Anarchism and Objectivism

[bobsponge]

You know, I post this stuff up, then I read a few paragraphs down where Dr. Peikoff says the exact same thing that I did. It makes me wonder if I need to cover these bases at all; it seems he already has...

(edit: bold mine)

I advocate this definition as well:

a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

One does not need a 'government' for anything more than to organize/maintain an army for defensive purposes, follow the words of the constitution (a document we VOLUNTARILY associate with), and provide a commonly-accepted form of currency for trade. Nothing more. I would not define that as a ruling power at all. A servant government, such as our forefathers envisioned, cannot by its own virtues be a ruling power.

Anarchists in America pretend to be individualists. Philosophically, however, anarchism is the opposite of individualism; as its main modern popularizer, Karl Marx, makes clear, anarchism is an expression of Utopian collectivism. In the Utopian view, the state by its nature is an exploitative, but temporary, aberration; after men are properly reconditioned, this aberration will disappear, along with all disputes and injustices; mankind will be suffused by loving harmony. The harmony will come when men learn at last to blend into the "organic" One or Whole that they really are. In other words, social problems and the need of government will wither away when individuality withers away.

This statement is incorrect. I am an individualist, I do not pretend to be one. Karl marx indeed was a collectivist, but his anarchical leanings were more to tear down the existing system and replace it with communism/socialism. His was a temporary anarchy to suit his needs and then be abandoned. My anarchy morality is to remove the power that the US government has become and return it to its servant-government state it was in during its creation.

You guys seem to knee-jerk wildly against anyone who falls under another -ism other than Objectivism. It can work, and it does. Just because one is an anarchist does not mean they are crazy combat-booted skinheads that blow stuff up. Those people are just plain destructive. I wear my anarchist label with intelligence and knowledge; you brand me with your ignorance and closed-mindedness. Some Objectivists you are!

[BrassDragon]

My anarchy morality is to remove the power that the US government has become and return it to its servant-government state it was in during its creation.

You guys seem to knee-jerk wildly against anyone who falls under another -ism other than Objectivism. It can work, and it does. Just because one is an anarchist does not mean they are crazy combat-booted skinheads that blow stuff up. Those people are just plain destructive. I wear my anarchist label with intelligence and knowledge; you brand me with your ignorance and closed-mindedness. Some Objectivists you are!

Do you really want to remove the power the US government has, or do you want to decrease its power to return it to its proper state? The latter is the approach taken by Objectivists I know of.

Either one wouldn't make you an anarchist, unless your end goal is anarchy (as opposed to l-f capitalism). Likewise: Peikoff is advocating voting for the Democratic Party as a strategy to change the government in the long run; that doesn't make him a Democrat.

[Cogito]

and provide a commonly-accepted form of currency for trade.

Why?

Nothing more.

How would you settle contract disputes?

I would not define that as a ruling power at all. A servant government, such as our forefathers envisioned, cannot by its own virtues be a ruling power.

Exactly, that's what I was saying before

[Inspector]

Bobsponge,

I have provided direct and explicit quotes from Objectivism which state that Objectivism rejects anarchism, and that it is impossible to be both an Objectivist and an anarchist. As such, I don't think it's appropriate to call yourself an Objectivst anarchist, since there can be no such thing. As an alternative, you could call yourself an anarchist who likes Objectivism. Or something to that effect.

Now, since you actually are an anarchist (I didn't expect that!), I think a splitting of the thread is in order. If you want to argue for anarchism, then the thread will need to be in the debate forum, since it is against the rules to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism on the general forums.

[aequalsa]

Now, since you actually are an anarchist (I didn't expect that!),

I didn't get that impression. He said,

One does not need a 'government' for anything more than to organize/maintain an army for defensive purposes, follow the words of the constitution (a document we VOLUNTARILY associate with), and provide a commonly-accepted form of currency for trade. Nothing more. I would not define that as a ruling power at all. A servant government, such as our forefathers envisioned, cannot by its own virtues be a ruling power.

It seems to me that his anarchism is in regards to a "ruling power" which he view as distinct from a government of the sort we desire, as expressed above.

That said, Spongebob, I don't understand the purpose of describing the servent government as different from government generally. If you would not be opposed to a properly constructed government that took care of only the police, military, and courts, then it seems incorrect to identify yourself as an anarchist. You are not really opposed to government but only to coercive governments like all of the ones which exist today. Am I misunderstanding your position?

[Inspector]

I didn't get that impression.

Well, I'm taking him at his word here. Between you and me, I don't think he knows what he is. I'm cautiously optimistic that the may not be. But I think in the debate forum, we could all discuss the matter. Bobsponge could enlighten us as to what precisely his views are. I'd welcome that.

[bobsponge]

I didn't get that impression. He said,

It seems to me that his anarchism is in regards to a "ruling power" which he view as distinct from a government of the sort we desire, as expressed above.

That said, Spongebob, I don't understand the purpose of describing the servent government as different from government generally. If you would not be opposed to a properly constructed government that took care of only the police, military, and courts, then it seems incorrect to identify yourself as an anarchist. You are not really opposed to government but only to coercive governments like all of the ones which exist today. Am I misunderstanding your position?

I am opposed to a power structure/ruling body or anything that might be or become oppressive (such as our current regime). I am not anti-government (When I say government I use the definition <to govern, ie, to hold back the power of those who might be abusive of it>, not its current use (to hold back the citizens). A servant government is nothing to be fearful of, as it cannot hold power over the citizens. Citizens agree, yes, to work with each other to mutual benefit under a set of written agreements, ie laws, but that does not define a power structure or ruling body. None of the items I have mentioned above cast me out of the anarchist definition.

I'll kick the beehive again and go so far as to say that I find your literature is defining all anarchists as crazed and immoral extremists. Sort of like saying all Muslims are terrorists. It is making a generalization and is incorrect by way of omission.

You may define anarchist as a wacko nutjob who wants sheer lawlesness. I do not. Some are, some are not. Some Americans are communists. Some are laissez-faire. Not all love freedom, and some love it more than anything else. I define anarchist as one who simply does not want to live under a ruling body (a definition which agrees with just about every dictionary's definition). Ruling body being a government that has any power beyond being a servant government. As such, I would think it fairly safe to say that while most objectivist-defined anarchists are probably not objectivists, most objectivist-defined objectivists are closer to (or may actually be) anarchists than they may realize.

And, on another note, taking and preaching objectivist literature as gospel would probably make poor Ayn roll in her grave.

Why?

(re currency):

Because the constitution says so, and it's not a bad idea for laissez-faire commerce to have a common commodity to lubricate the wheels of trade. The constitution does not hold power over us-- it cannot-- it is a piece of paper. However, if we FREELY agree to treat each other with the tenets of its contents, then we'll all get along to mutual benefit. Those who fail to voluntarily follow said code of conduct will be outcast on their own fault, and rightfully so. As (and I believe it was Ayn) said something to the effect of, "The constitution, without the proper supporting philosophical base, is a meaningless piece of paper" Enforcement through voluntarily Philosophical base, yes, enforcement through brutalizing oppressive force, well it works but it's not moral.

How would you settle contract disputes?

Maybe I did not word it well, but when I referred to maintaining the constitution, I meant holding court for disputes.

Edited February 7, 2007 by bobsponge

[BrassDragon]

Bobsponge:

Would those who choose not to associate with the government be free to associate with a different one?

If your answer is "no," how do you defend your assertion that the government doesn't have coercive power over those who have not infringed on anyone's rights? (i.e. coercive power to keep you from forming your own league of courts, police, and military)

[bobsponge]

Bobsponge:

Would those who choose not to associate with the government be free to associate with a different one?

Sure, why not? Who would be holding them back? Not the government! If you don't want to play by the commonly-agreed-upon rules, play in another sandbox.

If your answer is "no," how do you defend your assertion that the government doesn't have coercive power over those who have not infringed on anyone's rights? (i.e. coercive power to keep you from forming your own league of courts, police, and military)

The government has coercive power over anyone who has not violated anyone elses' rights in the USA, right now. PATRIOT, IRC, REAL ID and other acts are a blatant violation of our individual rights and individual sovereignty.

[Inspector]

Bobsponge,

Let's first get it straight what you believe, so that we can decide if the label, "anarchist" is an appropriate one.

Do you advocate a form of government whose sole purpose is protection of individual rights through the police, the law courts, and the military? (Government being defined as the organization who holds a legal monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area)

In other words, do you advocate the form of government that is Laissez-Faire Capitalism?

I find it interesting, by the way, that you have chosen the label "anarchist" for yourself, rather than Capitalist or even Minarchist.

[bobsponge]

Bobsponge,

Let's first get it straight what you believe, so that we can decide if the label, "anarchist" is an appropriate one.

Do you advocate a form of government whose sole purpose is protection of individual rights through the police, the law courts, and the military? (Government being defined as the organization who holds a legal monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area)

In other words, do you advocate the form of government that is Laissez-Faire Capitalism?

I find it interesting, by the way, that you have chosen the label "anarchist" for yourself, rather than Capitalist or even Minarchist.

I am a capitalist too. I agree with many parts of minarchism, and am all about laissez-faire. However, I do not believe the government should have a monopoly on force.

[BrassDragon]

Bobsponge,

Let's first get it straight what you believe, so that we can decide if the label, "anarchist" is an appropriate one.

I think we can decide based on his answer to the question

Bobsponge:

Would those who choose not to associate with the government be free to associate with a different one?

, which was

Sure, why not? Who would be holding them back? Not the government! If you don't want to play by the commonly-agreed-upon rules, play in another sandbox.

[Inspector]

BrassDragon,

This:

I am a capitalist too. I agree with many parts of minarchism, and am all about laissez-faire. However, I do not believe the government should have a monopoly on force.

Is even more explicit, which is what I was looking for. I want to be sure of what Bobsponge wants.

And it looks like he is an advocate of anarcho-capitalism. I haven't heard him specifically advocate "competing governments," but without a monopoly on a geographic area, that would be the result.

But I still am not 100% sure that is what he wants. Bobsponge, what do you think of that? Bear in mind what I do not mean by "monpoly on force in a geographic area:" that you don't have a right to self-defense. What I mean is that for all legal and criminal matters, in a given geographic area there must be one and only one government that has jurisdiction. Do you agree or disagree with that idea?

[bobsponge]

BrassDragon,

This:

Is even more explicit, which is what I was looking for. I want to be sure of what Bobsponge wants.

And it looks like he is an advocate of anarcho-capitalism. I haven't heard him specifically advocate "competing governments," but without a monopoly on a geographic area, that would be the result.

But I still am not 100% sure that is what he wants. Bobsponge, what do you think of that? Bear in mind what I do not mean by "monpoly on force in a geographic area:" that you don't have a right to self-defense. What I mean is that for all legal and criminal matters, in a given geographic area there must be one and only one government that has jurisdiction. Do you agree or disagree with that idea?

Do you mean a central court? I am not convinced that that is necessary, really-- my international copyright cases spread from the USA to UK to Germany, and none have the same laws, none share a court, but all agree mutually that it is to their benefit to support property rights. If all agree to play by common rules, there is no need for monopoly on force.

I agree with many parts of the anarcho-capitalism description, especially "mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow." This legal code would recognize sovereignty of the individual and the principle of non-aggression."

[BrassDragon]

Do you mean a central court? I am not convinced that that is necessary, really-- my international copyright cases spread from the USA to UK to Germany, and none have the same laws, none share a court, but all agree mutually that it is to their benefit to support property rights. If all agree to play by common rules, there is no need for monopoly on force.

But all those places have a monopoly on force over a specific area. I agree with you that if we wanted to break the U.S. down into sovereign counties, each with a monopoly on force, life would go on, especially if they all agreed to use the same laissze-faire legal code.

But what we're asking - is it OK for me and you to be neighbors, and me join the Socialist Collective League, and you join the Capitalist Confederacy? If you say "yes," you'd have to explain how, for instance, how the two governments will reconcile things when I burglar your house - but your actual answer would probably best be left to a debate on anarchism. vs. the Objectivist stance on government, if it comes to that.

Edited February 10, 2007 by BrassDragon

[Inspector]

What I mean is that for all legal and criminal matters, in a given geographic area there must be one and only one government that has jurisdiction. Do you agree or disagree with that idea?

Bobsponge, you didn't really answer this part directly. It's important, so if you could please?

[aequalsa]

Bobsponge, you didn't really answer this part directly. It's important, so if you could please?

It should also be clarified that when Inspector means a monopoly on the use of force, force means retalitory force. They are granted no such right to the initiation of force, for taxation and what not.

[Inspector]

It should also be clarified that when Inspector means a monopoly on the use of force, force means retalitory force. They are granted no such right to the initiation of force, for taxation and what not.

Yes, exactly.

[bobsponge]

But what we're asking - is it OK for me and you to be neighbors, and me join the Socialist Collective League, and you join the Capitalist Confederacy? If you say "yes," you'd have to explain how, for instance, how the two governments will reconcile things when I burglar your house - but your actual answer would probably best be left to a debate on anarchism. vs. the Objectivist stance on government, if it comes to that.

Who says the government has to intervene when you burgle my house? I'd rather take care of that mano-a-mano.

[aequalsa]

Who says the government has to intervene when you burgle my house? I'd rather take care of that mano-a-mano.

If you mean while it was occuring, that would be self-defense.

The function of government is that if you suspect that your next door neighbor burgled your house while you were out, rather then you hunting him down and taking care of him as judge, jury, and executioner, they arrest him, and give him due process. You would still retain the right of self-defense, you just could not initiate force later based on your belief. Reatlitory force outside of the immediate moment is left to the government to avoid blood feuds and that sort of thing. Cause we view them as bad.

[bobsponge]

If you mean while it was occuring, that would be self-defense.

The function of government is that if you suspect that your next door neighbor burgled your house while you were out, rather then you hunting him down and taking care of him as judge, jury, and executioner, they arrest him, and give him due process. You would still retain the right of self-defense, you just could not initiate force later based on your belief. Reatlitory force outside of the immediate moment is left to the government to avoid blood feuds and that sort of thing. Cause we view them as bad.

The trial process initially was not one of government power (over retaliatory force) but of citizens all agreeing in a public forum that person A burgled person B, and should be punished. The government provided the room, the people volunteered the rest. It has turned into one of force, however, because due process has been removed in relation to tax collection and intelligence gathering, among other things.

It all comes down to this: Able people, left to their own devices, will ultimately take good care of themselves, with no need for outside intervention. The "wild" west is case in point and an excellent example of how enterprising people can form a genteel working society with little need for anything but the most basic common-sense laws and little need for an overseeing government. Those who are unable but smart enough will try and scheme to change the system to their advantage. This is why I am a firm believer that most laws today are not made for keeping the peace, but to give one schemer an advantage over another.

[Inspector]

Who says the government has to intervene when you burgle my house? I'd rather take care of that mano-a-mano.

So, the answer to my question is no then? Even after the emergency of the burglary has passed, you don't agree that a government (and only one government) should have jurisdiction over criminal law? I noticed that earlier you didn't include police in your list of legitimate functions of government; I had thought this an error of omission on your part but now you seem to be indicating that you don't believe that police should enforce property or personal rights.

[bobsponge]

So, the answer to my question is no then? Even after the emergency of the burglary has passed, you don't agree that a government (and only one government) should have jurisdiction over criminal law? I noticed that earlier you didn't include police in your list of legitimate functions of government; I had thought this an error of omission on your part but now you seem to be indicating that you don't believe that police should enforce property or personal rights.

Police, if any, should be local, not federal. They should be PUBLIC SERVANTS. If need is had for inter-area/inter-state police work, they should not be disallowed communication, but all a federal police program does is encourage top-heaviness, government empowerment, and abuse.

[Inspector]

Police, if any, should be local, not federal. They should be PUBLIC SERVANTS. If need is had for inter-area/inter-state police work, they should not be disallowed communication, but all a federal police program does is encourage top-heaviness, government empowerment, and abuse.

You've sidestepped my question. I really don't much care about the intricacies of local/federal. I'm trying not to get frustrated here, but you never seem to answer the questions I ask, but instead half-answer them and go off on an unrelated tangent... Please answer the following questions directly:

1) Do you agree or disagree with the idea that for all legal and criminal matters, in a given geographic area there must be one and only one government that has jurisdiction?

2) Do you agree or disagree that a police force should exist, provided that its sole purpose is to protect individual rights, including property rights? And as a corollary to this that the police have the right to use force to defend individual rights including property rights?

3) If yes to #2, then do you believe that, excepting during the emergency that exists when a crime is actually taking place, that all matters of defending and enforcing individual rights should be handled by said police (i.e. the government) and not by lone vigilantes taking the law into their own hands?

Right now it looks to me like your answer is no to all three but you have so far been unclear.

[bobsponge]

You've sidestepped my question. I really don't much care about the intricacies of local/federal. I'm trying not to get frustrated here, but you never seem to answer the questions I ask, but instead half-answer them and go off on an unrelated tangent... Please answer the following questions directly:

1) Do you agree or disagree with the idea that for all legal and criminal matters, in a given geographic area there must be one and only one government that has jurisdiction?

It makes sense, in a given geographic area, not over its entirety, and not overshadowing other geographic areas. I've made it clear before that I have no problem with people organizing and cooperating for their own benefit, only that organization should not be able to force anything on anyone. Hence the lack of a ruling body, hence an anarchy.

2) Do you agree or disagree that a police force should exist, provided that its sole purpose is to protect individual rights, including property rights? And as a corollary to this that the police have the right to use force to defend individual rights including property rights?

Sure.

3) If yes to #2, then do you believe that, excepting during the emergency that exists when a crime is actually taking place, that all matters of defending and enforcing individual rights should be handled by said police (i.e. the government) and not by lone vigilantes taking the law into their own hands?

No. I believe that defending ones rights comes under personal responsibility first, and police second. If you can fix the problem yourself, leave the police out of it. If your rights were indeed infringed, you have the right to set it straight, through your own power, and if you cannot then through the power of due process by which we all agree to operate. This is a big problem with today's society-- they run to government first and fail to take responsibility, and in order to be able to sit on their asses and shirk said responsibility, the people give the government unwarranted power to do their bidding by proxy.