Anarchism vs. Government

[JoshJaffe]

What did Ayn Rand mean by government ...? ... Why would it be any different from a private protection agency.

Nimble,

A contract has meaning only in a jurisdiction. Parties to a contract may choose the jurisdiction. They may choose to name a "private protection agency" as the arbitrator. But an arbitrator that does not have the right to force either party to comply with its ruling is impotent, and makes the contract a sham. A third party that can apply force to enforce contracts is a government.

Your first question was about why people would want to have a government at all. I believe I have answered this: I find contracts valuable. I would not choose to sign a contract that is not enforceable (i.e., that desginates the jurisdiction to be under a non-binding, impotent arbitrator). I will sign ones that are enforceable according to a body of law.

-- josh

p.s. that is my argument against minarchism/anarchism from the value of contract law.

The argument against private defense agencies is more direct: you can only delegate your right to use force to an agent of a government. If you can delegate a right to use force to an agent, the agent is acting as a government.

[iouswuoibev]

An individual can only uphold his or her own rights.  Because self-interest is fundamental to human nature no other human of collection of humans can be expected to serve anything other than their own self-interest.  There for governments will always serve their self-interests and the interests of those with the most influence at the expense of the self-interest of all other members of society.

What makes you think that a government (or more precisely, the individuals that are a part of it) cannot serve their own interests without doing it at the expense of others? Why does serving your own interests necessitate trampling on others'? Do you think it is in anyone's interest to profit through fraud or force?

Have you read "The Virtue of Selfishness" ?

[nohope]

“Can you name (1) an example of a government and (2) an example of a sustained anarchy? In each case, pick the example that comes closest to matching the ideal of protecting individual rights.”

This is correct. A prerequisite for Anarchism and for all social interactions is an understanding the ones others who share your individual goals can often best meet self-interests through collective action.

It is this reality, upon which anarcho-syndicalism is predicated.

That is to say the only free society is a society in which individuals cooperate voluntarily. Involuntary cooperation as seems to be supported here through government using force to coerce “social-responsibility” is simply rationalizing tyranny. Every tyrannical regime believed their “laws” served the social good. Whether the social good is defined as “self-interest” or “collective interest” is irrelevant to the individual, or intervals whose self-interests are being abridged.

Objectivism holds the pursuit of self-interest as the foundation of morality, and for good reason. So any abridgment of self-interest is objectively immoral and therefore illegal in any objective moral law regardless of whether the party abridging another humans self interest is the state, a corporation or an individual.

That is precisely why Rand opposed totalitarianism.