Limited Government and Privatization

Political Philosophy
21

Leon,

It all comes down to a 180-degree shift in the citizens’ mindset: when

government is perceived as one’s servant, acting within narrow parameters.

When people no longer demand or need anything from government, but their

rights upheld. When policing becomes the friend of the populace. In short,

the end of the ideology of collectivism-altruism. That would have to precede

any system of governance, not follow. Politics after morality.

(Back to “grassroots”, as you said.)

The weak link is always democracy, in that a majority could eventually

vote away its own rights: We get the government we ask for, and deserve.

But why should they? Success breeds success, and if not for the sake of

liberty, people will in the very least vote with their wallets.

As I said, it is hardly possible to fully imagine this new society - but

I believe attempting to transpose the concept upon what we know now, or the

Statism we have now, is the wrong way to go about it.

22

Leon,

It all comes down to a 180-degree shift in the citizens’ mindset: when

government is perceived as one’s servant, acting within narrow parameters.

When people no longer demand or need anything from government, but their

rights upheld. When policing becomes the friend of the populace. In short,

the end of the ideology of collectivism-altruism. That would have to precede

any system of governance, not follow. Politics after morality.

(Back to “grassroots”, as you said.)

The weak link is always democracy, in that a majority could eventually

vote away its own rights: We get the government we ask for, and deserve.

But why should they? Success breeds success, and if not for the sake of

liberty, people will in the very least vote with their wallets.

As I said, it is hardly possible to fully imagine this new society - but

I believe attempting to transpose the concept upon what we know now, or the

Statism we have now, is the wrong way to go about it.

The best democratic system is the one in which people vote with their wallets. That why privately funded law enforcement which should be in charge of enforcement of the government laws is an antidote to abuse by government. Citizens may explicitly hold collectivist-altruistic premises but implicitly they do want their rights to be protected and will not pay for the violation of them. So the mind-set to uphold individual rights already exists, at least implicitly on the grass-root level.

23

The best democratic system is the one in which people vote with their wallets. That why privately funded law enforcement which should be in charge of enforcement of the government laws is an antidote to abuse by government. Citizens may explicitly hold collectivist-altruistic premises but implicitly they do want their rights to be protected and will not pay for the violation of them. So the mind-set to uphold individual rights already exists, at least implicitly on the grass-root level.

It does raise the interesting question of could one settle for a society of individual

rights - when a large, ‘critical mass’ of collectivist/altruists still exists in it?

If it were remotely possible to implement, would it be desirable, advisable - and rational

It is all very well voting with one’s wallet (pragmatically) but real, lasting self-interest

by conviction, of the moral kind, is by far the primary. Otherwise, the cycle of statism

will just return again down the line.

(Resulting in private agencies becoming private fiefdoms, I imagine, so the end of the nation.)

24

Statism is a realm of state and we discuss grass-root level. On this individual level even the most hardcore collectivist/altruist would seek protection of his right to live and to own property and will pay for it. This is his both pragmatic and implicitly deep moral conviction, his explicit altruist philosophy notwithstanding. Very few of them, if any, would volitionally submit themselves to the government abuse. Therefore I think that even in society in which altruist-statist explicit philosophy rules supreme, the vast majority of the people would vote with their wallets for the individual security, rights and freedom, no matter what their proclaimed philosophy is. Remove the government coercive monopoly on the implementation of abusive law and human nature will take its course-statist/collectivist society will collapse as a house of cards. Private agencies would never become private fiefdoms-unless they establish government or mafia style coercive monopoly on the use of force. But then we are not talking anymore about private voluntary supported agencies but criminal gangs. Any attempt by any agency to establish such a fiefdom would be immediately crushed by the joined forces of all other agencies for the simple selfish and pure capitalist reason-gang warfare is expensive, messy, and there is no profit in it. It much easier and cheaper to get the voluntary support of the population and to provide rights’ protection in return, than to get involved into the endless war with the competing agencies for which nobody will voluntary pay. This also always the possibility that government will move in the military in order to stop the bloodshed. So for all practical and moral selfish reasons fiefdom is not an option. And the most important argument-these security companies already exist, they provide very good protection and they don’t shoot each other. The weird Ayn Rand scenario in which she describes such a warfare pertains to the situation in which different competing governments operate on the same territory and use arbitrary non-objective laws. This is real anarchy and gang war could be the only outcome. These agencies don’t act for profit but power for the power’s sake. I describe a situation in which all agencies operate for profit and that is possible only if they operate under united objective code of rules provided by the process of legislation. That what we need government for.

25

Objectivism has no specific opinion on the contents of contracts

Actually, it does. And, more importantly, it has plenty to say on what contracts are. Local laws and ordinances aren’t contracts.

26

And the most important argument-these security companies already exist, they provide very good protection and they don’t shoot each other. The weird Ayn Rand scenario in which she describes such a warfare pertains to the situation in which different competing governments operate on the same territory and use arbitrary non-objective laws. This is real anarchy and gang war could be the only outcome. These agencies don’t act for profit but power for the power’s sake. I describe a situation in which all agencies operate for profit and that is possible only if they operate under united objective code of rules provided by the process of legislation. That what we need government for.

Agreed, however there will be always a need to counterbalance the force of arms created by the private sector.

Private defense companies would operate differently if there was no police to oppose them when they abuse their power.

27

Agreed, however there will be always a need to counterbalance the force of arms created by the private sector.

Private defense companies would operate differently if there was no police to oppose them when they abuse their power.

Yes, if for some reason they will decide to become non-profit organizations and to act only for power sake. People usually don’t pay for been abused and how they will obtain their funds? Probably by looting. In such a case other companies who are for profit will finish them, and if only to keep their clients. Besides, what would happen if police forces become abusive.? In my country this is a daily experience and the reason for it that police is not voluntary supported . However I never heard about one single complain against any private security company-they value their clients and nobody would subscribe with abusive company.

28

Leonids,

Daniel suggests paying for the legislative state through coercive taxation of the private defense agencies. Do you see another way for the state to fund itself?

Also, for the sake of concreteness, should the state have an army? Of so, should it be more powerful than the private defense agencies? If the state should not have an army, why should the private defense agencies abide by the state’s laws?

29

Leonids,

Daniel suggests paying for the legislative state through coercive taxation of the private defense agencies. Do you see another way for the state to fund itself?

Also, for the sake of concreteness, should the state have an army? Of so, should it be more powerful than the private defense agencies? If the state should not have an army, why should the private defense agencies abide by the state’s laws?

It doesn’t have to be coercive. Private defense agencies will gladly pay for Objective legislation because they dearly need it to do their job. They need a guidance to employ the retaliatory force in Objective non-abusive way. As long as there is a possibility of aggression exists, the state will need an army. The goal of army is protection of the territorial integrity of the country and protection of its citizens abroad. It has nothing to do with private defense agencies.In regard to you question “why should the private defense agencies abide by the state’s laws?” is like to ask " Why petrol station should sell petrol and not water?" The answer is-it is in their selfish pro-profit interests. If they don’t, not only they won’t be able to provide the proper protection and make money but also they very quickly deteriorate to the level of the street gangs fighting each other. There is no profit in the gang warfare. Imagine that Caltex and Shell get engage in the war for clients instead of selling petrol. What would be an outcome?

30

“If they don’t, not only they won’t be able to provide the proper protection and make money but also they very quickly deteriorate to the level of the street gangs fighting each other.”

For proper protection, they can have a vigilant group of individuals providing a set of functionable laws based on Objectivist principles and Natural rights of Individuals. It would be more profitable for any such PDA to attain service and support of the best and well known philosophers, individual rights activists, civil and criminal law experts etc. I don’t think they will need any government/legislation. Their customers will have an opportunity to analyze which PDA is offering a valid set of principles to exercise the service of protection and justice for them.

Also, I find that your accusation that without a legislation, PDAs will fight and create gangs fighting in streets a little obtuse. A little while ago, You commented, “However I never heard about one single complain against any private security company-they value their clients and nobody would subscribe with abusive company.”

Why will subscribers start subscribing an abusive company if there won’t be a democratically elected legislature but the PDAs independently will employ experts and knowledgable people to assert natural laws, individual rights and principles of Objectivism?

Also, you said, “Imagine that Caltex and Shell get engage in the war for clients instead of selling petrol. What would be an outcome?”

Why will two companies start war over any issue if there won’t be a democratic (or otherwise) legislative? Especially when there is no Profit in War? Won’t they look for profit, preservance and peace, and why won’t they? Just becasue there won’t be a government? Why won’t they proceed in more profitable and peacefull manner to solve any issue? Like, they can engage their expert advisors to discuss the issue to solve the matter at least possible cost.

Will Caltex and Shell start selling water instead of selling petrol if there won’t be a legislature?

(Sorry if I sound aburpt or rude, English is not my native language and I am just starting to analyze the concept of Private defense associations.I have just completed an article about this issue. http://tinyurl.com/9vzlznh)

31

“For proper protection, they can have a vigilant group of individuals providing a set of functionable laws based on Objectivist principles and Natural rights of Individuals”

It’s not that simple to put the use of retaliatory force under the strict supervision of Objective law. This is a full time job and if some people will dedicate to this task, they will be a government.

"A little while ago, You commented, “However I never heard about one single complain against any private security company-they value their clients and nobody would subscribe with abusive company.”

And I stand for that. But they will be able to do so only if they have a set of Objective laws as a guidance.

" Just becasue there won’t be a government?"

But that is just semantics. In my view any group of people who can legislate Objective laws is a government.

“Will Caltex and Shell start selling water instead of selling petrol if there won’t be a legislature?”

Wrong equivocation. This is a self-evident fact at least in the civilized parts of the world that to run car needs a petrol, not water. The set of Objective laws is not self-evident. It has to be discovered and explicitly developed.