Anarchism vs. Government

Political Philosophy
1

I read Rand in the early years of high school. Ive read all her non fiction and most of her fiction. I loved it. I still do. I think they are great works.

The question I have is about anarchism versus Rand’s minimal state. I have read her arguments in Capitalism about rights and proper function of the state. I agree that if a state is moral, then her way would be ideal.

HOWEVER, I have never seen an argument that supports the moral CREATION of a state. How is it created from the anarchism that is natural? I agree that a govt can be useful, but I cant see how forcing a person into a system they dont accept is moral. And if you allow one person to secede for personal preference, what keeps the rest from leaving and retreating back into anarchy.

Basically, I would just like to hear the argument for the creation of a state. Then from there, how would the state remain in place without taxation? And why can a state force people who may not agree with their laws, punishments, etc to live by them?

I really do genuinely want to understand this. I read the articles on strike the root, where some O’ist points out the contradictions in anarchism, then an anarchist replies. And it seems to me that I am somewhere in the middle, leaning more toward anarchism.

2

why would you think that would get you banned? Trust me, alot worse has washed through here. Every now and then we’ll get a crusader who thinks he can take on an entire forum of Atheists, or we’ll get a Libertarian Kelley-ite (as I was up until very recently. I had a philosophical epiphany :smiley: ) in here.

as for your question at hand, I suppose the great example in history would be the Founding of the United States. Government sprung up out of necessity.

and in a moral society as defined by Rand, there really wouldn’t be any incentive to not want to join. You are basically paying for the upholding of your own rights, no more. Of course, if you are a collectivist who wants to have his cake and eat it too, you are free to leave and go to another country.

as for secessionism, under the ideal system there is no reason to secede (emphasis today is on the term ideal system, The war of Southern Independence is the topic for another day :huh: ). The only reason to possibly secede is if you wish to break the law, which in that case still does not prevent apprehension, You would be sought after regardless of the country you are in, just like how the United States is doing with Osama Bin Laden. If a group of collectivists want to form their own commune, so long as they aren’t violating anyone’s rights, they are free to do so (for however long they think they can last without someone to mooch off of)

Milton Friedman put it very eloquently. Government should behave in a manner similar to an umpire or referee. They are there to moderate the peace, not be a player. What would a sport without umpires be like?

Strike-the-Root is O.K. Lately it’s been nothing but anti-war and Anti-Bush sentiment, which is ok to an extend, but come on, diversify! LewRockwell.com has gotten like that too, ever lowering standards though I still enjoy reading Lew’s King Lincoln files.

ARI would be my favorite, if only they actually posted new essays every now and then :stuck_out_tongue: (but ARI’s essays tend to be of the best quality) as of right now, I like the Ludwig Von Mises institution, and the Cato institute has some pretty good info.

3

I read Rand in the early years of high school. Ive read all her non fiction and most of her fiction. I loved it. I still do. I think they are great works.

The question I have is about anarchism versus Rand’s minimal state. I have read her arguments in Capitalism about rights and proper function of the state. I agree that if a state is moral, then her way would be ideal.

HOWEVER, I have never seen an argument that supports the moral CREATION of a state.

I recommend re-reading “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government,” found in VOS and the appendix of CUI.

“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

There is the linking of morality to rights. So here’s the link between rights and the necessity to institute governments:

A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.

Do men need such an institution—and why?

[…]

To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man’s nature for his proper survival.

Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force.

Note: this is not intended as a full argument, but rather to show you that at least the arguments are there in Miss Rand’s two main articles on the subject (“Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government”).

I agree that a govt can be useful, but I cant see how forcing a person into a system they dont accept is moral. And if you allow one person to secede for personal preference, what keeps the rest from leaving and retreating back into anarchy.

Nobody is allowed to “secede” from a government–they are allowed to leave the country if they wish.

Then from there, how would the state remain in place without taxation?

See “Government Financing in a Free Society,” from VOS.

And why can a state force people who may not agree with their laws, punishments, etc to live by them?

Laws are established to fulfill the conditions necessary for men to live a moral life. If you don’t agree, you must necessarily say that others don’t have the right to live moral lives–meaning, you wish to initiate force against them. Once you initiate force, he has every right to defend himself (a right that he transfers to the state). If you believe in force, you will be answered with force–as you deserve. If you choose not to live by using force, your freedom will be protected.

I really do genuinely want to understand this. I read the articles on strike the root, where some O’ist points out the contradictions in anarchism, then an anarchist replies. And it seems to me that I am somewhere in the middle, leaning more toward anarchism.

Anarchism is just pressure group warfare–the biggest gang wins, since the criminal is rewarded (with loot) and the victim is punished (by having his rights violated). Anarchism is not consistent with man’s rights–it just encourages the use of force. Do you disagree with rights, too, or just governments?

4

Nimble, is there something in the Forum Rules that would lead you to believe you would be banned for asking questions about anarchism versus government?

Have you seen some action by the moderators that would lead you to believe you would be banned for asking such questions?

In summary, what are the facts on which you are basing your worry about being banned?

5

…

HOWEVER, I have never seen an argument that supports the moral CREATION of a state. How is it created from the anarchism that is natural? I agree that a govt can be useful, but I cant see how forcing a person into a system they dont accept is moral. And if you allow one person to secede for personal preference, what keeps the rest from leaving and retreating back into anarchy.

…

Hi Nimble,

I wouldn’t exactly agree that anarchism is natural. Following the inductive approach, I can summon to mind tons of examples from history of people ruled by thugs at some level of organization – whether the band, the clan, the tribe, or some larger state. I can think of no concrete I would describe as anarchism IF by anarchism you mean individuals having freedom living with no recourse to an established law, and not being oppressed by others in some way.

The benevolent universe premise does not imply that all people are good. Bad folks are out there. They seem to search for and exploit any niche they can find.

Now consider the example of the mongol invasion of Europe in the 13th century (14th?). Europe was basically chopped up into little warring nations. Along comes this massive army from the east – from out of a blind spot, giving little indication of the impending threat. The mongols hit one army – in Poland – and destroy it in a completely one-sided battle. I’ll stop with the example from history, but ask: what will happen to an anarchist non-state when Kubla Kahn shows up on the border?

I believe (point 1) that people in an anarchist non-state would have reason to organize and build an army / intelligence agency in anticipation of such a threat.

But then I think the question of how a state would morally be created “from the anarchism that is natural,” is the whole problem. The implied claim is simply false. Anarchism is not natural. We do not have it today, and anyone seeking to establish a state (or non-state) of any type would have to factor neighboring non-anarchist countries into their calculations.

– Josh

6

Keep in mind that in the ideal capitalistic state-- and this has been suggested by Rand, or Peikoff, I can’t remember-- taxation would be optional. And I apologize, for I won’t go into the logistical details because my vague memory would only serve to butcher them. The basic idea is that the government itself would not violate any basic human rights (those acknowledged by Objectivism). The creation of an ideal state would not put any new demands on an individual who is already 1) acting selfishly, and 2) not initiating force.

Honestly, if you could invent a way of guaranteeing individual rights without any need for government, I’m sure everyone here would be with you. Unfortunately, nobody has yet come up with such an idea :huh: Government is the only device currently available that is capable of securing those basic rights put forth by Objectivism.

7

…

I agree that a govt can be useful, but I cant see how forcing a person into a system they dont accept is moral.

…

Keep in mind the nature of that system, and what it really means to ‘force’ someone into it.

Capitalisim is the system that bans the initiation of force. So, to force someone into that system means that they are forced to not initiate force against others. Which means that those that do accept the system are defending themselves against those who don’t accept it, i.e. those who want to the freedom to initiate force.

If you accept my translation of your statement, then the question becomes: “Why is it immoral to allow individuals to initate force?”

And to that question, you do or should already know the answer.

8

…

I have never seen an argument that supports the moral CREATION of a state. How is it created from the anarchism that is natural?

…

Basically, I would just like to hear the argument for the creation of a state.

…

Again, what does it mean for people to ‘create’ this state. It means that a group of people agreeing to not tolerate anyone initiating force against them.

For example, I don’t want to be forced, you don’t want to be forced, nor do Bob, Charlie, Suzi, or Sam. So, we decide to defend ourselves… together. It is an alliance among individuals against a common enemy. And if anyone tries to initiate force against us, we fight back. Anyone is free to keep themselves separate from us, but if they try to cross over and impinge on our rights, we don’t let them. And if anyone else tries to initate force against them, they must fight back by themselves, without our help.

9

Thanks alot…Let me think about this for a bit…and ill come back with more questions and/or arguments. Ill reread a few things.

10

Okay I always get caught up here. We agree that property rights make the land you work YOURS. What right does government have to organize itself on YOUR land?

Second question, if men are not allowed to initiate the use of force, how would the men in government bar other competitors from services such as providing law, police, etc, without initiating the use of force?

Last question, if more than one govt is made, and they compete in service providing, how are lines drawn between govts? Is it just arbitrary, or determined by war? And if govt cannot own land, because all land is private, what right does it have to attack to gain land and set its boundaries?

Thank you…if you could answer these questions thoroughly I think that would just about solve my questions.

11

Okay I always get caught up here. We agree that property rights make the land you work YOURS. What right does government have to organize itself on YOUR land?

The government doesn’t have a right to organize itself on your land.

Second question, if men are not allowed to initiate the use of force, how would the men in government bar other competitors from services such as providing law, police, etc, without initiating the use of force?

Governments use retaliatory force, and the use of force is not permitted except by the government (in this limited context). There is no way for a private company to provide defense, law enforcement or contract enforcement without the ability to punish (use force against) those who attack, break laws, or infringe your contracts. There is no way for a private company to do this, as these actions would be illegal and the government would punish anyone doing so.

Last question, if more than one govt is made, and they compete in service providing, how are lines drawn between govts? Is it just arbitrary, or determined by war? And if govt cannot own land, because all land is private, what right does it have to attack to gain land and set its boundaries?

I refer you again to “The Nature of Government.” This is directly addressed there:

Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’s house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

12

  There is no way for a private company to do this, as these actions would be illegal and the government would punish anyone doing so.

He is asking why it is okay to do this.

13

Yea I was wondering what the difference between a “government” and a private company? To me the distinction seems non-existent, tell me what Im missing?

Also, and I do think that a govt can and SHOULD allow private protection. Such as private guards, detectives, etc.

14

Differences between a government and private company:

Governments exist to serve everyone that lives in a given society by protecting their rights. They use retaliatory force, under the guidance of objective law, to uphold justice. Governments do not properly make products to sell to the public, or provide public services (by that I mean its “services” are the protection of your rights–not anything else, and only governments are capable of this since only they can use force against those who violate rights).

Companies are voluntary associations of men wishing to combine their capital to provide some products or services other people will be willing to buy, in order to gain a profit.

The purpose of a company is to make money, while the purpose of a government is to protect individual rights. A company is a voluntary organization and deals with others exclusively by free trade. A government has the exclusive power to deal with people by force (only against criminals who initiate the use of force).

The two have a lot more differences than similarities. The main distinction is free association vs. force.

Also, and I do think that a govt can and SHOULD allow private protection. Such as private guards, detectives, etc.

Citizens in a society delegate their right of self-defense to the government so that punishment and guilt can be determined by objective standards (see “The Nature of Government,” again). In instances where it is not possible for the government to protect one’s rights, like emergency situations when a criminal is assaulting you, of course it is entirely appropriate to defend yourself.

In light of this, private guards (security guards) are perfectly acceptable. Their job, though, is limited. They aren’t allowed to punish the criminals, but rather to determine when property is being stolen or someone is being attacked and act in their immediate defense (by eliminating any immediate threat and then holding the criminal until the police arrive).

Private detectives are fine too–they can gain information so long as they don’t initiate force. Unlike police detectives, they cannot collect evidence, search houses, etc. Private detectives can spend their time collecting information publicly available (or that people are willing to tell them).

So, there are a lot of professions that look like they “mimic” government functions, but they do not. They can provide for immediate defense in situations where the government cannot help you–or gather information. However, they cannot punish criminals or take private property. They cannot use force as the government does (except in the case of an immediate threat, which normal people have a right to use force in as well). The people working in these professions can only do what any other normal person could do–they do not have the extra power (of using retaliatory force under objective law) that governments do.

15

Why is it okay for the government to use force against a peaceful group of people? Is it okay to do so if it maintains the monopoly on the use of retaliatory force?

16

Why is it okay for the government to use force against a peaceful group of people? Is it okay to do so if it maintains the monopoly on the use of retaliatory force?

A government’s job is protection of individual rights. If a particular group of people is not violating anybody’s rights, the government has no right to initiate force against it.

And a government has a monopoly on retaliatory force because it is in everyone’s self-interest. Otherwise a society could not function.

17

A government’s job is protection of individual rights. If a particular group of people is not violating anybody’s rights, the government has no right to initiate force against it.

And a government has a monopoly on retaliatory force because it is in everyone’s self-interest. Otherwise a society could not function.

Your paragraphs are contradictory in relation to my question. If a particular group of people are not initiating force (ie, a private police company that enforces individual rights, but for a fee, while inside the jurisdiction of the government), you are saying the government has no right to initiate force against it. How would the government maintain a monopoly on retaliatory force then?

18

Yea I was wondering what the difference between a “government” and a private company? To me the distinction seems non-existent, tell me what Im missing?

Also, and I do think that a govt can and SHOULD allow private protection. Such as private guards, detectives, etc.

One place to start in thinking about these questions is to review what “government” means. Since this forum is dedicated to the study, in part, of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, you could begin with the meaning of government in her writings.

So, Nimble, what did Ayn Rand mean when she said “government”?

Where do you find her discussion of the meaning of that concept? (Specifying the source will help others in this forum study the same issue – and doublecheck your understanding of her discussion.)

19

If a particular group of people are not initiating force (ie, a private police company that enforces individual rights, but for a fee, while inside the jurisdiction of the government), you are saying the government has no right to initiate force against it. How would the government maintain a monopoly on retaliatory force then?

You don’t seem to understand what is meant by retaliatory force. Any time force is initiated, the government responds with what is called “retaliatory” force–to hold the criminal responsible (making him compensate the victim to the extent it’s possible, for example). They can take away the criminal’s rights (through due process) in retaliation for violating someone else’s. For example, consider a crime of stealing. Person A steals person B’s money. The government has every right to force person A to return the amount of money he stole (in addition to potential jail time, etc.).

So, say you have some sort of private police force (which won’t work). This victim goes to the private police force, and claims person A stole his money. The police go and take the criminal’s money, returning it to the victim.

If you notice, any “private police company” would have to use force against the criminal in order to function. There is no way for a police “company” to enforce rights without initiating force–they have to be able to punish those that it believes initiate force. Since the government did not process the case under objective law, and use its retaliatory force, the government views this “police company”'s use of force as an initiation of force against the alleged criminal. The “police company” (or whoever acted for it) will be held responsible by the government.

If a crime is committed against you, you don’t have a right to go to whoever you think did it and steal back whatever property you think he stole from you. That would be a crime. It is the government’s job to objectively define the laws and enforce them. Companies can only do what people can–they cannot use force either. So it is impossible for a company to do the government’s job.

20

What did Ayn Rand mean by government, as opposed to what normal people mean when they say government? I guess I am caught up on how you expect a government composed of men, who are fallible, and easily corruptible. (Consider the type of person it takes to want to get into government). Why would it be any different from a private protection agency.

Is there any specific text that actually shows the difference. I dont want a broad definition from a book of govt.

Thank you