• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Major Update to OL (please click to open)   02/09/2016

      Sorry for the inconvenience, but we had to update OL and there have been some serious changes made by IPB. The real bad news is that they had to merge User Names and Display Names. This meant that I had to choose between bad and bad. I opted to keep the log-on information the same, so you can get on OL like you always did, but now your User Name is displayed. If your User Name and Display Name were the same, you will not feel the change. If they were different, you are probably irritated right now. I will figure out how you can change this so you can revert to the Display Name you used before if you like, however this may entail a change in how you log-on. The good news is that OL is now searchable from the very beginning. This means all the old posts from the A-Team in Objectivism (and everybody else) will finally show up when you search for something. I will keep changing this announcement as we adapt to these new changes. It's a pain, I know, but after looking around the backend for a bit, I believe the benefits will far, far outweigh the current irritation. They changed things in a hamhanded way and I don't like that, but I can't do anything about it. Benefit-wise, they actually did a good job, so please bear with us. In addition to this change, many good things are coming over time. You are the reason OL exists and I am sorry you have to go through this. Think of it like birth pangs... (All right, all right, that's forcing it.  ) Michael


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Bosco

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Full Name Tim Hopkins

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  1. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say "Justice Entrepreneurship" was a significant breakthrough in sketching how the facts that give rise to the need for judicial services (the prospect of third party intervention) are the same facts that should be considered when assesing the likelihood that they will tend to be fair and impartial. Most people, in my experience, take the existence of protection and judicial services in a stateless society as a given and fail to deal with the more fundamental question of whether and why such agencies would exist in the first place, their objective and the likely means to accomplish that objective. This is a fault shared by anarchists and minarchists alike.
  2. Svanberg takes a que from Binswanger, gets it wrong

    I think Kevin Carson has stated that interest and rent enjoy a disproportionate share of the returns of productive activity because of the distortions produced by the mixed economy, and that interest and rent, while not inherently objectionable, would be minimal in a true free market without the influence of the state to tip the balance.
  3. The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin

    The media seems poised to retry the Zimmerman case either by means of a civil rights suit, or promoting a repeal of "stand your ground" laws. And with those endless CNN close ups of Obama, head down, pursing his lips together, I think it's as good as done. But once the royal baby is born, every hiccup and diaper change will make headlines for weeks. Lets enjoy the break.
  4. Is it really rational to assume that only rational people would be interested in controlling a limited government oringinally modeled on objective law? If we can count on a vigilant public to prevent a limited government from overstepping its bounds, why wouldn't this same vigilant public keep it's market institutions from doing the same thing?
  5. Aren't cartels and monopoliies pretty unstable economic arrangements when the state is not around to enforce them?
  6. By being compelled to pay a "membership fee" (tax)? Tim Hopkins
  7. By "anarcho-objectivists", I'm obviously referring to those who largely agree with Ayn Rands epistemology, ethics and fundamental political principles, but reject minarchism as inconsistent with these principles. I agree that anarchists should not consider themselves Objectivists, although I have heard some try to slip past this issue by referring to themselves as "open source" Objectivists
  8. Thank you for linking to this. I think his comments about the anarchistic implications of the "power of exit" (emigration) were particularly interesting. He does seem to have distanced himself from anarchism now, although there is no evidence I am aware of that he's repudiated it. Tim Hopkins
  9. George mentioned Randy Barnett as one theorist who took significant steps towards addressing these issues. You might be interested in an article that was published in the Libertarian Forum in 1976, where he makes the case that, from a rational, "horizontal" (as opped to verticle, or unidirectional) conception of law, the state is not really a method of administering law at all, since it fails to establish the minimum requirements of a legal code. The piece is on page 5. http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1976/1976_02.pdf Tim Hopkins
  10. This concerns the debate over punishment vs restitution, which is not directly relevant to the issue of anarchism vs minarchism. How should an ideal Randian gvt deal with murder?
  11. Ayn Rand opposed anarchism, and despite the fact she she was almost always precise in her arguments, she didn't leave minarchists with much to go on except some passing thoughts in VOS. So I don't think she considered the position to be credible or worthy of any real serious consideration beyond regarding it as a lunatic fringe of a deluded libertarian movement. I have a feeling that had she examined it more closely, what she might have left behind would have made debates between O'ist minarchists and "anarcho-objectivists" more interesting and informative for both sides.
  12. The mafia is better characterized as a byproduct of government. With a similar hierachy and power structure, the mafia competes with the government over control of prohibited activities, like drugs, prostitution and gambling. That has little to do with defense agencies. Tim
  13. When private protection agencies suffer glitches, or temporary breakdowns, clients can also take their business elsewhere. When the same happens with government, you pretty much have to suck it up and keep the "payments" rolling in. Individials and their rights may not be a product, but the protection of these individuals and their rights is most definitely a service with perceptible levels of quality. And what existing government is not in the business of getting creative or expanding it's influence at the expense of freedom?
  14. Few of us desire, or have the ability, to manufacture our own shoes. Does this mean there must be one (and only one) producer of shoes, to ensure people don't go barefoot? It's curious that libertarians and Objectivists are so keen on specialization and division of labour as part of the unintended benefits of a free market, but when the subject of protection, defense and adjudication come up, these insights are lost and the worst prejudices about free markets return. Tim
  15. Doesn't this imply a central planning perspective? How do libertarians and Objectivists respond when asked for a blueprint explaining how health care or education would work? In short, they can make broad, general predictions based on the spontaneous order of the market, But a "plan" is something mapped out in advance by someone independant of the system in question, which misunderstands the position of the anarchist. Tim