It’s true, I think, that in anything *less* than a purely free economy, where conflicts can arise between two individuals or groups who are acting on fundamentally opposing metaphysical philosophies, there is a practical need for a mutually accepted authority which can “lay down the law” because otherwise an irrationality on the part of one or both parties will result in the initiation of force.
Okay, now examine what a “free economy” is (I want you to see why government is necessary, period). A “free economy” is one where the government does not use improper force in economic transactions. The concept “free economy” does not mean “society where the nature of rights are both universally understood and exceptionlessly respected”. In a free economy, there is ample opportunity for parties to disagree as to the terms of an agreement, and there can easily be miscreant individuals who pilfer and cheat.
However, given that Zip’s query stipulates the context of a “pure laissez faire economic system”, I am surprised that all the responding posters assumed government involvement in such a society.
Notice, though, that that too was in Zip’s context: “a simple constitution protecting Life, Liberty and Property and in all respects have restricted government (constitutionally) to it’s proper functions in accordance with Objectivist political philosophy”. That’s why we don’t need to explicitly argue for what he has already acknowledged.
Far from assuming that a society exclusively made up of “a small group of dedicated O’ists” who are able to “carve out a piece of territory for themselves” - which I assume would mean that they or one or some individuals among them possess property which they are legally and practically able to defend the borders of and control entrance to - why does this group then need to formally agree upon such a constitution or the means of enforcing it or by whom it is enforced?
In part to be able to control entrance. Suppose that 1,000 Objectivists move to Galt county Colorado and purchase all of the land and establish a government. There can’t be any restrictions on people from the outside moving to Galt county, if you don’t have some kind of legal principle prohibiting the sale of land to “outsiders”. A free society requires stable and objectively-stated laws which do exactly one thing: protect the rights of individuals. An objective document – a constitution – defines what that means. Because you can’t guarantee that all residents of Galt county will always be ideal rights-respecting Objectivists, some means other than trusting to luck is needed to secure the permanent blessings of liberty.
The anarchic viewpoint is either entirely unrealistic or else hyper-pessimistic. It is unrealistic in assuming some sci-fi mind control whereby magically mankind “evolves” to being perfectly and exceptionlessly rational, or hyper-pessimistic in recognising that a utopian society will never actually be realized and thus we can’t improve on our current situation. The Objectivist view is more robust: it recognises the possibility of a stable and ideal society even when there are less-than-ideal individuals.
Instead, it seems that such a society would “ensure their hard, moral and correct work doesn’t get corrupted by an influx of moochers, looters and other various flavours of socialists” individually, rather than collectively, by whatever means proves most economically effective.
Nevertheless there must be a single uniform, objective, and specific recognition of the nature of the rights being protected and the consequences of violating rights. That cannot be left to the whim of the individual.
If someone inside the community started acting immorally/irrationally, then people would stop doing business with him.
If it were uniformly agreed that the immoral man should be shunned. I doubt that would happen. For example, it is immoral for a man to cheat on his wife, or for a man to drink too much, so you would think that automatically such a man would be in economic hell because nobody would do business with him. But he has contracts with others whereby they are obligated to sell him a cow and 10 bushels of wheat every month, for a stated price. The cow-seller may not reneg on his contract (that would lead to him being economically shunned); and even in the case of ordinary grocery store sales, it’s unreasonable to expect that everybody will automatically translate their moral judgment into a complete shunning.
This “be your brother’s keeper” approach easily reduces to self-sacrifice. If Smith has a drinking problem, as one instance of an immorality, individuals should refuse to do business with him, according to shunning theory. That means the guy who makes and sells beer should reduce his sales and net profit, for what? The sake of another man. This is plain altruism (and the beer-seller is being so irrational that all decent men should refuse to have anything to do with him, so the cow-seller should forgo the profits that he makes by selling cows to the beer-seller. Altruism again!).
So I think a pure lassiez faire system would naturally protect itself from Nihilist infection and I don’t see why a government would be needed to get involved for the purpose of “protecting” a society from moochers or any other breed of parasite.
A government, specifically a particular form of government, is needed to restrict the actions of government – to objectively delimit the powers that a government can wield. That would mean, for example, having an anti-Welfare clause in the constitution. Such a clause is necessary to overcome the problem that Objectopia would founder if laws are simply “whatever the people decide at a given time”.
Footnote: I would describe a “government” that is funded by “voluntary donation” a business, not a government.
That is an error. A government is the (singular) entity that has the exclusive right and obligation to use retaliatory force in order to protect the rights of an individual; it also states objectively what those rights are. Those rights are enforced uniformly: the notion of competing government-businesses founders on the point that business is based on explicit voluntary agreement (contract) and government operates even in lieu of an agreement.
