Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Anarchy's objective obliteration

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I realized something earlier that I haven't seen anyone else mention, yet.  And it could be the simplest and most singularly damning refutation of anarchism out there, unless I'm mistaken somewhere in it.  (it prompted my own realization that anarchy actually isn't proper to man's life)

So is this accurate?

 

To clarify briefly, I'm talking about a very specific variety of anarchism which is identical to O'ism in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, but obviously not politics.  (like Roy Childs)  I'll call it proto-Objectivism; abbreviated pO'ism.

Someone would reach the conclusion of pO'ism by an irrational surplus of optimism, a touch of epistemological sloppiness and utter ignorance to the meaning and purpose of objectivity, as it applies to politics and a society.  (at least those; there may be more)

For myself it was really, literal ignorance.  When I read about "objective laws" and the "objective use of retaliatory force" I thought it meant objective, as in true-to-reality and rational. It's taken me two days just to wrap my mind around the actual meaning of it.

But I digress.  Ayn Rand's philosophy, (to the best of my knowledge) without any concept of POLITICAL objectivity and distorted thusly (it's really not a very large or noticeable perversion) would logically lead one to pO'ism.  Hence the name, proto-Objectivism; a stunted little philosophy which was/ is attempting to become Objectivism, but hasn't made it there yet.

So that's my terminology and that's the difference between the two.  There appear to be quite a few threads on this forum, usually debating the necessity of a government, in which the anarchists are implicitly referring to pO'ism.  And that's also the kicker because the subtle misrepresentations and that one little deletion are readily visible whenever they discuss retributive force.

You know what I'm referring to.

And the usual Objectivist objections to it are true (it would lead to endless feuding and bloodshed), but without that crucial concept it's very easy to chalk that up to irrational people doing stupid things, or any number of other personal flaws, and dismiss it altogether.  Without that concept, even if one was shown conclusive proof that wholesale slaughter would ensue, it would still feel like a betrayal to concede the point; it seems far more like the moral-practical false dichotomy, and someone who thinks that human beings are good enough simply govern themselves isn't likely to abandon his morals in the name of the practical.  (hence the endless, volumous threads already devoted to this argument, in which nobody convinces anyone of anything)

 

But what I realized this morning was that not only WOULD bloodshed ensue, but in a pO'ist society it SHOULD!!  In any case of ambiguous legality, wholesale slaughter would result, not from human flaws or vices, but from their VIRTUES!!!

 

Imagine a hypothetical pO'ist society in which almost every member holds that same philosophy explicitly and attempts to practice it, in reality, on Earth.  There is no government.  The people defend their own rights and when they're violated they avenge their own rights, without trials or supervision.

One morning in pO'ville, Adam goes outside to get his newspaper when he notices someone talking to his neighbor, Bob, on his doorstep.  He can't help but overhear the stranger's vague remarks about bad things happening to good people's homes.

The stranger is actually a man named Charlie, who sells home insurance door-to-door.  But Adam has no way of knowing that at this point.

When Bob hands Charlie a thick wad of cash the salesman enters his address into a database on his smartphone, thus insuring him.

Adam sees the transaction and, due to it's shady overtones and Bob's history, immediately realizes that he is witnessing an act of extortion.  Acting as the defender of Bob's rights he pulls out a gun and shoots Charlie in the leg, before running over and returning Bob's cash.  (Bob, the only immoral citizen in pO'ville, thanks his neighbor profusely)

At that moment Dan, a competing salesman who was canvassing one street over, runs over to investigate the screaming from several seconds prior.  Seeing Charlie lying in a pool of his own blood and perfectly still (passed out from pain/trauma) he whips out his blowgun and fires a poison dart at Adam.

Adam dies promptly.  Dan walks over to Bob and asks him what happened; Bob explains to him that Adam had stolen all of his priceless porcelain and hidden it in his house and, when confronted by Charlie, had shot him where he stood.  Dan, true to his ruthless dedication to justice, helps Bob retrieve his "stolen" belongings.

 

And so, in a society like that:

-Adam dies horribly, because he attempted to stop injustice from occurring

-Dan, for the same reasons as Adam, commits murder and theft and later has a bounty placed on him by Adam's wife

-Charlie is wounded and robbed in the street for no reason whatsoever

-Bob becomes much richer for the entire episode, because of his treachery

 

I probably could've come up with better examples, but whatever.  The point is that not only would anarchy proliferate pillaging and slaughter; it would specifically do the most damage to the most virtuous!!

 

If person A kills C in self-defense, and B witnesses the act (but misinterprets it as murder) he SHOULD, by the pO'ist logic, punish A himself.  If he attacks him but A sees him coming in advance, then A should kill B in self-defense (again) and B should kill A to avenge C.

So A should kill B AND B should kill A.  In which, regardless of the outcome, justice and injustice will be enacted.

 

So anyway, I'm not sure what to make of this.  Is there something to that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was not nearly as clear or concise as it was in my head.

Basically, it occurs to me that under the described system, not only would violence and injustice be propagated but they would do so SPECIFICALLY because of epistemologically fallible but morally virtuous people.  The people who would stand up for liberty and justice would be the ones to suffer.

Ergo, in such a society evil would be profitable while good would be deadly.  Ergo it's a superficially appealing (to me) but ultimately evil political ideal.  (specifically because of the lack of objectivity in the enforcement of its laws)

 

And that's what I was hoping to get feedback on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm okay. Well there's a lot of fanfare in there, but as best I can distill it, your argument boils down to this: in an anarchist society, or at least in a specific version of it, which you refer to as "pOism," there would be no "trials or supervision." And by "trials or supervision" I interpret you to mean no courts and no legal proceedings, which probably also means there is no law whatsoever. This would be bad, since it would result in vigilantism and subjective applications of force. Therefore, we must have one single monopoly agency.

 

Hopefully that is accurate, you can correct me if I am wrong. But I take issue with this. Surely, it would be a good thing to have courts and legal proceedings. But the conclusion is a non sequitur. It does not follow from the premise that "one ought to have courts and legal proceedings" to "therefore we must have one single monopoly court or agency to engage in legal proceedings."

 

Also I take issue with your statement that "[in these types of threads] nobody convinces anyone of anything." That I can tell you is empirically false.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm okay. Well there's a lot of fanfare in there, but as best I can distill it, your argument boils down to this: in an anarchist society, or at least in a specific version of it, which you refer to as "pOism," there would be no "trials or supervision." And by "trials or supervision" I interpret you to mean no courts and no legal proceedings, which probably also means there is no law whatsoever. This would be bad, since it would result in vigilantism and subjective applications of force. Therefore, we must have one single monopoly agency.

 

Hopefully that is accurate, you can correct me if I am wrong. But I take issue with this. Surely, it would be a good thing to have courts and legal proceedings. But the conclusion is a non sequitur. It does not follow from the premise that "one ought to have courts and legal proceedings" to "therefore we must have one single monopoly court or agency to engage in legal proceedings."

 

Also I take issue with your statement that "[in these types of threads] nobody convinces anyone of anything." That I can tell you is empirically false.

 

Are you arguing only against his reasoning or are you also arguing for anarchy?  

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely, it would be a good thing to have courts and legal proceedings. But the conclusion is a non sequitur. It does not follow from the premise that "one ought to have courts and legal proceedings" to "therefore we must have one single monopoly court or agency to engage in legal proceedings."

 

I'd like to point out that I don't believe that the OP is arguing for a "single monopoly court or agency" as opposed to a multiplicity of such agencies. Or maybe he believes that, but I don't think that he yet reaches such an argument/conclusion in his post(s).

Having encountered, and been intrigued, by your arguments on government over many threads, I'd like to reiterate that I do not believe that your position amounts to "anarchy." I believe that you are arguing for government and law, but in a different sort of structure. And if it is the case that you are arguing for government and law, then does it really make sense to take up the standard for "anarchy" which (I think reasonably) tends to denote a lack of those things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2046, it sounds like he's going a step further and saying anarchy not only breeds subjective applications of force, but that it also goes a step further and disproportionately affects virtuous people. That last bit does sound like a non sequitur to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm okay. Well there's a lot of fanfare in there, but as best I can distill it, your argument boils down to this: in an anarchist society, or at least in a specific version of it, which you refer to as "pOism," there would be no "trials or supervision." And by "trials or supervision" I interpret you to mean no courts and no legal proceedings, which probably also means there is no law whatsoever. This would be bad, since it would result in vigilantism and subjective applications of force. Therefore, we must have one single monopoly agency.

 

Hopefully that is accurate, you can correct me if I am wrong. But I take issue with this. Surely, it would be a good thing to have courts and legal proceedings. But the conclusion is a non sequitur. It does not follow from the premise that "one ought to have courts and legal proceedings" to "therefore we must have one single monopoly court or agency to engage in legal proceedings."

 

Also I take issue with your statement that "[in these types of threads] nobody convinces anyone of anything." That I can tell you is empirically false.

 

On the last one I'm sorry; that is false about these types of threads.

And that's part of what I was trying to say; yes.

 

2046, it sounds like he's going a step further and saying anarchy not only breeds subjective applications of force, but that it also goes a step further and disproportionately affects virtuous people. That last bit does sound like a non sequitur to me.

That's the other part.  I was actually trying to say that it would inherently punish good people and reward evil, but it's a very complex (and apparently new to me) concept, and somewhere along the line I forgot why I had thought it would do that and started really butchering it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've given it more thought and the essence of it is that under such a system (whether or not it's true anarchy; I don't care to argue semantics) not only would good people die through human error, but the nonobjective application of force would mean that if A thinks B is evil, to act with integrity and justice would be to call it as he sees it, and the punishment of B would be a GOOD thing for A to do- even if he's somehow mistaken!

 

And I guess what I'm trying to get at is the concept of objectivity; we have a government so that good people don't kill other good people through innocent mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because a criminal is someone who doesn't respect the rights of others; someone who, by virtue of his own chosen nature, is a threat to everyone else around him.  (without individual rights there can be no moral society)  So every peaceful person has the right to be free of such people; to know that when a criminal shows his nature he's imprisoned, deported, etc.

The pO'ism that I was talking about would refer to vigilantism, anarchism, et cetera, because it stems from the basic premise that every individual has the right to personally enforce this.

 

But if we accept that and try to imagine a society based on it (it wouldn't need any government), the epistemological criterion for innocence or guilt would be something similar to "sez you- sez I!"

Which would allow for an innocent man's murder to be an act of good, for someone to be BOTH guilty and innocent simultaneously; any number of abominable outcomes that negate the very meaning of morality, in the first place.  That's what I realized about it that made me check my own premises and I've been trying to ask if that's accurate (but failing to properly articulate it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(whether or not it's true anarchy; I don't care to argue semantics)

 

The issue of whether you are discussing "true anarchy" or something else is not semantics (and neither is this).

It would be a difference of semantics -- which is trivial -- if you were discussing "true anarchy" and someone else were using a different term to address the very same concept. But if you are discussing different concepts, then that is important and needs to be addressed.

Dismissing this as "semantics" -- and thus refusing to clarify the actual issues involved -- will not serve the discussion.

 

The pO'ism that I was talking about would refer to vigilantism, anarchism, et cetera, because it stems from the basic premise that every individual has the right to personally enforce this.

 

If an individual does not have the right to enforce the law, then precisely how does the government have/acquire such a right? Ideally your response will be informed by this quote of Rand's (from "Collectivized 'Rights'"):

 

Any group or “collective,” large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One morning in pO'ville, Adam goes outside to get his newspaper when he notices someone talking to his neighbor, Bob, on his doorstep.  He can't help but overhear the stranger's vague remarks about bad things happening to good people's homes.

 

  The only thing Adam should do is talk to Bob after the insurance guy leaves and ask him if everything is okay. If he thinks something is up he should call whatever neo-feudal lord he swore an oath to and let his professionals take care of it. 

 

  This isn't even a criticism of "Anarchism", but of a society in which everyone is Rorschach. Even then, a vigilante would be more intelligent about this. 

Edited by Hairnet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

we have a government so that good people don't kill other good people through innocent mistakes.

 

2046, it sounds like he's going a step further and saying anarchy not only breeds subjective applications of force, but that it also goes a step further and disproportionately affects virtuous people. That last bit does sound like a non sequitur to me.

yeah, cause that never happens with a government?? (confused) Innocent people who would otherwise be irresistibly compelled kill other innocent people by mistake are somehow transformed into non-innocent killing people by being a member of this thing called "government"? Why, those are some interesting powers this "government" possesses.

 

I'd like to point out that I don't believe that the OP is arguing for a "single monopoly court or agency" as opposed to a multiplicity of such agencies. Or maybe he believes that, but I don't think that he yet reaches such an argument/conclusion in his post(s).

 

I mean, I might be mistaken, but I think he's arguing against anarchy and in favor of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having encountered, and been intrigued, by your arguments on government over many threads, I'd like to reiterate that I do not believe that your position amounts to "anarchy." I believe that you are arguing for government and law, but in a different sort of structure. And if it is the case that you are arguing for government and law, then does it really make sense to take up the standard for "anarchy" which (I think reasonably) tends to denote a lack of those things?

Maybe you can elaborate on that, that might be an interesting discussion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an individual does not have the right to enforce the law, then precisely how does the government have/acquire such a right? Ideally your response will be informed by this quote of Rand's (from "Collectivized 'Rights'"):

"Any group or “collective,” large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members."

Exactly!  That's exactly what I would've said a few days ago!

 

 

It would be a difference of semantics -- which is trivial -- if you were discussing "true anarchy" and someone else were using a different term to address the very same concept. But if you are discussing different concepts, then that is important and needs to be addressed.

Dismissing this as "semantics" -- and thus refusing to clarify the actual issues involved -- will not serve the discussion.

Maybe you can elaborate on that, that might be an interesting discussion...

 

Okay, then.  Assuming we all agree on Objectivist ethics, we come to individual rights and their application into a civilized society.

The basic question is: does an individual have the right to defend his own rights, personally, with retaliatory force- yes or no?

If not then people need a government for that purpose (as well as arbitrating petty squabbles), and if your rights are violated and then the criminal gets away then it's immoral (?) and unlawful for you to exact your own vengeance.  This position is implicitly clear throughout most of Ayn Rand's writings; the problem is that (to the best of my knowledge) she never made it explicitly clear.  And it doesn't seem to logically follow from the rest.

If so then people don't need a government (anarchy) and if someone violates your rights it's perfectly fine to take matters into your own hands, after-the-fact (vigilantism).  A society of lawless, O'ist vigilantes (which seems to logically follow) is what I was referring to.

I package-deal them together because they both stem from the same premise and would be closely interrelated applications of it.  Different concretes but they have the same source.

 

A few days ago I was entirely convinced of the second response (yes), until I read through this:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=5399

 

  This isn't even a criticism of "Anarchism", but of a society in which everyone is Rorschach. Even then, a vigilante would be more intelligent about this. 

 

Yeah. . . I was trying to express what I had forgotten through a short story, which speaks for my state of mind at that point.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, cause that never happens with a government?? (confused) Innocent people who would otherwise be irresistibly compelled kill other innocent people by mistake are somehow transformed into non-innocent killing people by being a member of this thing called "government"? Why, those are some interesting powers this "government" possesses.

 

 And no, of course it does; mistakes happen.  However (I think I've gotten it, explicitly):

1: A criminal is someone who, by his own chosen nature, is a threat to the rights of everyone around him (and therefor it's in their rational self-interest to distance themselves from him, remove him from society, etc.)

2: Since nobody has the right to initiate force, everybody has the right to use defensive or retaliatory force against such aggressors

3: The initiation of force and retaliatory force are very difficult to distinguish

 

So we FIRST arrive at the pO'ist (whatever) conclusion. . .

 

4: Any vigilante, in his attempt at justice, risks having himself labeled as a criminal (which he could adapt to along a spectrum between:)

  -Passivity, which wouldn't risk being punished for any virtue, but would amount to the sanction of the victim

  -Integrity, which would be to take the Danneskjold route and oppose injustice in every instance, which could result in punishment (lack of objectivity)

That's what I was trying to express, originally; a lot of the bloodshed would specifically be caused by the virtues it would destroy.  Good people would suffer because of their virtue, which (if I'm accurate there?) would be a resounding damnation of such a society.  But I'm still not sure if that's accurate.

 

But anyway, this is a realm where human error is absolutely inimical to man's survival.  So, in such a society, it's in every man's rational best interest to minimize such error as much as possible, which gives rise to the rights of the accused and objectivity in retaliation.  (The accused, I think, have no such rights unless they're innocent; but since people are fallible it's imperative to ACT as if they're innocent until proven guilty)

 

5: Every individual has the right to defend himself and his property, and to the objective use of retaliatory force

Which would mean that anyone could morally exact their own justice. . . If they took the responsibility of acting as bailiff, detective, prosecution, defense, judge, jury and executioner- and publicist of the act, for everyone else's benefit.

 

From there I think it's just a matter of efficiency and practicality to designate someone the town Sherriff.  Or, in a very large society, a whole group of them acting on behalf of everyone else; i.e. a government.

That's what I've got sofar.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, it's as harmful for someone to be falsely convicted of something as it is to live nextdoor to thugs and looters.  Hence objectivity, to ensure that everyone else knows who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.  From objectivity to a government I think it's probably just the simplest and easiest implementation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic question is: does an individual have the right to defend his own rights, personally, with retaliatory force- yes or no?

If not then people need a government for that purpose (as well as arbitrating petty squabbles), and if your rights are violated and then the criminal gets away then it's immoral (?) and unlawful for you to exact your own vengeance.  This position is implicitly clear throughout most of Ayn Rand's writings; the problem is that (to the best of my knowledge) she never made it explicitly clear.  And it doesn't seem to logically follow from the rest.

If so then people don't need a government (anarchy) and if someone violates your rights it's perfectly fine to take matters into your own hands, after-the-fact (vigilantism).  A society of lawless, O'ist vigilantes (which seems to logically follow) is what I was referring to.

 

This question is answered in the thread you linked to. In post #3, 2046 quotes Rand, who writes: "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." Hseih further explains, "[if man] is living in a society of other men, it is not enough that an individual determine in his own mind that his use of force is retaliatory. Since whether an act of force is initiatory or retaliatory is not self-evident, and since a man who initiates force is by that fact a threat to society, any man who engages in force that has not been proved by objective means to be retaliatory must be considered a threat."

 

You also write:

 

Because a criminal is someone who doesn't respect the rights of others; someone who, by virtue of his own chosen nature, is a threat to everyone else around him.  (without individual rights there can be no moral society)  So every peaceful person has the right to be free of such people; to know that when a criminal shows his nature he's imprisoned, deported, etc.

The pO'ism that I was talking about would refer to vigilantism, anarchism, et cetera, because it stems from the basic premise that every individual has the right to personally enforce this.

 

But if we accept that and try to imagine a society based on it (it wouldn't need any government), the epistemological criterion for innocence or guilt would be something similar to "sez you- sez I!"

 

2046 covers some of this in post #3 (again, in the thread you linked to). According to Rothbard, in an anarchist society, if Ben kills Jerry, Ben will be charged with murder if Jerry is not found guilty (of murdering someone else) in a court of law. However, if Jerry is found guilty, Ben will be praised for 'executing justice' and that will be the end of it. The moral of the story is: According to Rothbard, yes, people should be able to take justice into their own hands- but they must still face the consequences of their actions. Ben better be damn sure that Jerry is guilty before enacting his own justice.. or he himself will be guilty of killing an innocent man.

 

It's my understanding that in the society 2046 is talking about, private court systems would exist instead of a government monopoly. (Please correct me if I'm wrong here.) In this type of system the criterion for judging guilt would vary, but it would probably be more complex than "he sez she sez."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, I might be mistaken, but I think he's arguing against anarchy and in favor of government.

 

Indeed.  But I think that you are also in favor of government, so far as I can tell. 

 

Maybe you can elaborate on that, that might be an interesting discussion...

 

We can only hope!  :)

Well... I shouldn't presume to speak for you, but so far as I can tell you consistently argue in favor of law and order -- subordinating "might" to "right," and specifically by reserving force to reprisal.

I believe that this constitutes a belief in "governance" generally (and Objectivist Politics, again more specifically).

Your positions put you into conflict with belief in a "monopoly" government, but over the course of our discussions I've come to believe that this aspect is not necessarily an essential aspect of government, as such. After all, there is no "one world government" (as yet), yet we would hardly say that the world is therefore in a state of anarchy. There is quite a lot of "archy" to go around. The United States has its own governmental power split numerous ways across what we call "checks and balances" (and further still, with state, county and local structures, and etc.), yet we would not say that the United States is therefore anarchic. I believe that your position may possibly be cast (and fairly) as a further "balance."

I think that if you're agreed that the initiation of force is to be eliminated from society, that you are in philosophical agreement with Rand's Objectivist Politics (obviously excepting her believing that a monopoly government is proper, and follows, insofar as she did). The particular organization of that government is perhaps more properly "political science," though we can say that the organization must be consistent with the essence of the position. Just as a proper government must be funded without coercion, neither may it maintain its "monopoly" on retaliatory force through coercive means (which is to say that it has no particular monopoly).

By adopting "anarchy" for your views (and though there may be historical precedent for this; you would certainly know better than I), I think that you're conceding that governance and a monopoly of those activities are fundamentally inseparable. I think it's a "package" that needs to be unpacked at the least, to see if that's really so.

 

Exactly!  That's exactly what I would've said a few days ago!

 

:) I appreciate and acknowledge that I did intend some rhetorical meaning in asking you where the government gets that right, if not from the individuals which comprise it... but honestly, I was "saying" less than asking. I really want to know your thoughts on that matter, because I think it's one of the central matters of this discussion.

We contend that the individual has the right to self-defense. We contend that such individual rights are inalienable. We contend that a proper government comes from the inalienable right-to-self-defense of its individual members...

And therefore the governed individuals lose their right to self-defense; i.e. that right is, by some arcane process, alienated?

Something here does not add up.

 

Okay, then. Assuming we all agree on Objectivist ethics, we come to individual rights and their application into a civilized society.

The basic question is: does an individual have the right to defend his own rights, personally, with retaliatory force- yes or no?

 

On the face of it, it seems hard to conclude that a person should not be allowed to "defend his own rights" in any manner in which they need defending. Indeed, if you "have rights," but are barred from forcibly defending them or preserving them, under penalty of law, then... in what sense do you "have" them in the first place? (By permission?) And how do we then say that these rights are not granted by the government, when we are acknowledging that the government has the power (from some unknown source) to set the terms by which these rights are preserved or defended, if in fact they are.

If these rights are mine, per my nature and for the purpose of my own end-in-itself life, with or without the government's say-so, then why should I comply if the government tells me I am not allowed to defend my rights? Why should I grant such a position any moral authority whatsoever? And how is this not the essence of statism?

I'd have to imagine that the argument for government, or for monopoly government, or for whatever position you're putting contra "anarchy," relies upon the idea that it is a better defense of the individual's rights than otherwise. Meaning: the individual will choose to delegate his right of self-defense to an objective proceeding, because that is ultimately a better protection for him, as an individual (in that it will help to establish to others that his use of retaliatory force is, in fact, retaliatory and not the initiation of force). Not that he is metaphysically stripped of his rights, but that he is making a choice (which, I would further argue, suggests that he could potentially choose otherwise, and sometimes should).

After all, this is what Rand had to say on the nature of government (from, appropriately, "The Nature of Government"):

 

The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

 

Though perhaps by "consent," Rand meant that "no consent is necessary, and no dissent possible" and by "inalienable" she meant "semi-inalienable," and by "rights" she meant "suggestions." ;)

 

If not then people need a government for that purpose (as well as arbitrating petty squabbles), and if your rights are violated and then the criminal gets away then it's immoral (?) and unlawful for you to exact your own vengeance.

 

I appreciate your use of the word "vengeance" -- it speaks to my love of drama -- but we might also supply the word "justice," and perhaps with... uh... greater justice.

There are many ways I'd like to approach this topic, but let me just start here:

If we agree that a government can administer justice in an objective manner, according to its procedures and so-forth, then why is that same objective administration of justice unavailable to anyone else?

Meaning: could not a "vigilante" court perform the same function as that which we're otherwise calling the "government"? (Though I would argue that, properly conceived, this so-called vigilante court would be an equally proper government, so long as it is dealing in objective justice.)

 

If so then people don't need a government (anarchy) and if someone violates your rights it's perfectly fine to take matters into your own hands, after-the-fact (vigilantism).  A society of lawless, O'ist vigilantes (which seems to logically follow) is what I was referring to.

 

Well, if we believe that the objective administration of justice has requirements (like a "jury of one's peers," or specific rules of evidence, or what have you), then "Objectivist vigilantes" would be equally beholden to those requirements.

But if someone followed all of the requirements we would demand of a proper government (which potentially could include recusing one's self in a matter in which one is personally involved), then I do not see why someone should not be allowed to "take matters into his own hands."

That may not be the sexy Death Wish style vigilantism that we initially imagine, but my interest is in taking seriously the idea that no individual (and by extension no group, government included) ought to initiate force against any other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2046 covers some of this in post #3 (again, in the thread you linked to). According to Rothbard, in an anarchist society, if Ben kills Jerry, Ben will be charged with murder if Jerry is not found guilty (of murdering someone else) in a court of law. However, if Jerry is found guilty, Ben will be praised for 'executing justice' and that will be the end of it. The moral of the story is: According to Rothbard, yes, people should be able to take justice into their own hands- but they must still face the consequences of their actions. Ben better be damn sure that Jerry is guilty before enacting his own justice.. or he himself will be guilty of killing an innocent man.

 

It's my understanding that in the society 2046 is talking about, private court systems would exist instead of a government monopoly. (Please correct me if I'm wrong here.) In this type of system the criterion for judging guilt would vary, but it would probably be more complex than "he sez she sez."

Wait. . . Privatized courts whose verdicts are enforced by any and all individuals, at large?

All I could say to such a suggestion, (2046, if you're reading this) is TANSTAAFL!!!!  (w00t)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well... I shouldn't presume to speak for you, but so far as I can tell you consistently argue in favor of law and order -- subordinating "might" to "right," and specifically by reserving force to reprisal.

I believe that this constitutes a belief in "governance" generally (and Objectivist Politics, again more specifically).

Your positions put you into conflict with belief in a "monopoly" government, but over the course of our discussions I've come to believe that this aspect is not necessarily an essential aspect of government, as such. After all, there is no "one world government" (as yet), yet we would hardly say that the world is therefore in a state of anarchy. There is quite a lot of "archy" to go around. The United States has its own governmental power split numerous ways across what we call "checks and balances" (and further still, with state, county and local structures, and etc.), yet we would not say that the United States is therefore anarchic. I believe that your position may possibly be cast (and fairly) as a further "balance."

I think that if you're agreed that the initiation of force is to be eliminated from society, that you are in philosophical agreement with Rand's Objectivist Politics (obviously excepting her believing that a monopoly government is proper, and follows, insofar as she did). The particular organization of that government is perhaps more properly "political science," though we can say that the organization must be consistent with the essence of the position. Just as a proper government must be funded without coercion, neither may it maintain its "monopoly" on retaliatory force through coercive means (which is to say that it has no particular monopoly).

By adopting "anarchy" for your views (and though there may be historical precedent for this; you would certainly know better than I), I think that you're conceding that governance and a monopoly of those activities are fundamentally inseparable. I think it's a "package" that needs to be unpacked at the least, to see if that's really so.

True, actually.  Thank you.

I have been assuming that governance of some sort was implied; I've been using the term "anarchy" because it was the first applicable word that came to mind.  (I sort of assumed that an amoralist, range-of-the-moment, anything-goes sort of anarchy would be understood to be out of the question)  But I suppose the proper concept I'm referring to would be self-governance as opposed to a monopolistic/paternalistic centralized government.

Are there actually people who, after discovering Objectivism, argue that it would logically lead to the unbridled hedonist's anarchy?  (I know that witch doctors, palmists and Communists exist in the world, but REALLY???)

 

So, yeah; we've established (I sincerely hope!) that individual rights are not to be violated, hence some form of government to protect and/or avenge them.  The question is on whom that prerogative falls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  :) I appreciate and acknowledge that I did intend some rhetorical meaning in asking you where the government gets that right, if not from the individuals which comprise it... but honestly, I was "saying" less than asking. I really want to know your thoughts on that matter, because I think it's one of the central matters of this discussion.

Agreed.  And any governmental right to any action it takes MUST come from the individuals it's meant to defend; its citizens.

Because if there were some arcane wellspring of "Federal Authority" or something similar, for the rights of a proper (protective) government then there could exist a morally acceptable government, tasked with the safety and welfare of its citizens but authorized to use any and every means advised by its mystical source of rights.

This would result in Orwell's 1984 and be considered moral.  So logically, anything the government can do, it's morally able to do BECAUSE its citizens not only hold those same right but have given it permission to excersize them, by proxy.

 

So individuals MUST have the right to the use of objective retaliatory force, necessarily.

 

I'd have to imagine that the argument for government, or for monopoly government, or for whatever position you're putting contra "anarchy," relies upon the idea that it is a better defense of the individual's rights than otherwise. Meaning: the individual will choose to delegate his right of self-defense to an objective proceeding, because that is ultimately a better protection for him, as an individual (in that it will help to establish to others that his use of retaliatory force is, in fact, retaliatory and not the initiation of force). Not that he is metaphysically stripped of his rights, but that he is making a choice (which, I would further argue, suggests that he could potentially choose otherwise, and sometimes should).

Agreed, again!

That's part of why the argument I described earlier (retaliation is only moral when objective, objectivity is hard and time-consuming, delegating it is logical) would make so much sense.

And since must the government derive its rights from those it protects (meaning they, ultimately, hold those rights and it acts on their permission), they could conceivably revoke its permission IF it failed to perform the required function.  So a criminal couldn't un-consent his rights back on his way to prison but, in certain cases, one person or several or the majority of the citizens could revoke their permission.

In reality, I believe that's referred to as "revolution!"

 

Well, if we believe that the objective administration of justice has requirements (like a "jury of one's peers," or specific rules of evidence, or what have you), then "Objectivist vigilantes" would be equally beholden to those requirements.

But if someone followed all of the requirements we would demand of a proper government (which potentially could include recusing one's self in a matter in which one is personally involved), then I do not see why someone should not be allowed to "take matters into his own hands."

That may not be the sexy Death Wish style vigilantism that we initially imagine, but my interest is in taking seriously the idea that no individual (and by extension no group, government included) ought to initiate force against any other.

Agreed a third time.  That's the conclusion I've reached at this point.

A government is useful for larger societies, but ultimately unnecessary.  What IS vitally necessary is OBJECTIVITY, which is the requirement for any individual or society or government to morally use retributive force.

 

So then, I guess the only question left would be how to implement that concretely, in reality.  But I'm guessing that's a rather sizeable question, isn't it?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly!  That's exactly what I would've said a few days ago!

 

 

 

Okay, then.  Assuming we all agree on Objectivist ethics, we come to individual rights and their application into a civilized society.

The basic question is: does an individual have the right to defend his own rights, personally, with retaliatory force- yes or no?

If not then people need a government for that purpose (as well as arbitrating petty squabbles), and if your rights are violated and then the criminal gets away then it's immoral (?) and unlawful for you to exact your own vengeance.  This position is implicitly clear throughout most of Ayn Rand's writings; the problem is that (to the best of my knowledge) she never made it explicitly clear.  And it doesn't seem to logically follow from the rest.

If so then people don't need a government (anarchy) and if someone violates your rights it's perfectly fine to take matters into your own hands, after-the-fact (vigilantism).  A society of lawless, O'ist vigilantes (which seems to logically follow) is what I was referring to.

I package-deal them together because they both stem from the same premise and would be closely interrelated applications of it.  Different concretes but they have the same source.

 

A few days ago I was entirely convinced of the second response (yes), until I read through this:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=5399

 

 

Yeah. . . I was trying to express what I had forgotten through a short story, which speaks for my state of mind at that point.

Okay, well as some aspects of this have already been discussed, I'll just add on to what I think is the biggest issue here. You seem to be convinced of the necessity of having one single monopoly agency in order to avoid vigilantism. But all I'm saying is that this doesn't follow. Take another look at the thread I linked you to, which you share here. It doesn't make such a leap. Even Don (the original author) states the following: "[The point is that] objectivity demands they prove [guilt] to every other member of society. Only a government can provide such a mechanism. (The anarchist would of course dispute this last claim as well, but the point here isn't to make the case for limited government..."

 

As the author hiimself realizes, it does not follow from the fact that vigilantism ought to be illegal to the fact that we only need one monopoly agency. For a market based legal system does not lack objective legal procedures, it just does not have one single monopoly agency who is allowed to employ them, rather than a multiplicity of such agencies. Market anarchists that agree on objective legal principles do not favor vigilantism, we do in fact favor a unique set of principles and legal procedures. But we do not favor their enforcement by a unique agency, rather we favor free entry into the field of specifying and enforcing such rules.

 

Your confusion lies in your conflating "objective legal procedures" with "monopoly," which is precisely the issue free market anarchism seeks to challenge: that a monopoly is necessary for objective law. Note in the following quotation from you:

 

 

5: Every individual has the right to defend himself and his property, and to the objective use of retaliatory force

Which would mean that anyone could morally exact their own justice. . . If they took the responsibility of acting as bailiff, detective, prosecution, defense, judge, jury and executioner- and publicist of the act, for everyone else's benefit.

 

This wouldn't make sense precisely because "acting as bailiff, detective, prosecution, defense, judge, jury and executioner- and publicist of the act" is not "the objective use of retaliatory force." So no, we don't say that people should be allowed to do this. And anyway, just think about it from a practical point of view. Would it make sense to have people running around enforcing their own subjective interpretations of justice, Rambo-style, on their own? No, of course not. What would your community say? Your neighbors, your employer, your insurer, your family? Nobody would put up with that kind of aggressive behavior, even if it turned out you were right in whatever you were doing.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2046 covers some of this in post #3 (again, in the thread you linked to). According to Rothbard, in an anarchist society, if Ben kills Jerry, Ben will be charged with murder if Jerry is not found guilty (of murdering someone else) in a court of law. However, if Jerry is found guilty, Ben will be praised for 'executing justice' and that will be the end of it. The moral of the story is: According to Rothbard, yes, people should be able to take justice into their own hands- but they must still face the consequences of their actions. Ben better be damn sure that Jerry is guilty before enacting his own justice.. or he himself will be guilty of killing an innocent man.

 

It's my understanding that in the society 2046 is talking about, private court systems would exist instead of a government monopoly. (Please correct me if I'm wrong here.) In this type of system the criterion for judging guilt would vary, but it would probably be more complex than "he sez she sez."

Well, just to clear any confusion, no I can't quite agree with the above point. That statement of Rothbard's, that vigilantism would be permitted, as long as the vigilantee was in fact correct and held to answer after the fact, was a controversial view even among anarchist libertarians. Most market anarchists do not support such an idea. Rothbard's most prominent student Hans Hoppe, for example, disagreed at length that vigilantism should (or would) be permitted at all, and that only those who employed objective and rational procedures should be permitted to exercise any kind of force, and secondly, on an economic level, only those agencies which employed procedures that most people agreed on as being just would flourish in society, as non-monopoly agencies depend on market incentives rather than being able to tap a captive customer base. It it thus more likely that a monopolist agency would pervert law and exercise non-objective uses of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This wouldn't make sense precisely because "acting as bailiff, detective, prosecution, defense, judge, jury and executioner- and publicist of the act" is not "the objective use of retaliatory force."

What then constitutes the objective use of retaliatory force?

 

Your confusion lies in your conflating "objective legal procedures" with "monopoly," which is precisely the issue free market anarchism seeks to challenge: that a monopoly is necessary for objective law.

Actually, I've come to the conclusion that it ISN'T necessary- but imminently practical.  (although that was part of my original confusion in this thread)

But if a collective monopoly isn't necessary for objective law but an individual acting as "bailiff, detective, prosecution, defense, judge, jury, executioner and publicist" isn't sufficient for objective law, then what IS the criterion for objectivity?

 

You make some very intriguing points about competing governments.  Would these agencies be exclusively judicial, or would they have enforcement arms as well?

 

And just out of curiosity, have you ever read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That statement of Rothbard's, that vigilantism would be permitted, as long as the vigilantee was in fact correct and held to answer after the fact, was a controversial view even among anarchist libertarians. Most market anarchists do not support such an idea.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Wait. . . Privatized courts whose verdicts are enforced by any and all individuals, at large?

...then what IS the criterion for objectivity?

 

I don't mean to over-quote 2046, but he provides an explanation about the implementation of a market based legal system in this thread. (Took me awhile to find!) Here is a compilation of his main points (let me know if I've left anything major out- also, DonAthos provides a lot of useful dialogue- I suggest reading through the entire thread, but if you don't have time, here's a short summary):

 

Thesis

The entire point market anarchism seeks to challenge is whether a monopoly is necessary in order to have a proper legal process. -2046, post #83

 

Basics

1. Everyone has conflicting interpretations of justice- that's just a part of human nature. (Locke, Letters Concerning Toleration) -2046, post #18

2. These conflicting interpretations of justice exist in both a single monopoly government, and a market-based legal system (which has competing providers of legal services). -2046, post #18

3. There is nothing to "compel" human beings with free will to act in certain ways, outside of the institutions and structures that they arrange themselves in, according to whatever articulated philosophical principles they go by. -2046, post #107

 

Crux

4. There does exist an independent verifiable standard by which to judge legal procedures. (ie: There is a way to verify objectively that one interpretation of justice is valid whereas another one is not.)  -2046, post #10

5. Because of this, it doesn't matter who employs the legal procedures in question. -2046, post #10

6. If one single monopoly agency employs the correct procedures, then it is morally right, but so is every other agency which employs correct procedures. -2046, post #10

7. If, on the other hand, the one monopoly agency employs incorrect procedures, then it is morally wrong, as is every agency which employs such procedures. -2046, post #10

8. Accountability to an authority does not logically necessitate accountability to one single agency, but can actually include accountability to a multiplicity of them. -2046, post #86

9. In a market-based legal order, competing agencies would have free entry into the field. -2046, post #10

10. These providers (on the free market) would respond to consumer demand. -2046, post #18

11. That is, the public wouldn't stand for Rambo-style justice. People would want an agency that utilizes only the proper procedures and is accountable to the public for how it enforces the law. -2046, post #89

12. There would still be constitutional restraints and various checks and balances. That is, there would still be various institutions and incentives for people to do things. -2046, post #18

13. The free market as a constitutional political structure is simply a generalization of the principle of checks and balances, not the elimination of accountability to authority. -2046, post #86

14. There would not be just one organization that takes upon itself the job of forcing all the other agencies to conform to the single, uniform standard of objective justice. -2046, post #23

15. Multiple agencies can compete in this field, for if the coercive imposition of these objective principles of justice is permissible, then it is permissible for anybody (and not just one agency). -2046, post #23

 

Conclusion

A market-based legal order follows a good incentive structure for objectivity. -2046, post #56

Non-state laws and non-monopoly courts and judicial systems are ideal, and would better serve the goals of individuals, instead of one just monopoly agency.  -2046, post #98

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...