Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’


Recommended Posts

Thank you for answering, George.

George H. Smith wrote:

Ideals -- i.e., abstract models of perfect legal systems -- are important for three reasons. First, as Herbert Spencer pointed out, they give us a sense of direction, both moral and practical, while we wind our way through a complex maze of legal and political realities.

end quote

I agree that an Objectivist Government and a Rational Anarchist territory are ideals. As a final evolutionary step in Constitutional Government Rand envisions a system in which its functions are ultimately and ideally paid for by those choosing to utilize its functions and services. That point with no coercive taxation may never be reached but Ayn Rand was positive the perpetual, mixed, intermediate step found in The United States of America could be refined and made quite close to ideal.

The Rational Anarchist in contrast, is proposing a free and prosperous life not built upon any proven or disproved experiment for “the good life” on earth. As examples of what has been tried we can point at extended families, clans, tribes, monarchies, Statist Governments, Constitutional monarchies, or Constitutional Governments with clearly defined individual rights. The Rational Anarchist insists we take their ideal on faith, with no prior examples and no current blueprint. If the average intelligence in a Rational Anarchist Territory were to double, the same basic contradiction would remain.

Robert Bidinotto wrote in, “The Contradiction in Anarchism:”

Exactly who determines what use of force is "initiatory" or "coercive," and what is "defensive" or "retaliatory"? By what process is that determination made? Or, to put it in terms of "rights": Who determines whether, in any given use of force, "rights" have been violated -- and thus, who is the aggressor, and who the victim? By what procedure? What theory or interpretation of "rights" is to be used? Rand's? Henry George's? Lenin's? For society, how are such determinations made with finality? And how is that verdict enforced? As a corollary: who determines which agency is a "protection agency," and which is a mere gang of aggressors? By what method and standard?

You see, anarchists sincerely believe that they are merely advocating "competition" in the protection of rights. In fact, what their position would necessitate is "competition" in defining what "rights" are.

end quote

I agree with that assessment. Constant Consent must be given in all interactions in a Rationally Anarchistic Society. Each inhabitant’s sovereign standard would be tested against someone else’s standard every time there is an interaction. History constantly shows us that the only place that works in on a desert island with a population of one. And unplanned anarchies are “anarchy.”

George H. Smith wrote:

Second, philosophic ideals function as moral standards that can be applied to real-life situations. Consider the question, Do we owe allegiance -- i.e., a moral obligation of loyalty and obedience -- to the U.S. government; and if we do, how far does this allegiance extend? There is no way to answer such questions without referring to general principles.

end quote

To find a solution, do rational people postulate “the unknown” without verification? Or does a “learned person” follow proven examples? George insists a moral standard be applied to real-life situations but while he assumes the mantel of learned wise man his polemics are not applied mathematics. Human conflicts are virtually promised when there is no permanent or timed agreement, and no agreed upon means of enforcing the agreement.

George wrote Tuesday, 27 Jun 2000 15:18:12 GMT on Atlantis:

Peter, I have no desire to make an enemy of you. Perhaps we can start over.

end quote

I agree. I still say, “OK.”

In "Atlas Shrugged" paperback version, page 1073, Ayn prudently wrote of the character Judge Narragansett:

The rectangle of light in the acres of a farm was the window of the library of Judge Narragansett. He sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . ."

end quote

George, a compromise between the ideals of Constitutional Government and Rational Anarchy is the timed agreement of Constitutional Conventions and amendments as defined in the United States Constitution. Fictionally Rand gave us an inkling of how to do that. Do we continue with this discussion of “the ideal” or do we do what our Founding Fathers did and drawing upon the inspiration of the “ideal” work on “the practical?”

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 900
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm familiar with the passage by Weber, having quoted and cited it many times over the years. I seriously doubt, however, whether Rand ever read Weber.

Moreover, Weber's conception of the state -- and he distinguished between "state" and "government" in a way that Rand never did -- was not all that unusual. Weber may have formulated his definition with more precision than many of his predecessors, but the basic idea had been around for a long time.

Ghs

You think that Ayn Rand was not familiar with The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism? I find that hard to believe... Also, you know, then, that in this essay, Weber is actually quoting Leon Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That would be another reason for Rand to not happen to mention this.

Here is the passage you quoted from Weber's 1918 speech, which was later printed as "Politics as a Vocation":

“Sociologically, the state cannot be defined in terms of its ends. There is scarcely any task that some political association has not taken in hand … Ultimately, one can define the modern state sociologically only in terms of the specific means peculiar to it, as to every political association, namely, the use of physical force. …

Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical forcewithin a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence.” ("Politics as a Vocation” (Politik als Beruf), C. Wright Mills translation)

This passage is not from Trotsky. Weber quoted only one line from Trotsky, 'Every state is founded on force," and you did not even include this line.

Moreover, Weber went far beyond Trotksy's observation, which merely repeated what had been said for centuries by various political philosophers.

I have no idea why you think Rand read The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. If she did read it, she would have disagreed vehemently with Weber's central thesis. Although it is an interesting book -- and it is certainly Weber's most famous book -- it has not held up well against subsequent critiques.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Bidinotto wrote in, “The Contradiction in Anarchism:”

Exactly who determines what use of force is "initiatory" or "coercive," and what is "defensive" or "retaliatory"? By what process is that determination made? Or, to put it in terms of "rights": Who determines whether, in any given use of force, "rights" have been violated -- and thus, who is the aggressor, and who the victim? By what procedure? What theory or interpretation of "rights" is to be used? Rand's? Henry George's? Lenin's? For society, how are such determinations made with finality? And how is that verdict enforced? As a corollary: who determines which agency is a "protection agency," and which is a mere gang of aggressors? By what method and standard?

You see, anarchists sincerely believe that they are merely advocating "competition" in the protection of rights. In fact, what their position would necessitate is "competition" in defining what "rights" are.

I agree with that assessment.

Bully for you.

The fact that Bindinotto is unable to answer his own questions speaks volumes. He retreats into legal subjectivism by suggesting that his questions cannot be answered by objective methods. We may as well ask: Exactly who determines what is true and what is false, what is good and what is evil? By what process is that determination made? What epistemological theory is to be used? Rand's? Hegel's? Kant's?

I have no patience with subjectivists like Bindinotto. They are impossible to argue with, because every time you propose a solution they retreat into their subjectivist catechism with question like: But who is to decide? Or what if someone disagrees?

I prefer that you quote a Randian minarchist who believes in objective knowledge, including objective knowledge in the sphere of justice. If you run across one, let me know.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we continue with this discussion of “the ideal” or do we do what our Founding Fathers did and drawing upon the inspiration of the “ideal” work on “the practical?”

Peter Taylor

I am not going to abandon my first love, philosophy, for your confused notion of "the practical." So keep pounding your head against a wall, and I will continue to discuss philosophy.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not arguing for a government with social programs like welfare or anything like that, but I do believe the seed of government is found within human nature, derives from human nature, and is not merely imposed on human nature from the outside by force, which is where the 100% consent argument leads.

I agree that the seeds of government are found in human nature -- specifically the strong desire to dominate, control, and exploit other people. As the libertarian historian Rudolf Rocker wrote in Nationalism and Culture: "The will to power which always emanates from individuals or from small minorities in society is in fact a most important driving force in history."

There has always been a conflict between the voluntary sphere of society and the coercive sphere of the state -- and there always will be. No one understood this unfortunate fact more clearly than America's Founders, many of whom looked for a partial remedy in the decentralization of power and in competition among the centers of power.

Modern libertarian anarchism is merely a spinoff of this approach. It posits a highly decentralized system of power, based on Acton's dictum that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. "Absolute," in this context, means "unconditional," not necessarily "totalitarian." Acton feared a central sovereign state whose authority in legal matters is final and absolute. Like Tocqueville and other classical liberals, Acton favored the existence of "intermediate powers" (as they were sometimes called) that can serve as buffers between a sovereign state and individuals. Again, libertarian anarchism is a variant of this approach.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I confess I don't really understand "libertarian anarchism," but my idea of "consent" is it's an ideal formulation good for clarity in political-philosophical discussion and helps to provide a moral foundation for a free society. However, that's not my only idea concerning consent. In a moral society properly understood, based on the protection of individual human rights, one citizen consents not to violate the rights of other citizens and they too. Violation would then be a form of self banishment exposing oneself to retaliatory force. If the government mostly protects rights, it is the moral and political agent of retaliation through police, law and courts. For anyone to say in such a context that he didn't consent to the government only means he is free to pack up and leave, not replace or displace the established order. In this sense, not to consent would mean not to consent to not violate anyone's rights.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the seeds of government are found in human nature -- specifically the strong desire to dominate, control, and exploit other people. As the libertarian historian Rudolf Rocker wrote in Nationalism and Culture: "The will to power which always emanates from individuals or from small minorities in society is in fact a most important driving force in history."

George,

I agree that there is this nasty underbelly in our nature. This is why I believe ethics is one of the glories of man--precisely because it helps curb this toxic aggressiveness.

Your human nature observation mostly applies to leaders, though. How about their followers? Following is human nature just as much as leading is. Not pretty, but it's there.

Or how about both?

For instance, how about a strong desire of one group of people (or the majority of the individuals in the group, or a predominant cultural thread running throughout the group) to dominate, control, and exploit another group of people?

This is present in practically all of recorded history--at least in everything I have looked at.

There is a major element in normal human nature of individuals wanting to belong to a group. And when the bent of the group goes bad, many individuals go bad with it, not as a pondered choice, but as an automatic reaction to the group's orientation--a reaction that is embedded in human nature itself.

(I can see Rand turning over in her grave with that comment, but it is true. Neuroscience and modern psychological testing are even proving it. This does not mean that it cannot be overridden by an individual's volition. It can. But volition does not annul the existence of it, either.)

Apropos of nothing in particular (and this is really outside of the discussion, but I find it interesting), one of the fascinating things about propaganda and public relations I have learned is that in modern society, there are many groups that work like this in specific areas, but they interlock in the same person. In other words, the different groups seek to dominate other groups in their fields or the society around them. (btw - The trick of propaganda is not to influence the individual, but instead, to influence group leaders. Most of the individuals in their respective groups will follow.)

So a person might belong to a church, a local sports group, a political action committee, an investment club and be a member of the local government. Limiting the example to these groups, a propagandist thus has five different groups to address in the same person. And what if the groups conflict? It can get pretty interesting.

Maybe there is one tie-in with this to the main discussion. I see this richness of groups as diluting the human underbelly a bit. When one group goes off the rails or outright flops, the individual who belongs to many groups has the others to fall back on. But since he is one person, he cannot belong to them all and still devote 100% of his time and effort to a group that has turned on an evil path, not even a country's central government.

Anyway, my comments are still in looking at what exists mode, not in looking at what should exist--except to say that a concept of government that ignores essential components of human nature probably should not be attempted since it most likely will fail. (For the record, if some form of anarcho-capitalism were ever to have a mechanism like checks and balances--which I believe brilliantly deals with the human nature underbelly compared to what went on before it came into being--I would support such a system 100%.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) NB said absolutely nothing about voting procedures. He said that the original members uanimously consent to a given government. So does this mean that 100 percent of the voters must agree in order for a law passed by your ideal government to be legitimate?

Ghs

As a matter of fact, he did, in his response to the question which immediately followed the excerpts quoted above from Seminar No. 8. Here, of course, he is talking about a nation as opposed to the small group he discussed in the first question about anarchy (quoted above). As I stated previously (on the gun control thread)--and I am quite sure Branden would agree--it is absurdly unrealistic to demand unanimous support for everything a government does when we are speaking about a society of more than a handful of people in a room.

Question: It is been argued that the concept of representative government necessarily entails a violation of individual rights since it simply cannot be assumed that an elected representative will necessarily always vote in a way that is pleasing to all of the constituents that have elected him. Do you care to comment on this?

Branden: Well, the fallacy here, very simply, is the following. To begin with, always remember the context. We are talking about a free society, which means we are talking about a society in which elected representatives do not have the job of voting on or voting away our rights. We speak here in the context of a political system where the whole structure of government moves toward one end, which is the protection of the rights of the citizens. And the issues on which voting is done pertain only to the question of means, only to the question of what is the most just, most efficient way to protect the individual rights of the various citizens. That means that, at worst, your elected representatives might favor some policy that you think are not the most efficient or effective way to protect your rights.

Now, since there can always be legitimate differences of opinion, even among honest man, the only fair way that matters of that kind can be decided is by majority rule which puts the representatives into office in the first place and then majority rule among the representatives voting on the various bills or whatever that are being considered. Men are fallible. It's certainly possible that mistakes might be made, but unless you want to argue for some omniscient dictator who will always infallibly know what is best for everyone, within the sphere of government’s legitimate functions, there really is no reasonable alternative to the principle of majority rule, and if we recognize this, we have to be realistic and say that means that sometimes decisions may be made that I think are not the best decisions. And, by the same logic, sometimes my representative will make decisions or cast his vote a certain way that I think is the best way but my neighbor may not. And if we are to have a society, then, in effect, we play by the rules and these are clearly the rules which alone make possible the whole machinery of government and there is no more effective way that anybody has proposed for these matters to be handled.

In another post, you suggested that Branden most certainly changed his views on anarchy following his discussion with you and Roy Childs. There were at least 40 monthly Seminar recordings after this one. How odd that he never mentioned his change of heart in any of them. I guess it just skipped his mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Since when does the objectivity of laws and legal procedures depend on how many people approve of them? Do you consult majority opinion before embracing objective truths in other spheres? Do we need a majority to tell us that theft and murder should be illegal, and that certain objective legal procedures are necessary before finding defendants guilty of such crimes?

Wow. You are totally up there in the clouds somewhere with this kind of statement, George. As I explained in considerable detail in post #4, the complexity of the issues involved in the various disputes that arise in a free society require the objectivity of a single agency charged with the responsibility of defining objective law. And as Branden explained, we have no choice but to use representative government as the only practical, realistic means to that purpose.

3) I specifically stated that my ideal "competing government" (an oxymoronic term, at best) observes the same laws and legal procedures as your ideal Randian government. In response, you invoked "the democratic voting process that has been established by the existing government." I therefore presume that you defend the moral legitimacy of majority rule, even to the point of prohibiting activities that violate the rights of no one.

4) Voting is a political procedure, not a legal procedure in the sense that I meant. If the ideal competing agency observes the same laws and legal procedures as the monopolistic government, and if these laws and procedures violate the rights of no one when enforced by the monopolistic government, then they cannot violate rights when enforced by a different agency. In invoking "the democratic voting process that has been established by the existing government," you have merely sugar-coated the fact that your government will initiate force against anyone who attempts to do the same thing that it is doing. This is the nature of all coercive monopolies.

5) Voting would mean relatively little in an ideal Randian government. If people dislike a given administration, they could simply refuse to pay for its "services." But the question remains: Could your government legitimately use force to prevent former customers from engaging another agency that provides the same services, but more cheaply and efficiently? If so, on what grounds? Because the original government has established certain voting procedures? So what? You must assume that such procedures are morally binding on unwilling people before you can introduce your Trojan Horse of majority rule.

The Federalist Papers and the document they were written to defend—the US Constitution—reveal the crucial importance, not only of the content of the law, but the structure and organization of the government designed to enforce such laws. The question of checks and balances, separation of powers between the various levels and branches, terms of office, formulas for representation, strength of the Union vs. state sovereignty, procedures for appointing judges to various courts, order of succession—all of these would be involved in any massive transition from one government agency to another, making the whole process extremely unstable and jeopardizing the rights of everyone.

The rule of law is no more effective than the institutional apparatus designed to administer such law. The organization and structure of government is just as much a component of objectivity—of an established process for limiting government, for passing and administering laws—as the laws themselves. The procedural complexity of the administration of justice demands strict adherence to established rules, including the rules for modifying those procedures and/or changing the individuals performing the various roles.

The effectiveness of existing laws depend on the people empowered to interpret them. Even if we could somehow magically replace all existing government staff with new staff—which is of course absurd—the bureaucratic replacements will be just as fallible as their predecessors and you will immediately have conflicting administrative decisions and interpretations which will lead to the same problems as the previous government. Majority rule by elected representatives is the only feasible way to maintain anything resembling stability in the administration of the law.

The authors of the Federalist Papers were acutely aware that, for their bold, new experiment in government to be successful, the new Constitution would need to provide solid procedural safeguards against instability as well as checks against the growth of power. The solution they came up with was a government engineered to provide a pathway to liberty, at once empowering individuals with rights while giving government sufficient strength to minimize internal and external threats of violence and chaos. It was a very delicate balance.

The idea of cavalierly “replacing” one government with another again suggests utter, rationalistic disregard for the factual reality of what such a transition would mean in actual practice. When you throw out the established rules for transition of power from one group of representatives to another, you destroy any possibility for rule by objective law.

I will just repeat what I said above. I see no point in rewording it.

The only way to replace a government with "the exact same laws and procedures as the original government" is through the democratic voting process that has been established by the existing government. Otherwise, we are not talking about "the exact same laws and procedures" as the original government.

And once you say that the new "competing government" is unilaterally revoking those particular laws and procedures, it has taken on the role of imposing its own view of justice on the rest of society--just as you claim the original monopoly government was doing.

Once again, the anarchist is the one engaged in the de facto violation of rights, by destroying the social principle required for the protection of individual rights—i.e., the restriction of the use of retaliatory force to the prescription of objective law.

Voting would mean relatively little in an ideal Randian government. If people dislike a given administration, they could simply refuse to pay for its "services."

That is patently false. If the citizens withheld payment for a government every time they were displeased with it, the government itself would collapse—and rule by objective law would collapse along with it. In a free, rational society, the citizens would continue to financially support a government they were displeased with and work to change it within the parameters of existing law. Of course, this would only apply to a government which, despite its faults, continued to adhere to its proper role of protecting individual rights.

you will need to show why democratic procedures that produce desirable outcomes are legitimate, and why democratic procedures that produce undesirable outcomes are illegitimate. Good luck with that.

Ghs

As Branden explained, this whole discussion depends on the context of a strictly limited government functioning within its proper role of the protection of individual rights. Government representatives can only decide issues within those limits. You drop that context when you suggest that endorsing majority rule amounts to endorsing travesties like Obamacare. But I can understand why you might feel the need to drop the context to make your clever little points. You conveniently ignore any arguments that undermine your rationalistic platitudes and keep repeating the same tired anarchist mantras. That’s fine. Keep it up. I sincerely doubt that others reading your remarks are likely to be fooled by such sophistry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idealism in governance is a whole new concept for me. But then, I've the view

that government should never 'get creative'. Here's your budget, there're your rules

and guidelines, now get on and do the job.

Just a simple Civil Service which repetitively takes care of the basics of running

a country, leaving the rest to the people. Idealism stops with the individual.

(imo) Kind of naive, I admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing breaks up groups more than trade and commerce--the desire to materially better oneself, follow one's dreams and succeed.

Brant,

From what I observe, it's the contrary, i.e., "nothing creates groups more than trade and commerce--the desire to materially better oneself, follow one's dreams and succeed within a group."

I'm very individualistic and committed to that perspective, but when I look at the world around me, I can't deny what my eyes see. And I see a proliferation of groups. Not just money oriented, either.

Why do you think Facebook and Twitter took off like they did when Google was the big Internet dog? It's because Google was based on search for individuals while Facebook and Twitter allowed people to easily form--and to belong to--groups. People did this for free and they actively sought to do it. (Now guess what Google is trying to do?) People share for free, too. Long hours of hard work. Look at Wikipedia.

I've come to peace with this, despite my Randian orientation (which cuts deep in my soul). It's possible to have an innate desire to belong to some group or family or whatever, but also have an individual nature with an innate desire for autonomy. I am rational, but I am an animal with rational added to it. The first leads to individualism and the second to herding or flocking or tribal urge or whatever you want to call it.

In other words, evolution-wise, my individualism arose on top of my innate grouping nature. Primitive humans did not live in groups and form tribes merely to trade. They did it because they couldn't not do it. This was in their nature.

In fact, here's an ironic aspect. I have individual volition that, once it matured in me through growth from infancy, allowed me to choose the kind of groups I wished to belong to.

This is not collectivism. It is merely identifying human nature from observation.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In another post, you suggested that Branden most certainly changed his views on anarchy following his discussion with you and Roy Childs. There were at least 40 monthly Seminar recordings after this one. How odd that he never mentioned his change of heart in any of them. I guess it just skipped his mind.

I never said that Nathan changed his mind about anarchism. He obviously did not.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Since when does the objectivity of laws and legal procedures depend on how many people approve of them? Do you consult majority opinion before embracing objective truths in other spheres? Do we need a majority to tell us that theft and murder should be illegal, and that certain objective legal procedures are necessary before finding defendants guilty of such crimes?
Wow. You are totally up there in the clouds somewhere with this kind of statement, George. As I explained in considerable detail in post #4, the complexity of the issues involved in the various disputes that arise in a free society require the objectivity of a single agency charged with the responsibility of defining objective law. And as Branden explained, we have no choice but to use representative government as the only practical, realistic means to that purpose.

I conceded (for the sake of argument) that the laws and procedures established and enforced by your Randian government are objective, even though you have never explained what you mean by "objective," in this context. (The pertinent question is whether such laws are procedures are just.) But you still have not addressed the question: Why aren't the same laws and procedures "objective" when enforced by a different agency?

Is there something mystical about your government, such that it, and only it, is capable of giving a fair trial to someone accused of murder, even if another agency follows the same procedures and has the same concern with arriving at a just outcome?

Recall that you are basing your argument on an ideal Randian government. Turnabout is fair play, so I may posit an ideal competing agency in my argument. So let's say that the founders of your government -- the same people who defined objective laws in your system -- eventually decide that the government has become too inefficient and expensive, so they decide to break off and form a competing agency they believe will be more efficient and less expensive. They then duplicate the legal system of the original government but run the agency better and can therefore offer their services for a lower price. And they attract many customers because of this.

So did these founders suddenly lose their ability to frame objective laws, as soon as they formed a competing agency? Did the magic pixie dust that enabled them to frame objective laws for the original government tragically wear off by the time they decided to form a competing agency?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the reality, though, that a government based in majority rule is the only really sustainable one?

An ideal society is dependent on the individuals that make it up, not so much their government... right?

Democracy may not guarantee justice, but if the majority of people are not just, who is silly enough to hope for a government better than the people it governs?

The morality of the individuals is what's missing, not the proper government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some comments by Harry Binswanger are relevant here:

But the answers to these questions are far from self-evident. To establish even the general principles on which the detailed, concrete administration of justice depends requires political and legal philosophy (and the metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics these fields presuppose). The "libertarians" take a short-cut: they plagiarize Ayn Rand's principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute. This one principle, deprived of its philosophical base, is expected to replace jurisprudence, constitutions, legislatures, and courts. Then they imagine that the rest of us are obligated to accept, on faith, any gang's promise that their use of force will be "retaliatory."

This is the usual misrepresentation -- or smear, to be more precise. Binswanger exhibits ignorance or a reckless disregard for truth -- or maybe he was outright lying. I defy Binswanger or you or any other Randian minarchist to name even one serious libertarian anarchist who argued that any "gang" can define "retaliatory" in any manner it likes.

Moroever, anarchists have written extensively on the need for constitutions, jurisprudence, and courts in a non-state system. Such matters were discussed during the late 1800s and early 1900s by libertarian anarchists such as Gutave de Molinari, Benjamin Tucker, and Francis Tandy. More recently, they were covered in such books as The Market for Liberty (1970), by Morris and Linda Tannehill; For A New Liberty (1975), by Murray Rothbard; and The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law (1998), by Randy Barnett. And I discussed the key problems associated with procedural justice in Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market and Justice Entrepreneurship Revisited: A Reply to Critics. There is a good deal of other literature on these topics as well.

Orthodox O'ists seem to think that they are exempt from reading what their opponents have actually said. Instead, they spin imaginary opponents out of their head and then attack those fantasies. Please don't cite any more of these highly ignorant sources.

The key point, now as always, is this: The fact that a government will use force to exclude competitors has nothing to do with the objectivity or justice of law. A monopolistic government may be fundamentally just or unjust, and the same is true of a competing agency. Consequently, a competing agency may be more just than the established government, or it may be less just.

In my OWL debate with two O'ists during the late 1990s, I posed this question: Suppose that some provinces in China decided to establish their own justice agencies -- agencies that respected and attempted to enforce individual rights. In other words, the agencies in question would be far more just than the Chinese government.

Would the Chinese government be justified (by O'ist standards) in using force to repress these agencies? I was told in no uncertain terms (by William Thomas of the Atlas Society) that, yes, the Chinese government should eliminate such agencies, by force if necessary.I don't know about you, but I found this response very disturbing.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

In my OWL debate with two O'ists during the late 1990s, I posed this question: Suppose that some provinces in China decided to establish their own justice agencies -- agencies that respected and attempted to enforce individual rights. In other words, the agencies in question would be far more just than the Chinese government.

Would the Chinese government be justified (by O'ist standards) in using force to repress these agencies? I was told in no uncertain terms (by William Thomas of the Atlas Society) that, yes, the Chinese government should eliminate such agencies, by force if necessary.I don't know about you, but I found this response very disturbing.

Ghs

Statism undermines liberty and the respect for liberty. Even O-ists are corrupted by Statism.

Ba'al ChatzAF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the reality, though, that a government based in majority rule is the only really sustainable one?

An ideal society is dependent on the individuals that make it up, not so much their government... right?

Democracy may not guarantee justice, but if the majority of people are not just, who is silly enough to hope for a government better than the people it governs?

The morality of the individuals is what's missing, not the proper government.

You make an important point.

An ideal Randian government could emerge and be sustained only in a society with a very high percentage of "rational" people (as understood within an O'ist/libertarian framework). Only if a substantial percentage of a population understand and respect individual rights will a truly limited government be possible.

Fine, I have no problem with this as a working assumption. What I do have a problem with, however, is when minarchists change the assumption in their attacks on anarchism. Now, instead of a predominantly rational culture, we have the specter of bands of irrational thugs forming their own agencies.

In fact, we have such organizations today -- they are called "organized crime," "street gangs," and the like. These organized gangs of thugs are given little or no legitimacy, even in today's irrational culture, and they would enjoy even less legitimacy in a predominantly rational culture. To suggest that a system with competing justice agencies would have no method to identify, condemn, and suppress such outlaw organizations, regardless of what they call themselves, is absurd.

What are we to imagine would be the general mindset in a rational culture? Would people, following Binswanger and other O'ists, throw up their hands and say: Gee, without a monopolistic government to define objective law, we have no rational way to distinguish a just agency from an unjust agency. If only we had a wise government to make this decision for us, we could identify and condemn outlaw agencies. But we don't have a monopolistic government to tell us what to believe or what to do, so we have no choice but to accept every self-styled justice agency as legitimate.

Give me a break....

As I have said many times before, I would be deliriously happy if we could ever establish an ideal Randian government, one without the power to tax. (Almost every political philosopher in history would call this an anarchistic system, since they would argue that the power of coercive taxation is an essential characteristic of government, but never mind this glitch for now.) I would further maintain, however, that the predominantly rational culture presupposed by a Randian government could solve quite easily the problems associated with a pluralistic legal system.

For example, as Rothbard and many others have suggested, rational self-interest would generate cooperation among different agencies. The result would probably be a type of confederation. Suppose that two different agencies reach different verdicts in a criminal case. Is it so difficult to imagine that these agencies would have agreed beforehand to submit such disputes to an impartial third-part arbitration agency?

If we believe Rand, such agencies would have no recourse except to go to war with one another. We might as well say that Canada and the U.S. have no recourse except war in cases that involve overlapping jurisdictions. What nonsense.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If competing agencies replace the present system we'll have competing agencies of force respecting criminal law. Civil law concerns contracts. If contracts are secured by bonds then the pre-selected agency of arbitration will determine if the contract was violated and by which party and give over the bond to the plaintiff. There can even be an appeals process. There is no force. Agencies can compete for this business. This can even absorb fraud, which Rand said was a type of force, something I've always been dubious about.

I think all Randian arguments for government are valid, but only in violation of rights cases--the initiation of actual, overt force. I think the lib. anarchists should break this matter down as I have done and go from there, taking the easiest case--the civil contract case first. (Does what I just said make any sense?) Then go to the criminal.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If competing agencies replace the present system we'll have competing agencies of force respecting criminal law. Civil law concerns contracts. If contracts are secured by bonds then the pre-selected agency of arbitration will determine if the contract was violated and by which party and give over the bond to the plaintiff. There can even be an appeals process. There is no force. Agencies can compete for this business. This can even absorb fraud, which Rand said was a type of force, something I've always been dubious about. I think all Randian arguments for government are valid, but only in violation of rights cases--the initiation of actual, overt force. I think the lib. anarchists should break this matter down as I have done and go from there, taking the easiest case--the civil contract case first. (Does what I just said make any sense?) Then go to the criminal. --Brant

The current distinction between criminal law and civil (or tort) law is highly dubious. In present criminal law, the purported victim is society or the state, not the individual victim. Thus if a woman is raped and her assailant is tried in a criminal court, she appears merely as a witness to the crime.

In a proper legal system, individuals -- and only individuals -- can be victims. There would be no such thing as a crime against the collective abstraction known as "society." Restitution would be owed to the victim or (in the case of murder) to the victim's heirs.

Randy Barnett discusses this issue in considerable detail in The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law (Oxford 1998). It is also discussed by various writers in an earlier anthology edited by Randy: Assessing the Criminal: Restitution, Retribution, and the Legal Process (Ballinger Books, 1977).

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We might as well say that Canada and the U.S. have no recourse except war in cases that involve overlapping jurisdictions.

And doesn't the entire world serve as a model for anarchy on a large scale? We know how anarchy works across the globe, what we don't have an example of is a completely or nearly completely consensual government.

A lynch mob is a "government based in majority rule."

Otherwise good people can get lathered up to join a lynch mob, then wonder what the hell they were thinking later.

If "otherwise good people" are capable of that, what hope do you have for the emergence of a rational society?

Democracy is perhaps only an honest way of governing people. It's not necessarily fair, but at least there is no cover up to why it wouldn't be: Because people are capable of being shitty, and it's just a fact that the majority may not want things to be fair.

I think we should look at a governing system as a way of managing a group of people who have no choice as to whether or not they are part of the group. Even if there is an objective right or wrong regarding social interactions, that does not mean everyone will agree. If people are capable of being wrong, then there is an eternal threat to a rational society just in human nature.

The problem with any government is the pretense that it exists for the sake of any ideal. It's the correlation vs causation thing; a government serves the people who run it, not their ideals. Just because a government was founded on the ideals of justice and liberty does not mean it will maintain those ideals amongst its people.

For whom should a government exist? The moral? This is wishful thinking if it does not involve the use of force as a means of achieving such a state.

I say, let the majority make their decisions and make their mistakes... And let it be clear that they made the decisions. How are people supposed to learn and grow if a minority constantly tries to relieve them of their responsibility?

Edit: How about this? The majority have an irrevocable responsibility that should not be ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Since when does the objectivity of laws and legal procedures depend on how many people approve of them? Do you consult majority opinion before embracing objective truths in other spheres? Do we need a majority to tell us that theft and murder should be illegal, and that certain objective legal procedures are necessary before finding defendants guilty of such crimes?

Wow. You are totally up there in the clouds somewhere with this kind of statement, George. As I explained in considerable detail in post #4, the complexity of the issues involved in the various disputes that arise in a free society require the objectivity of a single agency charged with the responsibility of defining objective law.

May I therefore assume that you would favor one government for the entire world, so long as that government fulfilled Randian criteria?

And what about the different and sometimes conflicting legal systems in various states? Here we have different agencies enforcing different laws in a variety of spheres. Should we, as Alexander Hamilton recommended during the Constitutional Convention, effectively abolish the states, reducing them instead to administrative units of the federal government? -- that "single agency charged with the responsibility of defining objective law" that you are so fond of. It would seem so, according to your logic.

Your problem is that you begin with an ideal system of law, and you then insist that this system should apply universally. You need to get your head out of the clouds and understand that no legal system and no government will ever be perfect; and that even if we were to begin with an ideal government, it would still be liable to the corruption of power. As I have asked before: Who would be more likely to seek political power in a largely Objectivist society -- the Howard Roarks or the Ellsworth Tooheys?

The question answers itself, and it is the Tooheys, not the Roarks, that we need to take precautions against. Give the Tooheys of this world a coercive monopoly of law and political power, and watch the government expand into areas that its founders never dreamed of.

The anarchist model of competing justice agencies is a variant of the separation of powers doctrine, one that seeks an effective remedy against the abuse and expansion of political power. If the Tooheys gain control of a monopolistic government, our hope for freedom is pretty much extinguished. But if a Toohey Agency has to deal with a competing Roark Agency and similar agencies, then there is always hope. This was also the reasoning of the Antifederalist opponents of the Constitution and the later Jeffersonian defenders of states' rights. All opposed a strong central government for precisely this reason.

An interesting sidebar here is an observation that Edward Gibbon made in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Gibbon asked how the later Roman Empire was able to sustain a despotic system for as long as it did. He answered that the Roman Empire was so vast, and its governmental system so pervasive, that it was virtually impossible for anyone to escape from its jurisdiction. There was no place to run, in other words, in search of free air.

I suggest that you give serious consideration to this issue before embracing the questionable scheme of a strong central government with extensive, uniform jurisdiction.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a proper legal system, individuals -- and only individuals -- can be victims. There would be no such thing as a crime against the collective abstraction known as "society." Restitution would be owed to the victim or (in the case of murder) to the victim's heirs.

And the government or some kind of institution of force acts on behalf of the individual? To whom does the victim make their plea if not to society? If it's to a privately owned agency, doesn't that agency essentially get its consent to perform such services from society anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George H. Smith wrote a day ago:

Third, discussions of, and debates over, political ideals compel us to think clearly about key concepts, such as what we mean by "government" and "consent."

And later George wrote:

I have no patience with subjectivists like Bindinotto. They are impossible to argue with, because every time you propose a solution they retreat into their subjectivist catechism with question like: But who is to decide? Or what if someone disagrees?

end quotes

Precisely, and you supply no blueprint with an answer. H Pitkin in The American Political Science Review (1966), Obligation and Consent-II wrote:

The theory of hypothetical consent of the governed holds that one's obligation to obey government depends on whether the government is such that one ought to consent to it, or whether the people, if placed in a state of nature without government, would agree to said government.

end quote

A Constitutional Government cannot promise perfection. Anarchism cannot promise perfection. Not even a socially homogenous society with no government can promise perfection. If a society is to be free, one way of guaranteeing individual rights is common and constitutional law under a *government*. Control must flow from a contract or a constitution which explains what government can do and that is to protect individual rights. whYNOT wrote, “Idealism in governance is a whole new concept for me. But then, I've the view that government should never 'get creative'. Here's your budget, there're your rules and guidelines, now get on and do the job.” Amen, Tony.

Under Anarchism, society will be controlled by individuals, and there may be conflict. Constant consent or disagreement is the expected norm under anarchism. Conventional wisdom and laissez faire standards of personal conduct in a very homogeneous society are impossible to achieve. Someone is always the rebel. Will everybody get along because of shared values, like obedient children in Sunday School? Did George H. Smith have a dream . . . where all men are brothers?

A constitution, a contract, or constant consent needs to be amendable as time goes by, and our Constitution and George’s Rational Anarchism are amendable. But I maintain the requirement of *Constant Consent* required for human action under Rational Anarchism is its god in the machine and it is its monkey wrench.

George wrote some time ago:

You completely miss the point. The question is whether one agency (the government) will have final authority to decide when the use of force is legitimate and when it is not. This is the monopoly to which Rand refers. Traditionally known as the right of sovereignty, it means that another agency can do what the government does only with the permission of the government. And, given the monopolistic status of a government, it means that another agency can never claim to possess the same authority as the government. Another agency cannot overrule a decision of the government, for example, as the government can overrule one of its decisions. If you cannot understand this basic point, you will never understand what the minarchist/anarchist controversy is all about.

end quote

Let me rephrase that last paragraph in a way that is positive to Rational Anarchism to highlight its fundamental flaw:

**** The question is whether multiple agencies (the will of individuals) have final authority to decide when the use of force is legitimate and when it is not. This is the freedom to which Rational Anarchism refers. Traditionally known as the right of sovereignty, it means that any individual or agency can do what it sees fit without anyone’s permission. And, given the principle of personal sovereignty, it means every individual can claim to possess the same authority as any other individual or agency. One agency can overrule the decision of any other agency. *****

So, I do understand George and I still find controversy. Anarchy cannot guarantee subordinating “might” to “right” in the slightest. Its longevity or peaceful status quo is measured in conflicts and these situations might occur any minute. Anarchism in no way correlates with what you call minarchism. Constitutional Government supplies longevity and surety of rights.

From Rand’s “The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, page 114:

Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals - that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government - that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.

end quote

To reiterate, unlike flawed and imperfect Constitutional Government guaranteeing individual liberties, Anarchism guarantees nothing. Anarchism is not only flawed and imperfect it is designed to be that way with no design! If another anarchist agrees not to be in conflict with you then all is fine, but there is no guarantee. The anarchist vision can predict with little surety that force will NOT be initiated. Recourse to justice within anarchism is dependent upon agreement or the initiation of force. Based on human nature, the odds of force being initiated in an enlightened anarchist territory is still one hundred percent. What is the likelihood that justice will prevail? The odds are much less than as that found in Constitutional Government. If you cannot understand this basic point, you will never understand what the minarchist/anarchist controversy is all about.

George wrote:

I am not going to abandon my first love, philosophy, for your confused notion of "the practical." So keep pounding your head against a wall, and I will continue to discuss philosophy.

end quote

Oh, it is fun but don’t you want to be taken seriously? Your promise in “Atheism The Case Against God,” was to be a radical – a revolutionary. Is that promise to be fulfilled?

George wrote:

For example, as Rothbard and many others have suggested, rational self-interest would generate cooperation among different agencies. The result would probably be a type of confederation. Suppose that two different agencies reach different verdicts in a criminal case. Is it so difficult to imagine that these agencies would have agreed beforehand to submit such disputes to an impartial third-part arbitration agency?

end quote

That is easily imagined. Rationality is rearing its beautiful head and it is happening right now with our Supreme Court. But that is a topic for another day.

Peter Taylor

Notes:

I get this definition from Ayn Rand’s “The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, page 109:

The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.

Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.

This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.”

end quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now