http://anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com/
“An AnarchObjectivist is one who accepts the basic principles of Ayn Rands philosophy, but rejects her advocacy of minarchism as inconsistent with those basic positions in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.”
I haven’t seen this particular argument before, so I’d like to see what you have to say about it.
Well it’s a poor argument standing alone, because it doesn’t prove anything. It states the following:
No government may initiate force.
A government monopoly on security initiates force.
Therefore a government is illegitimate, and contradicts premise (1).
Well okay, but this is stating the obvious. It’s like a “duh” if you indeed thought (2) was the case. But the entire question revolves around whether or not a government monopoly on security is in fact justified, which this argument does absolutely nothing to address. It’s useless by itself. The poster should attempt to prove premise (2) if he wants to actually show anything.
Thank you for taking the time to reply, 2046.
But the entire question revolves around whether or not a government monopoly on security is in fact justified, which this argument does absolutely nothing to address. It’s useless by itself. The poster should attempt to prove premise (2) if he wants to actually show anything.
What about this paragraph:
“If a government holds a monopoly on the use of force, it initiates the use of force against those whom would seek to start businesses in the arbitration and defense services industries, as well as all those who seek to do business such persons. If a defense service is not allowed to exist or operate, yet has not initiated the use of force against anyone, and only retaliates against those who have initiated the use of force, those individuals rights have been violated.”
There’s a little bit of word-play or word-dropping here. A government holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (i.e. the legal use of retaliatory force).
This doesn’t mean you can’t shoot someone posing an immediate threat to your life, and it doesn’t mean you can’t hire a body guard. It does mean you can’t call Blackwater and have them track down and imprison the guy who stole your car last week.
The anarchists here are as guilty as welfare statists of abusing the concept of “rights.” You don’t have a right to start a “defense” business which would compete with the government, because you don’t have a right to arrest or imprison people. We give that authority to the government in order to protect individual rights via an objective rule of law.
" It does mean you can’t call Blackwater and have them track down and imprison the guy who stole your car last week."
Why not? Neither of us are initiating the use of force against anyone else, we are violating no ones rights, so any action the government takes violates the basic principle.
“A government holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (i.e. the legal use of retaliatory force).” The line I used was a quote from Ayn Rand.
“You don’t have a right to start a “defense” business which would compete with the government, because you don’t have a right to arrest or imprison people.” Why not?
"We give that authority to the government in order to protect individual rights via an objective rule of law. " I don’t consent. I’d prefer to give my business to a private company if that company can provide the service cheaper, faster, or more efficiently. Im not initiating the use of force against anyone so any action the government takes against me violates my rights. If it doesnt take action against me it doesn’t have a monopoly.
“If a government holds a monopoly on the use of force, it initiates the use of force against those whom would seek to start businesses in the arbitration and defense services industries, as well as all those who seek to do business such persons. If a defense service is not allowed to exist or operate, yet has not initiated the use of force against anyone, and only retaliates against those who have initiated the use of force, those individuals rights have been violated.”
This guy doesn’t seem to be using Objectivist principles at all. He instead is doing the same thing all anarchists are doing: taking non-initiation of force (a minor tool Ayn Rand used to explain her fundamental ideas) as an out-of-context primary, and running with it. But Ayn Rand’s fundamental principle guiding human interactions isn’t non-initiation of force, it’s the principle of individual rights.
And the principle of individual rights cannot in fact be logically extended to give you (and all individuals) the right to arrest thieves and put them in jail, or hang them, or whatever else your idea of justice and retaliatory force may be.
Does this guy ever explain how he started with the right to life, liberty and property, and ended up with the supposed right to start a “defense company that retaliates against those who have initiated force”? (again, my impression is that he didn’t start with individual rights, he started with non-initiation of force - he thinks that the Objectivist position is that rights mean that you can do whatever you want except initiate force, irrespective of context - and that’s a blatant misunderstanding of Oism, not a “correction”.
In Objectivism, the government is the means by which retaliatory force is placed under objective control, not as a consequence of “people having the right to do it”, but as a consequence of individual rights having to be protected. Just because Ayn Rand thought a government was rightful and necessary, to protect individual rights, it doesn’t mean she also thought individuals have the right to exercise all the powers of the government, at their discretion.
A single state is necessary for ensuring that due process and objectivity of law. If everything is based on person to person consensus, retaliation of force becomes arbitrary and way to close to vigilantism.
Basically everyone needs to be on the same page and know before hand what the rules are, whether they like the partciulars of these rules or not.
I can elaborate if you need me too.
Most arguments against Anarchism are bad, and usually are based in hyperbole. The above is the real reason why it ultimately woudn’t work. I don’t want to live in the world of Snow Crash.
What about this paragraph:
"If a government holds a monopoly on the use of force, it initiates the use of force against those whom would seek to start businesses in the arbitration and defense services industries, as well as all those who seek to do business such persons. If a defense service is not allowed to exist or operate, yet has not initiated the use of force against anyone, and only retaliates against those who ha
ve initiated the use of force, those individuals rights have been violated."
Yeah that doesn’t really go anywhere towards proving premise (2). If a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is justified, then we can’t say the entrepreneur’s rights have been violated necessarily. The whole thing hinges on whether or not it is actually necessary to have one single monopoly of law and jurisdiction to protect rights.
Let’s use the example of a blatantly false conclusion:
Initiation of force is unjust.
Cutting down tress is an initiation of force.
Therefore cutting down trees is unjust.
It’s a valid argument, but is it really true that cutting down trees is an initiation of force? That hasn’t even been attempted to be proven there. You always need to give actual reasons for the minor premise.
A government should hold a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force and that monopoly is not an initiation of force in itself its the individuals who it retaliates against that initiate force.
The only reason I can see why you’d want a different service holding a monopoly on retaliatory force would be if you’d also want them to initiate it.
Go ahead and start a preventative business if you want though.
Other have answered the particulars, so I just wanted to comment on the faulty epistemological approach of this quote:
“An AnarchObjectivist is one who accepts the basic principles of Ayn Rands philosophy, but rejects her advocacy of minarchism as inconsistent with those basic positions in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.”
It is true that politics must be consistent with metaphysics, ethics, etc. However, the implicit and faulty assumption introduced in the quote is this: if there is an inconsistency, the more “basic” positions win the day. This is wrong. What the quote refers to as “basic” are not more basic than other knowledge in terms of truth or experience. They are more general, they are broader, they are more abstract. Only in those senses are they more “basic”.
Consider this proposition: liquids always acts in way XYZ. That is more “basic” than the proposition: water always acts in way XYZ. However, if we find that water does not act in way XYZ, then we do not continue to believe that it does…just because the more “basic” principle says it does. Instead, we question the more “basic” principle. In fact, as this example shows, the more abstract is derived from the more specific. That derivation – induction – is the crucial part of knowledge-acquisition.
Of course, either way, the more abstract must be consistent with the more concrete.
Please learn to use the quote function.
Why not? Neither of us are initiating the use of force against anyone else, we are violating no ones rights, so any action the government takes violates the basic principle.
Why not?
You contradict yourself here. How is it wrong for the government to take action against the car thief, but okay for a private firm to do so? He stole your car, not the government’s car nor the private firm’s car. The action is retaliatory for you, but not for the private firm.
This seems too obvious to need explaining, but you asked: The suspected thief has a right to liberty, which you and the private firm would be infringing by locking him up. You don’t have a right to imprison him, because you don’t have a right to infringe another’s rights.
http://anarchobjecti…wordpress.com/
“An AnarchObjectivist is one who accepts the basic principles of Ayn Rands philosophy, but rejects her advocacy of minarchism as inconsistent with those basic positions in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.”
I haven’t seen this particular argument before, so I’d like to see what you have to say about it.
You will probably catch a lot of shit for this, but I just wanted to point out that there are many Objectivists who are fully on board with you here, myself included.
I just wanted to point out that there are many Objectivists who are fully on board with you here, myself included.
I’m sorry to inform you and the OP but there is no such thing as an Objectivist that is an anarchist, those two terms are mutually exclusive. “AnarchObjectivism” is a contradiction in terms.
Here is a good thread on anarchism.
Anarchists always seem to do the same thing: they equate “initiation of force” with “retaliatory force” and say that the government is initiating force by outlawing it. Which is the same as saying: you telling me I can’t rob you is a violation of my rights. It is equating murder with self defense.
From another thread here is my argument against a “market in force”:
There is a fundamental contradiction involved in having a “market in force” and it is impossible to get around.
Markets like minds do not and can not operate by force. “Freedom” means: free from force. When we speak of a free market we mean a market free of force. A “market in force” is not only a contradiction in terms but I believe it makes use of a stolen concept.
The only way to decide the issue is on principle:
The only thing that can violate your Rights is force.
Therefore, the only civilized interactions among men occur when no force is involved.
The only proper function of government is to protect your Rights.
It follows then that what government must do is outlaw the use of physical force.
You don’t outlaw the use of physical force by making it lawful for men to practice it.
You cannot uphold a principle by violating it.
The only way to decide the issue is on principle:
The only thing that can violate your Rights is force.
Therefore, the only civilized interactions among men occur when no force is involved.
The only proper function of government is to protect your Rights.
It follows then that what government must do is outlaw the use of physical force.
You don’t outlaw the use of physical force by making it lawful for men to practice it.
You cannot uphold a principle by violating it.
The problem is not with the innitation of force but with question how and who chooses governemt.
Every member of society has a right to vote even if the have no right to innitiate force on their own behalf.
Democratic elections supposedly give that right to everyone, but in reality they don’t.
Sure democracy is better than dictatorship, but
I have the right to choose my lawyer, but I can’t choose the policeman who will look for my stolen bike.
I have no way of knowing whether police did anything at all when I reported the theft.
I have almost no alternative to the police.
If I could choose from a number of services they would have to compete against each other.
They would develop technics for finding lost property so that competition won’t drive them out of business.
More effective methods would mean less crime.
In reality my right to choose my government is violated by the democratic system and…
“You cannot uphold a principle by violating it.”
The problem is not with the innitation of force but with question how and who chooses governemt.
Every member of society has a right to vote even if the have no right to innitiate force on their own behalf.
Democratic elections supposedly give that right to everyone, but in reality they don’t.
Sure democracy is better than dictatorship, but…
The justification for a particular state does not come from its democratic nature. Plenty of democratically elected governments have done things which put them firmly in the illegitimate category. It is a fiction that democratic means free.
What makes a government legitimate is whether or not it actually respects fundamental rights. If you have a government that does so, there is no right to ‘compete’ with it, in the sense of carrying out one’s own retaliatory force which is not subject to objective procedure. Such action presents a valid risk to the rights of the citizens of such a government, and it is justified in shutting down said operations.
Yes but what will it take for government to respect rights?
Good government is a result not a cause.
If you say that people have no right to innitiate force legally or illegally it naturally follows that members of the govt. must be chosen.
Computers cannot fill the role of the government and since people can’t use force they have to choose a group that will have that right.
The method of chosing will determine the effectiveness of government, that is why dictatorships tend to do worse than democracy in upholding rigths.
I can move from my country. I am physically capable to choose my own government, and that is a good thing.
But when I say I want to choose the police service I like, that is suddenly a bad thing.
If all you need is competing initiators of force not killing each other, than all the government has to do is keep the peace by force.
Why must I deal with government idiocy on a personal level?
It’s not really good for objectivism to pretend like no anarchist has ever responded to or addressed the above arguments. Anyone seriously interested in the subject should study further.
It’s not really good for objectivism to pretend like no anarchist has ever responded to or addressed the above arguments. Anyone seriously interested in the subject should study further.
I’m not sure which arguments you think they have addressed but they haven’t. Well, I guess you could say they have addressed Ayn Rand’s philosophical argument against anarchism as well as the church has addressed arguments against the existence of god. So they haven’t properly addressed the arguments against anarchism and they never will because they are wrong.
Anarchism does not a civilized society make.
Insofar as you think they haven’t addressed them properly, you are welcome to actually address their claims. And that would be fantastic and, for once, actually productive. My point, however, is that they are not even addressed, and it is not beneficial for the objectivist point of view, to pretend responses don’t exist.
Insofar as you think they haven’t addressed them properly, you are welcome to actually address their claims. And that would be fantastic and, for once, actually productive. My point, however, is that they are not even addressed, and it is not beneficial for the objectivist point of view, to pretend responses don’t exist.
You are speaking in code as if we have had this discussion before, I don’t recall … have we? If we have please post a link to that conversation. Otherwise, as I stated before, I do not know to which anarchist arguments you refer. And I have no desire to address every anarchist response, most of which are either not well thought out, ill conceived, unprincipled, lacking context, illogical or plain idiotic. If you have one then present it (succinctly please) and if it isn’t any of the above I might address it.
I address, in principle, the only anarchist argument I have seen with a shred of appeal to logic above: the idea of a “market in force”. I show it to be completely illogical and this addresses at least part of the original poster’s concerns. I also linked to another thread I participated in, in which many more anarchist arguments are addressed.
As far as I have seen, on this forum, every anarchist argument has been addressed at one time or another. If you disagree, then show us where. But please don’t blame us for not addressing anarchist arguments simply because they may have had the last word in a thread. Instead blame anarchists for not knowing when they have been logically defeated.
And that would be fantastic and, for once, actually productive.
Again, I don’t recall if we’ve ever interacted before so I don’t know if you are trying to insult me here or not. Are you implying that I have never actually addressed anyone’s claims that I have replied to here and that none of my posts are productive? If you are insulting me, that is a bad way to start a conversation.