Split: On Anarchy

[iouswuoibev]

Ultimately my problem is that the only real answer is for everyone to be moral and no system can force people to be so.

If a system could do that, you would negate free will.

Nothing can force ANYONE to be moral EVER. People have to choose to be moral, and thereby choose the moral system for themselves. Forcing people to be moral is a contradiction in terms. Morality only applies to volitional beings.

No system can stop immoral people from becoming part of it and corrupting it.

It can certainly be achieved, just not infallibly so. All it requires is the existence of moral people. And there will always be moral people, so long as A is A.

[nimble]

Any political system depends on the integrity of those practicing it, which is why you need a strict codification of the rules the government is expected to obey.  Even if everyone within a society were moral, there would still be misunderstandings about contracts, rights, and other finicky applications of law,  and the possibility of invasion from without, so you would STILL need a government.

Not true. One of the largest growing industries is the private contract industry. Businesses are hiring private arbitraters to enforce contracts, because government judicial systems are slow, inefficient and costly. So I think resolution of disputes is not something the government is best suited to handle. But I will not argue anarchy here. I enjoy staying on this forum, and I know this is a banable offense to advocate something other than Objectivism.

[gnargtharst]

Nimble said: "Businesses are hiring private arbitraters [sic] to enforce contracts, because government judicial systems are slow, inefficient and costly...."

Private arbitrators do not "enforce" contracts. They resolve disputes using a similar method as the courts, with the understanding -- agreed to by the disputing parties -- that the arbitrators resolution will itself be subject to legal enforcement. Without the (literal) court of final appeal of the actual government, private arbitrators' solutions would be as useless as anarchy's rent-a-mobs.

Nimble: "...So I think resolution of disputes is not something the government is best suited to handle."

If we are discussing forceable resolution of disputes, i.e., legal disputes, then only government is "suited to handle" it.

[nimble]

Nimble said: "Businesses are hiring private arbitraters [sic] to enforce contracts, because government judicial systems are slow, inefficient and costly...."

Private arbitrators do not "enforce" contracts. They resolve disputes using a similar method as the courts, with the understanding -- agreed to by the disputing parties -- that the arbitrators resolution will itself be subject to legal enforcement. Without the (literal) court of final appeal of the actual government, private arbitrators' solutions would be as useless as anarchy's rent-a-mobs.

Nimble: "...So I think resolution of disputes is not something the government is best suited to handle."

If we are discussing forceable resolution of disputes, i.e., legal disputes, then only government is "suited to handle" it.

Good Point. Do you have an Aol Instant Messenger account? I cannot continue this debate here, but I wouldn't mind just chatting about this.

Edited April 6, 2005 by nimble

[Cole]

I've concluded that the basis for a monopolistic control of the use of retaliatory force instead of private protection companies competing with each other is an issue of practicality, not morality. There is no moral justification for a government that derives its powers territorially. When it comes down to it- every individual must consent to be governed. The issue is whether or not a monopolistic control is the most effective.

[JMeganSnow]

I suggest you read The Diamond Age and Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson, Cole. The author portrays franchise-based nations; unfortunately they STILL have to own at least SOME land (enough to park a franchise on, usually) and they have severe security problems.

The fact that you can walk down the block and be in another "country" means that "immigration" has largely been automated. It is interesting to see how he deals with the many and various problems of living like this. In The Diamond Age, which is further into the future than the other book, a system known as the Common Economic Protocol has evolved; essentially a form of "international law" agreed on by member franchise-nations so that disputes can be handled diplomatically. If you belong to a nation that is a CEP member, its law protects you everywhere, but it must follow the rules of the CEP.

Sound familiar? This was, in the beginning, much the relationship between the Federal U.S. government and the individual state governments. If you could get enough people together and draft a constitution for a block of land, you could join the U.S., provided your drafted constitution agreed in fundamentals with that of the U.S.

A government must have a monopoly over the use of retaliatory force in the name of its citizens, and I would like to see someone propose a TRULY non-territorial form of government, but consider this; as a human, you need at least enough physical space to park your caboose while you're sleeping. Unless you want people pitching you out of it, it is useful to have some kind of contractual agreement whereby you can park your caboose at will.

I think this is why it makes sense for a government to cover a territory.

[Rex Little]

When you get down to it, the difference between the ideal Objectivist government and ideal anarcho-capitalism is semantic rather than real. Consider:

1. The Objectivist government must not be funded by forced taxation, or it is no longer an ideal Objectivist government. This opens up the possibility that the government could fail for lack of money.

2. Despite the common use of the phrase, the Objectivist government would not have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. People would still be allowed to defend themselves by force, and hire others to defend and protect them. These hired protectors are subject to the rules set forth by the government, but those rules can't be arbitrary. They can only prevent the private security forces from violating the rights of others; if they do more than that, we no longer have an ideal Objectivist government. This is no different than the anarcho-capitalist ideal: if a defense agency violates the rights of others, it is not considered a legitimate defense agency any longer, but rather a criminal gang.

Both ideals assume that the group in possession of the preponderance of force (whether that group is called "the government" or "the most powerful defense agency") will follow certain rules in applying that force. And for both, the only thing that can really enforce those rules is a belief in them that's endemic to the society from which the men with guns are drawn. If that belief weakens, the men with guns will overstep their limits, because they can. Again, that applies no matter how you label them.

[nimble]

When you get down to it, the difference between the ideal Objectivist government and ideal anarcho-capitalism is semantic rather than real.  Consider:

1. The Objectivist government must not be funded by forced taxation, or it is no longer an ideal Objectivist government.  This opens up the possibility that the government could fail for lack of money.

2. Despite the common use of the phrase, the Objectivist government would not have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.  People would still be allowed to defend themselves by force, and hire others to defend and protect them.  These hired protectors are subject to the rules set forth by the government, but those rules can't be arbitrary.  They can only prevent the private security forces from violating the rights of others; if they do more than that, we no longer have an ideal Objectivist government.  This is no different than the anarcho-capitalist ideal: if a defense agency violates the rights of others, it is not considered a legitimate defense agency any longer, but rather a criminal gang.

Both ideals assume that the group in possession of the preponderance of force (whether that group is called "the government" or "the most powerful defense agency") will follow certain rules in applying that force.  And for both, the only thing that can really enforce those rules is a belief in them that's endemic to the society from which the men with guns are drawn.  If that belief weakens, the men with guns will overstep their limits, because they can.  Again, that applies no matter how you label them.

That is exactly how I have always felt, but I do not argue with people here about it.

[AisA]

2. Despite the common use of the phrase, the Objectivist government would not have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.  People would still be allowed to defend themselves by force, and hire others to defend and protect them. 

The use of retaliatory force includes much more than immediate self-defense in the face of lethal force, which is generally all that private individuals are permitted to do. It includes the power to conduct searches, issue subpoenas, arrest suspects, put them on trial, punish those found guilty, etc. It includes the power to make and enforce the rules of evidence and the standards of proof. It includes the power to make new rules defining crimes as new situations evolve. And the government does indeed have a monopoly on these functions.

These hired protectors are subject to the rules set forth by the government, but those rules can't be arbitrary.  They can only prevent the private security forces from violating the rights of others; if they do more than that, we no longer have an ideal Objectivist government.  This is no different than the anarcho-capitalist ideal: if a defense agency violates the rights of others, it is not considered a legitimate defense agency any longer, but rather a criminal gang.

And who stops this criminal gang?

Both ideals assume that the group in possession of the preponderance of force (whether that group is called "the government" or "the most powerful defense agency") will follow certain rules in applying that force.  And for both, the only thing that can really enforce those rules is a belief in them that's endemic to the society from which the men with guns are drawn. If that belief weakens, the men with guns will overstep their limits, because they can.  Again, that applies no matter how you label them.

I agree that if the vast majority of the citizens want a dictatorship, the government will tend to drift in that direction.

The speed of the drift, however, and the possibility of reversing it, are vastly different under a checks-and-balances constitutional republic (where citizen's rights are guaranteed under the law) versus a system of anarchy where the people with the most guns rule.

[nohope]

“It can certainly be achieved, just not infallibly so. All it requires is the existence of moral people. And there will always be moral people, so long as A is A.”

I completely agree with you and I would ad that the structure of society. I.e. the social contract, have a fundamental influence on what extent anti social activity will persist.

I should point out I think we should not say moral and immoral but rather social and anti social. That is to say, some individuals respect other individuals right to peruse self-interest, while other does not. Society is the congregate of individuals who live in pursuit of a collective self-interest. Self defense, economies of scale, cooperative advantage etc…

Individuals who do not respect the self-interests of the community are not immoral, but rather anti social. The are best served not by punishment but rather in joining communities or leaving society all together so that they can pursue their own self-interests

But the key to peaceful coexistence is rooted in the social contract itself.

In the US our social contract is one of “mutual exclusive goal attainment,” The fact that we are plagued by violence should not be any surprise.

Societies whose social contract is predicated upon cooperation and mutual self-interest are not plagued by internal strife nearly to the extent that societies, which are predicated upon “mutually exclusive goal attainment”, are.

[Cole]

I think this is why it makes sense for a government to cover a territory.

I think it makes sense too. However, a government can't derive its rights territorially. Each individual must consent to be governed. For example; I can't declare a set of rules for the vacant house next door to me, and then require that anybody who moves into that house obey my rules- with the reasoning being that I informed them of my rules before they decided to move in. I never had a right to make those rules in the first place. My right to rule making is limited to my own property. Similarly, the government can't declare laws over an entire territory and claim that anybody who owns property in that territory thereby consents to its laws.

[AisA]

In the US our social contract is one of “mutual exclusive goal attainment,” The fact that we are plagued by violence should not be any surprise.

Societies whose social contract is predicated upon cooperation and mutual self-interest are not plagued by internal strife nearly to the extent that societies, which are predicated upon “mutually exclusive goal attainment”, are.

What are you talking about? America was founded on the principle that all individuals possess rights and that the function of government is to secure these rights.

Where do you get the notion that we are somehow organized around the idea of “mutual exclusive goal attainment” ?

[AisA]

Similarly, the government can't declare laws over an entire territory and claim that anybody who owns property in that territory thereby consents to its laws.

Yes, it can, on the principle that one always has the right to impose freedom, i.e. one always has the right to prohibit the initiation of force. Agreeing to that prohibition is not optional.

[Cole]

Yes, it can, on the principle that one always has the right to impose freedom, i.e. one always has the right to prohibit the initiation of force.  Agreeing to that prohibition is not optional.

But we're discussing a monopoly on retaliatory force. According to Ayn Rand, it is necessary for a government to have a monopoly on retaliatory force. Both anarchists and Objectivists would agree that an individual has the right to defend himself from the initation of force. However, some Objectivists would say (illogically) that a government can teritorially derive a right to a monopoly on the use of retalitory force among all the people within its borders- with the fact that they live within those borders, not their consent, being the only thing considered.

I'd make the bold statement that there is no difference between anarchists and Objectivists when it comes to the moral rights of government. The difference is on the matter of practicality.

[EC]

I'd make the bold statement that there is no difference between anarchists and Objectivists when it comes to the moral rights of government. The difference is on the matter of practicality.

But in Objectivism the moral is the practical so your statement does not follow.

[Cole]

But in Objectivism the moral is the practical so your statement does not follow.

Right, it's moral for each individual to delegate his right to retaliatory force to the government because doing so creates an environment that is beneficial to him. It's tough to use this explanation of the morality of government when you're discussing it with somebody (an anarchist) who thinks that multiple, competing protection and arbitration agencies are more beneficial.

The difference is between ethics and political rights (the latter being what anarchists tend to be refering to when they mention "morality"). I'm saying that Objectivists and anarchist agree on the political rights part. Edit: Well, not that most Objectivists are in agreement with anarchists on this issue- they're not- but that both positions logically lead to agreement on the issue of rights.

Edited April 9, 2005 by Cole

[EC]

So, to make sure I understand what you are saying I'll restate it as I see it-- Objectivists and anarchists would agree that individual rights are the key to a free society, but Objectivists know that a strictly limited government is the only way to achieve that end, while an anarchist would protect them by... how? Wild-west shootouts? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I just personally don't see how any other way but a government of some sort would work if the goal was the protection of individual rights.

Edit: But, I do see your point of how it would be hard to defend the need for some government on moral grounds with an anarchist since they tend to be nihilists by nature.

Edited April 9, 2005 by Rational_One

[Cole]

So, to make sure I understand what you are saying I'll restate it as I see it-- Objectivists and anarchists would agree that individual rights are the key to a free society

Yeah, kind of. They both hold that the initiation of force is immoral, so they logically end up at similar ethical conclusions.

but Objectivists know that a strictly limited government is the only way to achieve that end, while an anarchist would protect them by... how? Wild-west shootouts? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I just personally don't see how any other way but a government of some sort would work if the goal was the protection of individual rights.

That's what I mean. The disagreement is on which system would work better (or rather- which would work at all). It's not a matter of which is moral and which is immoral.

[JMeganSnow]

2. Despite the common use of the phrase, the Objectivist government would not have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.  People would still be allowed to defend themselves by force, and hire others to defend and protect them.  These hired protectors are subject to the rules set forth by the government, but those rules can't be arbitrary.  They can only prevent the private security forces from violating the rights of others; if they do more than that, we no longer have an ideal Objectivist government.  This is no different than the anarcho-capitalist ideal: if a defense agency violates the rights of others, it is not considered a legitimate defense agency any longer, but rather a criminal gang.

Defensive force is NOT the same as retaliatory force. The government DOES and MUST maintain a monopoly on RETALIATORY force.

An illustrative example; your security agency can (and must, to make any money) have the ability to, say, prevent a violent individual from attacking the other patrons at their establishment. However, they do NOT have the ability, to, after this individual has fled, initiate an investigation, and, sometime later, obtain a warrant, go break his door down, and bust his posterior.

That is the primary difference. Defensive force is immediate and STRICTLY limited to the removal of a specific, immediate threat. Retaliatory force, while it can include defensive force, is not limited to the circumstances of an immediate threat. Shooting a gangster while he's attempting to rob your house is legal; deciding to go on a gang-busting rampage through the city is not.

Individuals deciding to use retaliatory force in this manner is known usually as vigilanteeism. It is a form of non-objective law, or mob rule.

[nimble]

How is it moral for the government (or any person) to issue subpeonas? If you are not guilty, then wouldn't the force used to get you to go to court have been an initiation of force? I think that it would be moral for the person wrongly accused to be able to sue the government or any agency that initiates force. Do you argee?

[AisA]

How is it moral for the government (or any person) to issue subpeonas? If you are not guilty, then wouldn't the force used to get you to go to court have been an initiation of force?

Yes, it is an initiation of force, but it is the criminal, not the government that is trying to catch the criminal, who bears responsibility for this.

I think that it would be moral for the person wrongly accused to be able to sue the government or any agency that initiates force. Do you argee?

The government should pay all of the accused's legal expenses, since it is also funding the prosecution. In addition, one can sue for false or malicious prosecution, though the burden of proof in such a case is with the individual, not the government.

And to add to the point that Jennifer just made, one must remember that the phrase "use of retaliatory force" refers to all of the proper functions of government. It includes the entire criminal justice system of police, investigators, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, forensics experts, etc. It includes the legislative branch of the government that makes the laws, the judicial branch that oversees the legal process and the executive branch that implements it.

I mention this as a prelude to a question: what is it that anarchist advocate? Competing court systems and judges? Multiple legislatures issuing competing sets of laws? Competing forensic systems?

This is not a mere issue of practicality. As Jennifer said, objectivity demands that there be one set of laws applicable to everyone, administered as uniformly as possible. There may be variations in the law from state to state, but everyone in a given state must be held to the same laws.

[Tom Robinson]

Yes, it is an initiation of force, but it is the criminal, not the government that is trying to catch the criminal, who bears responsibility for this.

Then what about mass roundups, searches without warrants, confiscations of weapons, and suspension of trial by jury? Why would it not be legitimate for government to shift moral responsibility for these acts of coercion to the criminal? Where does it stop, short of justifying any act of tyranny on the grounds that it is the criminal, not the tyrant, who bears responsibility?

Edited April 11, 2005 by Tom Robinson

[AisA]

Then what about mass roundups, searches without warrants, confiscations of weapons, and suspension of trial by jury?  Why would it not be legitimate for government to shift moral responsibility for these acts of coercion to the criminal?  Where does it stop, short of justifying any act of tyranny on the grounds that it is the criminal, not the tyrannt, who bears responsibility?

Issuing a subpoena requires proof that a crime has been committed and evidence -- probable cause -- that the subject of the subpoena either committed the crime or is involved in some fashion, such as being a witness or otherwise possessing knowledge or evidence relating to the crime. The principle is: except in an emergency, police power may not be used unless a judge agrees that sufficient evidence exists to show probable cause that the subject is involved in the crime. Why would you think that this principle would justify "mass roundups, searches without warrants, confiscations of weapons, and suspension of trial by jury"?

[Tom Robinson]

Issuing a subpoena requires proof that a crime has been committed and evidence -- probable cause -- that the subject of the subpoena either committed the crime or is involved in some fashion, such as being a witness or otherwise possessing knowledge or evidence relating to the crime. The principle is: except in an emergency, police power may not be used unless a judge agrees that sufficient evidence exists to show probable cause that the subject is involved in the crime.

But how does proof of the existence a crime justify using force to command testimony from an individual, especially one not even charged in the crime? Surely free speech implies the right not to speak, and such right would not be invalidated no matter how much proof was presented that a crime was committed by someone other than the subpoenaed party.

Why would you think that this principle would justify "mass roundups, searches without warrants, confiscations of weapons, and suspension of trial by jury"?

Ais A wrote, “Yes, it is an initiation of force, but it is the criminal, not the government that is trying to catch the criminal, who bears responsibility for this.”

Now if it is permissible for the government to use initiatory force in the case of subpoenas on the grounds that the “criminal who bears responsibility for this,” why wouldn’t other forms of initiatory force be permissible for the same reason? Why not give government the power arrest every black male on the streets of downtown Detroit -- and simply declare that it is the real black male criminal “who bears responsibility for this”?

Edited April 11, 2005 by Tom Robinson

[AisA]

But how does proof of the existence a crime justify using force to command testimony from an individual, especially one not even charged in the crime?  Surely free speech implies the right not to speak, and such right would not be invalidated no matter how much proof was presented that a crime was committed by someone other than the subpoenaed party. 

 

There is no such thing as the right to knowingly assist in the violation of rights, which is precisely what one does when one withholds evidence that could be used to convict a criminal.

Ais A wrote, “Yes, it is an initiation of force, but it is the criminal, not the government that is trying to catch the criminal, who bears responsibility for this.”

Now if it is permissible for the government to use initiatory force in the case of subpoenas on the grounds that the “criminal who bears responsibility for this,” why wouldn’t other forms of initiatory force be permissible for the same reason?  Why not give government the power arrest every black male on the streets of downtown Detroit -- and simply declare that it is the real black male criminal “who bears responsibility for this”?

Because it is a ridiculous non-sequitor. It does not follow that since government can show evidence that certain, specific individuals were involved in the crime and can, therefore, compel them to testify, then the government can, without such evidence, arrest and detain any individuals it wishes.