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

[Dr. Dave]

I don't believe you can support that crucial claim (in red).

Let me introduce to you BSE (Big Stick Enforcers). This company operates under the premise that 1.) compared to themselves, other protection companies are sub-standard, and 2.) sub standard protection companies operating in overlapping areas with them invite danger and risk to THEIR customers.

The have found that the prosperity of their company and the safety of their clients is enhanced by their maintaing total control over their domain. They reject treaties of these smaller or "inferior" start up protection companies. The submit to no "arbitration" from or recognize any "higher authority". In fact, the will ENFORCE their "safe town" policies (i.e. certain, no-fire arm zones) against other protection company employees (even at the risk of possible conflict, which their strength and dominance has so far deemed necessary only on very few, but notable, occasions). BSE's record of protection is outstanding, and for this protection, their services remain in high demand.

BSE says "no". Our rules. Now, what about Sally?

It strikes me that Sally is in a situation not all that different from the one Ayn Rand and her family was in in 1917.

As far as what to do if Big Stick Enforcers takes over, here is an idea that has worked in the past: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right - it is their duty- to throw off such government, and provide new guards for their future security."

The argument that a teensy-weensy violation of liberty (i.e. forbidding competition in the use of retaliatory force) is OK because it helps reduce the chance of a bigger violation is a utilitarian argument, incompatible with objectivism.

[Grames]

If I attempt to delegate my right of retaliation, do I thereby initiate the use of force?

Yes, conspiracy is a crime.

[freestyle]

It strikes me that Sally is in a situation not all that different from the one Ayn Rand and her family was in in 1917.

As far as what to do if Big Stick Enforcers takes over, here is an idea that has worked in the past: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right - it is their duty- to throw off such government, and provide new guards for their future security."

Sally was living in your sans-government scenario, not mine. :-) It is the specific and proper function of a government that you suggested be handled by competing private security companies (eventual competing gangs).

The Declaration of Independence laid down the principle that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence.

Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from criminals—and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government—as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power.

The result was the pattern of a civilized society which—for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years—America came close to achieving. A civilized society is one in which physical force is banned from human relationships—in which the government, acting as a policeman, may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.

LINK

The argument that a teensy-weensy violation of liberty (i.e. forbidding competition in the use of retaliatory force) is OK because it helps reduce the chance of a bigger violation is a utilitarian argument, incompatible with objectivism.

So you suggest a "retaliate with force" first, "settle disputes peacefully and objectively" second type of society. Great. Sally just got a baseball bat to the back of her head because she looked exactly that long haired transient that stole the shopkeeper's liquor and slipped out the door into the crowded street.

And no, this is definitely compatible with Objectivism.

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.

LINK