anyone for anything—not even regarding their use of physical force. They damn governmental retaliation because it is objective; they demand to be "free" to use force on whim.

[Grames]

The only thing I take from the above arguments is that the government has no right to initiate force, unless it is doing so to create an "objective" legal system. But then it's just not clear why the government cannot initiate force for other reasons also. Say, an "objective" welfare state. Just for the sake of argument, would the welfare state be justified if lack of one resulted in "mob rule," "lynch law," and "an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas"? If not, why?

The government never has a right to initiate force, so there is no issue of picking and choosing reasons to initiate force.

That you could even slap together the words "objective" and "welfare state" demonstrates you have no understanding of objectivity. Objectivity is the twin principle of reducing your principles back down to percepts and checking for contradictions with everything else you know.

It is a fact that man needs freedom to live. It is a fact that welfare states are not free. Initiating force on taxpayers on behalf of tax-eaters is the same as robbery by the tax eaters but with an orderly procedure for mass robbery. Robbery contradicts freedom. No amount of mass demonstration and public lawlessness could make a falsehood into a truth, or a contradiction disappear.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Grames

[Hotu Matua]

I think we can have the best of two worlds by maintaining a strong autonomy in the states of a Federation. In a world of intense, full mobility, citizens will choose their government in some way by just moving from state to state.

In the near future more and more people will be working from home, using Internet and sophisticated and cheap videoconference services.

Then, if you don't like the service of Illinois' police or judiciary system, you will be able to move to Wisconsin or Ohio without losing your job.

States that do better in terms of fighting crime would become more atractive for residents and capital. We woudl have a healthy competition among states, or even counties within states.

The ultimate constraint of citizens, regarding their governments, has a name: borders. Cheap and quick transportation, widespread use of English, cheap and reliable videoconference systems, will make citizens incredibly powerful to choose their governments by choosing their place of residence.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Hotu Matua

[nanite1018]

I would actually like to here a direct response to Eioul's question: What precisely does it mean to have a monopoly on the use of retributive force?

For example, if I don't like the government in my area, and almost all of the people around me agree (or all, if you want to get rid of certain issues about forcing people to do what they don't want to, etc.), and we decide we want to create our own government for our city, state, or whatever, what would stop me? What reason could the government have to prevent me? We would, at that point, no longer be members of that government's citizenry, and therefore not its problem. So, what would prevent secessions from happening all the time? And why, exactly, would it not be possible for two governments to operate in the same area, and simply work out a way of cooperating or interacting to resolve disputes between citizens of one or the other? And if all that is possible, then Objectivist "government" and anarcho-capitalist "defense agencies" or "private security agencies" or whatever you want to call them would be the same thing, and the whole argument is moot.

I haven't read everything Rand ever wrote, but I haven't found exactly what it means for a government to have a monopoly on the use of force (and obviously, that force is only retributive).

[Jake_Ellison]

I would actually like to here a direct response to Eioul's question: What precisely does it mean to have a monopoly on the use of retributive force?

For example, if I don't like the government in my area, and almost all of the people around me agree (or all, if you want to get rid of certain issues about forcing people to do what they don't want to, etc.), and we decide we want to create our own government for our city, state, or whatever, what would stop me? What reason could the government have to prevent me?

If I bought a house in your area, and decided I'll take my chance with the old government, they would have an obligation to step in and protect me from your new government and whatever force you declared you intend to use against me (even just retributive force, againsts something my family might do, such as abortion, smoking pot, or even be arrested by you for commiting a serious crime, when I in fact should be arrested by the real government for that.)

In other words, since the government does have a monopoly on retributive force, any laws your new government might pass that involve retributive force, are illegal, because they constitute threats against your fellow citizens. You don't have the right to pass laws as you see fit, and enforce them. That would result in an immediate conflict with the real laws.

[whYNOT]

Nobody put it as succinctly as P.J. O'Rourke -

"Public sanitation is, like personal security, national defence, and rule of law, one of the few valid reasons for politics to exist."

Except for 'personal security' which I take to indicate. 'individual rights', this should be accepted as an Objectivist credo.

(And if you come along and compete in the shit-shovelling business, effectively, you can take over even that one from government.)

[Jake_Ellison]

"Public sanitation is, like personal security, national defence, and rule of law, one of the few valid reasons for politics to exist."

Except for 'personal security' which I take to indicate. 'individual rights', this should be accepted as an Objectivist credo.

Why on Earth would you want to turn Objectivism from a great philosophy into a Libertarian fraction based in silly on liners?

[DavidOdden]

What precisely does it mean to have a monopoly on the use of retributive force?

It means that the entity in question is the only one, in a well-defined domain, that can rightfully use retributive force.

For example, if I don't like the government in my area, and almost all of the people around me agree (or all, if you want to get rid of certain issues about forcing people to do what they don't want to, etc.), and we decide we want to create our own government for our city, state, or whatever, what would stop me?

The government already exists, so if you don't like what's happening, you can change that by electing different people to run the government. If you want to think of that metaphorically as "creating a new government", you can. However, you cannot create a competing, coexisting government. There simply is no legal provision for havging competing city governments.

What reason could the government have to prevent me?

The rational reason, the reason why you should be stopped, is that you are operating outside of the rule of law.

We would, at that point, no longer be members of that government's citizenry, and therefore not its problem.

Being a citizen is not the relevant consideration. Being there at all is. Notice for example that even non-citizens are expected to obey the law against murder. The government's "problem", i.e. proper concern, is everybody in the governments territory.

So, what would prevent secessions from happening all the time?

Secession is something entirely different. That is where an area entirely withdraws from an existing political unit. The monopoly still exists. For example, in Indonesia, people on part of the Island of Timor went through a process (voting) of withdrawing from Indonesia to form a new country. Quebec has also toyed with the idea of leaving Canada. There was a lot of country breaking-up after the downfall of communism. Generally, secession is motivated by irrational considerations (99% of the time, tribalism). Fortunately, irrationality is the exception and not the rule.

And why, exactly, would it not be possible for two governments to operate in the same area, and simply work out a way of cooperating or interacting to resolve disputes between citizens of one or the other?

Because there has to be a definitive higher authority, a principle that dictates which law will be enforced. Thus we have federal and state governments, but the jurisdiction of the federal government is restricted to areas where states have no jurisdiction. (That's, at any rate, the ideal: in fact, the federal government is slowly choking state governments to death, and we are seeing an increase in legal chaos from the fact that federal and state governments do sort of compete. However, the competition is kind of resolved because federal law always wins).

So it is not possible for two different governments to perform the function of government in an area. Men must know what laws they are subject to, and competing government means that a man cannot know what law will be enforced.