Indeed. But I think that you are also in favor of government, so far as I can tell.
We can only hope!
Well… I shouldn’t presume to speak for you, but so far as I can tell you consistently argue in favor of law and order – subordinating “might” to “right,” and specifically by reserving force to reprisal.
I believe that this constitutes a belief in “governance” generally (and Objectivist Politics, again more specifically).
Your positions put you into conflict with belief in a “monopoly” government, but over the course of our discussions I’ve come to believe that this aspect is not necessarily an essential aspect of government, as such. After all, there is no “one world government” (as yet), yet we would hardly say that the world is therefore in a state of anarchy. There is quite a lot of “archy” to go around. The United States has its own governmental power split numerous ways across what we call “checks and balances” (and further still, with state, county and local structures, and etc.), yet we would not say that the United States is therefore anarchic. I believe that your position may possibly be cast (and fairly) as a further “balance.”
I think that if you’re agreed that the initiation of force is to be eliminated from society, that you are in philosophical agreement with Rand’s Objectivist Politics (obviously excepting her believing that a monopoly government is proper, and follows, insofar as she did). The particular organization of that government is perhaps more properly “political science,” though we can say that the organization must be consistent with the essence of the position. Just as a proper government must be funded without coercion, neither may it maintain its “monopoly” on retaliatory force through coercive means (which is to say that it has no particular monopoly).
By adopting “anarchy” for your views (and though there may be historical precedent for this; you would certainly know better than I), I think that you’re conceding that governance and a monopoly of those activities are fundamentally inseparable. I think it’s a “package” that needs to be unpacked at the least, to see if that’s really so.
Well sure, “government” and “anarchy,” in the sense you describe here, are both “anti-concepts” in the Randian sense of “two meanings, with the proper meaning serving to cover and to smuggle the improper one into people’s minds.” If I am rightthat sometimes by “government” Rand simply means (eg., in her official definition) “the state” (or “one monopoly agency”) and sometimes “law and order” then she is packaged-dealing governance (or law and order itself) and monopoly and is therefore guilty of question begging. Which I think she is. Most of her criticisms of anarchy are accusations of lack of law and order. Which would make sense given the above packaged-dealing. So yes, I think it’s important to unpack those.
So if government means
(1) an institution that holds the exclusive (monopoly) power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area
(2) law and order in general
and anarchy means
(1) lack of an institution that holds the exclusive (monopoly) power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area
(2) lack of law and order in general
Then market anarchy supports government (2), but not government (1), and conversely supports anarchy (1), but not anarchy (2).
But, at the same time I agree that Rand’s official definition [government (1)] is the right (least confusing) one. And so, the least complicated thing to do is say government means “monopoly” and “anarchy” means “not having a government.” That’s all I mean by it when I use it.
Interestingly enough, I think the conflation of anarchy (1) with anarchy (2) is an example of a bad (as opposed to good in the Hayekian sense) “spontaneous order” which instead of helping to sustain the free market, helps to sustain statism.
(On the other hand, “anarcho-capitalism,” “market anarchism,” or even just “anarchism” or “libertarianism” is a lot simpler, and really, how are you going to get the kids to storm the barricades, so to speak, with “free-market-constitutionalist-polycentric legal order!!! Gooooo!”)
Also see this thread, Free markets against capitalism. And if you really wanna get interesting, see Cuzan Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy? (Maybe all “government” is really “anarchy” and not the other way around??)