Capitalism and the Proper Role of Government

[2046]

Wow! You gave a very long diatribe against those of us on the capitalist side and insulted us in your pseudo-generalization of the Objectivist position, and didn't respond to the questions posed to you all in one breath...how do you do that?

I did not give a long diatribe against anone, and my responses constitute the body of the post. What are you talking about?

[2046]

By the way, the efficiency of markets isn't even the crux of the problem here at all. Even if government force was more efficient -- i.e slavery was effective -- we would still be against it on ethical grounds. What "market force" would prevent George from ordering a hit on Sally, when he is convinced she did him a grave injustice warranting her death? You haven't explained how there would be laws -- enforceable by whom? -- that would cover a certain geographical area, without itself being a monopoly on the use of force -- i.e. a government.

See my response.

[2046]

Epistemological Anarchy

What in the world does that have to do with anything I argue? You probably didn't even read it.

[2046]

Wrong. Don't fall into his trap like he wants. The Capitalist side has already been defended and proven in the sources you listed and many many more. Just point to those.

Uhh, no, actually "just pointing to those" won't work, especially if those don't address anything I'm saying. Rand never addressed the point's I'm arguing, especially since they are a response to some of her arguments. Bernstein's The Capitalism Manifesto continues the tradition of treating a wide range of libertarian scholarship as persona non grata and doesn't even mention the issue. On pages 35-36 and on pages 203-204 he just simply quotes Rand saying that we need an agency to protect rights, ergo a government. (To that, we can simply say non sequitur.) So much for academic discussion.

[CapitalistFred]

The government granting unto itself a monopoly on the use of force has led to the politians being in a position to forcibly take our constutional rights.

Competition normally leads to improvements in goods and services, why shouldn't competition between various justice enforcement and defense agencies lead to improved safety and enforcement?

I cannot think of any reason that the politicians should have the sole monopoly on force.

It seems to me that government monopoly on the use of force has a dismal record. How many nations have managed to keep freedom once they have achieved it? In nation after nation we see the government using it's monopoly on the use of force to subjugate the citizenry and to violate the rghts of the people.

Maybe it's time to try another way.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Actually, referring to an earlier off-hand comment, it is unfortunately a common mistake to say that the people are the government and the government is the people. Not so now, and not so under capitalism. Those in the government have the specific job of using force to secure individual rights against those who would violate them, and this authority would not be granted to the citizen. In cases if emergency, the citizen can defend himself with force, and maybe even make a citizen's arrest of a perpetrator caught in the act, but he couldn't form, say a posse, and go hunt down the criminals without specific authorization from the government.

Time to try another way? Come up with that better way and we will give it a listen, but anarcho-capitalism and private security forces acting under their own self-created laws is not that better way, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

[2046]

Actually, referring to an earlier off-hand comment, it is unfortunately a common mistake to say that the people are the government and the government is the people. Not so now, and not so under capitalism.

Of course the government is made up of people and is not something "outside" of actual people. The typical leftist phrase which you equivocate "the government is us" means that "the government is all of us" which is completely different (designed to make it look like whatever the government does is voluntary.) But I take it here, you either agree with me and Peikoff that "Government is a social creation, and society consists of individuals" (p. 363.), or else you think government is comprised of something other than people and exists somewhere "outside of" society.

Nobody in this thread suggested that people go form their own posse and operate outside the law, so that is another straw man.

Edited December 24, 2011 by 2046

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

But I take it here, you either agree with me and Peikoff that "Government is a social creation, and society consists of individuals" (p. 363.), or else you think government is comprised of something other than people and exists somewhere "outside of" society.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here. No, government officials are not people, they are Martians, and that is why they have the power to write laws and enforce them at the point of a gun.

But to be more serious, this is certainly something that you have not grasped in this whole thread -- that there is a difference between trading value for value (ordinary society) versus trading blow for blow with counter-force (the government). And because of this difference, negotiations about writing laws and enforcing them is not operable under "market forces." The only market applicable to the government is the free exchange of ideas regarding what ought to be left free from force and what ought to be countered with counter-force.

[2046]

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here. No, government officials are not people, they are Martians, and that is why they have the power to write laws and enforce them at the point of a gun.

But to be more serious, this is certainly something that you have not grasped in this whole thread -- that there is a difference between trading value for value (ordinary society) versus trading blow for blow with counter-force (the government). And because of this difference, negotiations about writing laws and enforcing them is not operable under "market forces." The only market applicable to the government is the free exchange of ideas regarding what ought to be left free from force and what ought to be countered with counter-force.

I already answered that earlier in the thread.

[EC]

I don't have much interest in "scholarly discussions" just in adhering to reality as it has been previously proven to myself to be. But I believe this HBL post answers most or all of the issues raised in this thread.

http://www.hblist.com/anarchy.htm

[2046]

I don't have much interest in "scholarly discussions" just in adhering to reality as it has been previously proven to myself to be. But I believe this HBL post answers most or all of the issues raised in this thread.

http://www.hblist.com/anarchy.htm

That HBL post is what a lot of the issues raised in this thread are in response to, so it shows us nothing about the counter-arguments raised against these points.

Ayn Rand did a great job of linking political liberty to ethical egoism and creating the basis of laissez-faire politics in her articles on government and the individual, but she never attempted rigorous proofs, or addressed every angle of the subject, or put the last word in the debate. The approach taken here that all proofs necessary for adherence to reality on this topic exist "in the corpus" and that you just need to "point to them" if any questions are raised is mistaken (and also creepy and bad.) This does nothing for helping us "adhere to reality" if your response to any questions about the very proofs (or most of the time just comments) therein is only "point to them" and repeat "it's in the corpus." Rome has spoken, the case is closed. If you truly are interested in adherence to reality, as you state, and you are interested in discussion, as evidenced by your posting in a thread, then you should offer a rejoinder.

Edited January 5, 2012 by 2046

[Grames]

We have offered rejoinders. For whatever reason, you cannot even perceive them. An inability to comprehend is not a counter-argument.

[2046]

We have offered rejoinders. For whatever reason, you cannot even perceive them. An inability to comprehend is not a counter-argument.

And yet, when asked to point out these un-perceived counter-arguments, you haven't done so. On the other hand, I addressed all your responses.

[EC]

Look 2046, I'm being civil here, and I don't know if I personally have the ability to counter all your arguments in writing, and I think or at least believe you are just kind of playing devils advocate, which is fine. But a major objection that I had that you just glossed over by saying that a person or group of people in such an anarchist society with beliefs radically different then capitalism and the means to enforce their beliefs could just be "ignored" is wrong.

By what authority (for lack of a better word right now) besides a proper government could one group be ignored by another? In other words, without stealing concepts like law and rights, etc which only apply to government, how does one system take precedence over another? And how would it ultimately be enforced and why, if the two or more opposing groups had roughly equal means but one group recognizes individual rights (somehow?) and the others don't? This is a major issue. Its just hard to word this stuff correctly, and that's why it's better to let the professionals do it and then judge whether they are correct or incorrect. There is absolutely nothing "creepy" or "bad" about that. There is just little point in rewriting the same stuff in different and less eloquent terms, imo. All that does is allows people to make claims about what you are saying that is completely false.

[EC]

The telling difference between a proper government and a private defense agency is that a proper government is placed under objective control. Thus non-pacifist anarchists object not to retaliatory force but to placing retaliatory force under objective control. Their objection is to objectivity.

The above quote from the referenced HBL post is essentially the point I was trying to makes above (and many times earlier), and the word "authority" I used should be replaced with "objective control". It also proves my point on trying to restate things in ones own words being too inaccurate if you are not a professional.

Edited January 7, 2012 by EC

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

While it is a good skill to develop the ability to use Objectivist based arguments without having to quote Rand et al all the time, there is something creepy about those who refuse to consider the answers just because the person they are discussing it with has not integrated the issue well enough to put it into his own words. Besides, my original post did not contain any quotations, and most of the answers given in this thread to counter anarcho-capitalism has not consisted of quotes from Rand or Binswanger. Yes, we have pointed you to those essays, because they do contain the answer, especially looking up "anarchy" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon. When one can point to historical evidence for the proper operation of a government and show that such a government made capitalism possible, such as the early history of the United States (sans slavery), but you continue to complain about it not being very efficient in protecting individual rights and come up with a scheme that will quite demonstrably lead to chaos in the streets, then I don't think your motive is to defend individual rights, but rather to have the "freedom" to wield force when you so decide or have others do it for you at your bequest and payment. And NO we will not let you have that type of "freedom."

[2046]

Look 2046, I'm being civil here, and I don't know if I personally have the ability to counter all your arguments in writing, and I think or at least believe you are just kind of playing devils advocate, which is fine. But a major objection that I had that you just glossed over by saying that a person or group of people in such an anarchist society with beliefs radically different then capitalism and the means to enforce their beliefs could just be "ignored" is wrong.

By what authority (for lack of a better word right now) besides a proper government could one group be ignored by another? In other words, without stealing concepts like law and rights, etc which only apply to government, how does one system take precedence over another? And how would it ultimately be enforced and why, if the two or more opposing groups had roughly equal means but one group recognizes individual rights (somehow?) and the others don't? This is a major issue. Its just hard to word this stuff correctly, and that's why it's better to let the professionals do it and then judge whether they are correct or incorrect. There is absolutely nothing "creepy" or "bad" about that. There is just little point in rewriting the same stuff in different and less eloquent terms, imo. All that does is allows people to make claims about what you are saying that is completely false.

And that's perfectly okay, but why not just admit that, hey, I don't know how to answer these counter-arguments. That's the whole point of engaging in this kind of reasoned debate. The answers to every problem are not "in the corpus" just waiting to be "pointed to." So we need to admit that just linking to the same HBL posts, rehashing the same talking points, and then ignoring all counter-arguments made that exist readily available to these points is not a winning strategy, and is not the process of adhering to reality.

You make it seem like I want to say something along the lines of "It's okay, lawbreakers can just be ignored," but this of course is not my argument. Now, the question you ask is not even precisely understood. You ask what happens if you write a constitution that differs radically from everyone else's understanding of the law. My answer, originally in #105, is along the lines that it would be no different than if, right now, I took out a piece of paper and wrote my own laws on it: no one would care or pay attention, and if I tried to act on them and broke the law, I would be prosecuted. If you have some different meaning for the question in mind, maybe you can clarify. So far, the question's premises about what the law is and what "makes" people follow it are left unexplored by you, but answered by me in a number of posts which have gone unchallenged.

But my understanding of your question, if we can boil it down to the meat of it, is basically along the lines of this: What if someone says, hey I don't want to follow your laws, I got my own laws! You have no authority over me, suckers! And then goes out and rapes, steals, murders, hits people over the head, or whatever you want to imagine. Without a coercive monopoly organization, there will be no authority to do anything. We will just have to throw our hands up and go "Aww darn it, we got no authority cause he doesn't agree to our laws!" This is an argument already presented in the thread, and the same kind of argument Binswanger employs in his example of some armed hoodlums marching down Main Street with machine guns. It's an argument that is based on a Platonic view of the law, and to which I have responded in this thread already. Bringing it up again for like the third time doesn't do anything to advance it.

#132

http://forum.objecti...55

#141

http://forum.objecti...71

#148

http://forum.objecti...80

#192

http://forum.objecti...88

Now there it all is for you to think about. Last time your response was that it was all "a trap," was all just "fancy language," and that all we have to do is "point to the corpus" where the "real, official, and previously proven arguments" are located, by the only person "qualified to label it as the official Objectivist position, Miss Rand." Let's not make any arguments, let's just let the "professionals" do it, defer to them. That won't do for a response. Part of "doing philosophy" is subjecting positions to critical examination. If you don't know how to respond, or feel like you don't possess the knowledge or vocabulary to do so, then that is perfectly okay. But then at least just say, hey, I don't know how to answer this objection, or don't understand some point, rather than causing embarrassment to come to Objectivists who are doing their best to engage. Such is necessary if we want to take over or exert any influence in academic philosophy, we can't get by with the "just point to the corpus" strategy.

[2046]

but you continue to complain about it not being very efficient in protecting individual rights and come up with a scheme that will quite demonstrably lead to chaos in the streets, then I don't think your motive is to defend individual rights, but rather to have the "freedom" to wield force when you so decide or have others do it for you at your bequest and payment. And NO we will not let you have that type of "freedom."

Your psychologizing of the opponent's motives is just ad hominem. This is also argument from repetition, as your contention of gang warfare and the argument that the person presenting the opposing point of view just wants chaos and whim-worship, and must be some kind of nihilist, this post is the response which has gone unchallenged.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

One thing you fail to realize 2046 is that "the market" does not control things like polluting other people's property or poisoning someone or offering goods and services that are physically detrimental to their clients -- it is the LAW, government law, that would be the source for protecting the rights of individuals. Capitalism does not mean that the market will take care of everything; but what it does say is that those who violate other people's individual rights with force will be punished with force. So, that factory spewing out poisons into someone's private lake can be dealt with via the law enforced by the government -- it's not just a market factor at work. Market factors are definitely involved when it comes to issues like quality and price of goods that are safe -- the greatest value for the dollar will win out in the long run. But if a butcher leaves out some meat overnight and it goes rotten and he sells it to a consumer, then he can be held legally liable for whatever illness or death that results from his negligence. So I think you not only don't understand the proper role of government, you do not understand what individual rights means in practice, because in practice, yes the government ought to be involved in the deterance of and the practice of violtating individual rights.

Besides, since government has been shown to be effective at controlling force and establishing individual rights ( even when it wasn't made philosophically explict), then the onus of proof is on you who have a different idea as to how to impliment individual rights protection without a proper government. I and others have clearly shown that there would not be any overriding law of the land under anarcho-capitalism, but you insist it would be there. How is there supposed to be overriding law and properly defined jurisdiction if there is no government monopoly in a given geographical area?That's is what you have to explain in some detail. The details of "overlapping jurisdictions" when it comes to government has been worked out (State, Local, and Federal, for example), and it works; so how would your plan work, and you can't just say the market would take care of it, because that is not even a sufficient answer to those who question capitalism.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

So I think you not only don't understand the proper role of government, you do not understand what individual rights means in practice, because in practice, yes the government ought to be involved in the deterance of and the practice of *violating* individual rights. [Don't have any idea what violtating means!]

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Here is another essay against anarcho-capitalism which goes into the difference between the Objectivist approach and the Libertarian approach (who came up with anarcho-capitalism). Libertarians vs. Objectivists: Why Objective Law is Necessary by Amber Pawlik, one of my FaceBook friends.

[2046]

One thing you fail to realize 2046 is that "the market" does not control things like polluting other people's property or poisoning someone or offering goods and services that are physically detrimental to their clients -- it is the LAW,

This is quite a confused statement, because I have not argued that the market as opposed to the law "control things like polluting other people's property or poisoning someone or offering goods and services that are physically detrimental to their clients." I have argued that the market can produce the law that would have to obtain in a free market society.

So I think you not only don't understand the proper role of government, you do not understand what individual rights means in practice, because in practice, yes the government ought to be involved in the deterance of and the practice of violtating individual rights

I haven't argued anything you're saying there.

I and others have clearly shown that there would not be any overriding law of the land under anarcho-capitalism

You haven't shown that. You need to actually demonstrate that instead of just asserting it.

How is there supposed to be overriding law and properly defined jurisdiction if there is no government monopoly in a given geographical area?That's is what you have to explain in some detail.

I have replied to that point already in detail in numerous posts.

[2046]

So I think you not only don't understand the proper role of government, you do not understand what individual rights means in practice, because in practice, yes the government ought to be involved in the deterance of and the practice of *violating* individual rights. [Don't have any idea what violtating means!]

I haven't argued any of that.

[2046]

Here is another essay against anarcho-capitalism which goes into the difference between the Objectivist approach and the Libertarian approach (who came up with anarcho-capitalism). Libertarians vs. Objectivists: Why Objective Law is Necessary by Amber Pawlik, one of my FaceBook friends.

This is a straw man. This post answers this charge.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

This is a straw man. This post answers this charge.

No, it doesn't. History has shown that a proper government can secure individual rights, while anarchy cannot. And there is no such thing as "a market" if one does not yet have a global agency for a geographical area that prevents the non-objective use of force. However, I am not going to engage with you further, because I have concluded that you are being evasive about what I and others (including Ayn Rand and Amber) have said about the logical results of anarcho-capitalism.