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


Recommended Posts

Folks:

This is glaring, gaping hole in the nature of a government that has a "monopoly on the initiation of force."

Now, I am not sure it is solvable. However, when you have human beings in government, which you obviously have to have, there is the inherent problem of corruption.

Therefore, the individual citizen must maintain the right to not only use force, but to initiate force against a local, state or federal entity that is corrupt.

I do not see any way out of that conundrum.

Adam

You are actually talking about a form of retaliatory force.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 900
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

George H. Smith wrote:

"The key question here is: Who is the final authority in ethics? Ayn Rand gave a clear answer: each individual, by using his or her reason . . ."

Well, of course, she also said that “force and mind [i.e., reason] are opposites,” and that “morality ends where a gun begins.”

And then she said this:

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.

Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government

She regarded a proper government doing its strictly delimited task of eliminating force from human relationships as a precondition of civilization where men are free to make their own private ethical choices.

She regarded “a market in force” as a contradiction in terms. Her defense of limited government was as much epistemological as it was ethical.

So how do those in government determine the proper use of force, if not by the use of their reason? Do they have a monopoly on reason, as well as on force?

The fact is that Rand simply skipped over many fundamental problems in political philosophy, especially in the philosophy of law. This is understandable, since she couldn't cover everything. Not as understandable is why her followers have made no serious effort to move beyond her summary remarks.

Rand's argument for government ultimately reduces to the standard argument that has been used for centuries, namely, that there must exist some single agency that renders final decisions in matters of law in a given geographical area. As Max Weber explained in 1918, a government holds a monopoly of force, not in the sense that only a government can use force, but in the sense that a government is vested with the final authority to decide when force is legitimate and when it is not.

As I put it in a two-tape set on "The Ideas of Liberty" that I wrote for the Cato Institute in 1993:

In his influential discussion of the state, Max Weber contends that we cannot define the state in terms of its ends, or what it attempts to do, because virtually every task has been undertaken by a state at one time or another, and no one task has ever been pursued exclusively by the state. "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."Weber is careful to point out that force is not the only method employed by states, but force is their distinctive mode of operation. Hence:

[W]e have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the
monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within 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.

The state is the legal sovereign of a territory. "Legal" refers to the realm of legitimate coercion. "Sovereign" refers to an ultimate judge or arbiter. "Territory" refers to a geographical area. Hence the state is the ultimate judge and enforcer of legitimate coercion within a given geographical area. The state renders the final verdict on the legitimate use of violence and executes that verdict.

Rand added nothing to this basic idea. Again, this is understandable, but neither did she discuss any of the standard problems associated with it -- many of which were articulated not by anarchists but by classical liberal defenders of limited government. All Rand did was rant and rave against the notion of "competing governments" -- a contradiction in terms that Rothbard (her main target) never used. It is not difficult to refute a contradiction in terms.

No libertarian anarchist has ever advocated leaving the use of physical force to the private discretion of individuals. This is just another red herring. Equally absurd is the contention that anarchists advocate a "market in force." They advocate no such thing. They advocate a market in the objectively justifiable use of force, i.e., in justice. And, even by O'ist standards, we don't need a monopolistic government to tell us what is just and unjust. The very notion is absurd on its face.

Libertarian anarchists have done a lot of serious work on the philosophy of law. O'ists, in contrast, have produced virtually nothing. All they do, for the most part, is regurgitate Rand.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just reread it. It looks to me like you cite a whole bunch of organizations that function within a society under a government and call them examples of anarcho-capitalism (because nobody gets shot).

My problem is identifying the essential characteristics of government. As I understand the anarcho-capitalist position, noninitiation of force is the No. 1 sole fundamental from which all else derives (in terms of thinking about government--and thinking about doing away with government). NIOF is their ballast for the ship of individual rights.

Michael, you are the only one here so far thinking this through. So, I am responding to your posts. I ask only that you stop filtering my posts through someone else's definitions.

I suggest for instance, The Market for Force: the Consequences of Privatizing Security, by Deborah D. Avant. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.) I cited examples of markets for protection and adjudication that work here and now. I cited examples of corporations shopping for laws. I cited the hundreds upon hundreds of limited constitutional governments in the world. Governments protect rights and violate them. Private armies secure rights without force and private armies engage in atrocities.

As you say, it all derives from human nature.

But like the philosophizing Russian soldier who does not understand the implications of a plastic arrow, the philosophers here argue their airy theories divorced from the real world. You, at least, offer referents to reality. You seem to realize that there is and can be no way to devise a perfect institution that will protect us from ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand's argument for government ultimately reduces to the standard argument that has been used for centuries, namely, that there must exist some single agency that renders final decisions in matters of law in a given geographical area. As Max Weber explained, a government holds a monopoly of force, not in the sense that only a government can use force, but in the sense that a government is vested with the final authority to decide when force is legitimate and when it is not. ... Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state.

So, by definition the agency with the final play is the government. The USA has FBI agents in over 50 nations. An alleged murderer in Afghanistan was brought to the USA for trial, not a unique situation at all. The USA having this monopoly power in many places around the world. It seems to be highly extra territorial. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church for centuries maintained more power over its own clergy than any secular authority. Accusations of many kinds were dealt with internally. The civil authorities were unable to act. Territoriality seemed to be irrelevant to jurisdiction.

Some Sicilians and others brought their cultural preferences for modes of business to America and really resented it when some other agency wanted to butt in on "you know... our thing, "cosa nostra"..." For over 100 years, generation after generation, decade after decade, one commission after another investigates so-called "corruption" in local governments, especially policing, without identifying what Objectivists and Libertarians would insist is a question of territorial monopoly.

I think that reason the problem is never solved is that the "objective" (rational-empirical) is mistaken for "absolute." People argue absolutes that do not exist. Like religionists with dogmas - and unlike scientists with replicable and falsifiable claims - mini-archists and anarcho-capitalists will never come to agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand's argument for government ultimately reduces to the standard argument that has been used for centuries, namely, that there must exist some single agency that renders final decisions in matters of law in a given geographical area. As Max Weber explained, a government holds a monopoly of force, not in the sense that only a government can use force, but in the sense that a government is vested with the final authority to decide when force is legitimate and when it is not. ... Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state.

So, by definition the agency with the final play is the government. The USA has FBI agents in over 50 nations. An alleged murderer in Afghanistan was brought to the USA for trial, not a unique situation at all. The USA having this monopoly power in many places around the world. It seems to be highly extra territorial. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church for centuries maintained more power over its own clergy than any secular authority. Accusations of many kinds were dealt with internally. The civil authorities were unable to act. Territoriality seemed to be irrelevant to jurisdiction.

Some Sicilians and others brought their cultural preferences for modes of business to America and really resented it when some other agency wanted to butt in on "you know... our thing, "cosa nostra"..." For over 100 years, generation after generation, decade after decade, one commission after another investigates so-called "corruption" in local governments, especially policing, without identifying what Objectivists and Libertarians would insist is a question of territorial monopoly.

I think that reason the problem is never solved is that the "objective" (rational-empirical) is mistaken for "absolute." People argue absolutes that do not exist. Like religionists with dogmas - and unlike scientists with replicable and falsifiable claims - mini-archists and anarcho-capitalists will never come to agreement.

You raise a number of issues that don't have much if anything to do with Weber's conception of the "modern state." The U.S. does not claim sovereign jurisidiction over Afghanistan. It is not the government of Afghanistan. It neither claims nor exercises "monopoly power" in Afghanistan. That the U.S. government may or may not have violated the sovereignty of Afghanistan is another issue. I am by no means an expert on that miserable country, but I'm not even sure whether it realistically qualifies as a "state" at all, in contrast to a collection of tribes.

The Mafia never comprised a state, at least not in the U.S.

In its inception, the U.S. was conceived as an example of what political philosophers called "divided sovereignty." The federal and state governemnts were to have sovereign jurisdiction within the same territory but in regard to different spheres of activity. Such divided sovereignty is something that Rand claimed would never work. Nevertheless, Jefferson and others rejected the notion of a single territorial sovereign. As Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Cabell (Feb.2, 1816):

Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward [township, in effect] direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdivding these republics from the great national one down through all the subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body....

Jefferson goes on to explain that this "gradation of authorites, standing each on the basis of law," is "truly a fundamental system of balances and checks for the government."

Libertarian anarchism resembles Jefferson's vision in some ways, since Jefferson did not believe that the federal government should be able to nullify state laws. He would have categorically rejected Rand's argument for a single and ultimate arbiter of law within the territorial United States. He would have seen it, as indicated in the above passage, as a dangerous concentration of power in a single body -- the sort of scheme that "has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government."

Unlike Rand, Jefferson saw no insurmountable problems with different legal systems in different states. But there are some differences between Jefferson's ideal society and that of modern libertarian anarchists. For example, whereas Jefferson favored a vertical distribution of power, the anarchist conception may be described as horizontal. In neither scheme, however, is there a monopolistic sovereign government within a given geographical area. According to Jefferson, the federal government should be sovereign in some respects, the states should be sovereign in some respects, local townships should be sovereign in some respects, and individuals should be sovereign in some respects -- even though all these divided sovereignties exist within the same geographical area.

Since the early 17th century, absolutist critics of divided sovereignty claimed that it amounted to anarchy, i.e., a country with no sovereign government at all. Chaos would result, they argued, if different agencies within the same terrritory could decide legal matters for themselves. Yet that is exactly how America functioned for many years.

It is significant that, prior to the Civil War, it was customary to say "The United States are," not "The United States is."

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George H. Smith wrote:

"The key question here is: Who is the final authority in ethics? Ayn Rand gave a clear answer: each individual, by using his or her reason . . ."

Well, of course, she also said that “force and mind [i.e., reason] are opposites,” and that “morality ends where a gun begins.”

She regarded a proper government doing its strictly delimited task of eliminating force from human relationships as a precondition of civilization where men are free to make their own private ethical choices.

She regarded “a market in force” as a contradiction in terms. Her defense of limited government was as much epistemological as it was ethical.

So how do those in government determine the proper use of force, if not by the use of their reason? Do they have a monopoly on reason, as well as on force?

No. Since force and mind are opposites, then obviously government can wield force whimsically in any way it sees fit, pretty much killing, maiming and imprisoning people in wanton fashion.

If that doesn’t sound like I took your response seriously—well, now you know how it feels.

Force and reason are opposites in terms of human motivation. Obviously that does not mean you cannot reason about force. I know how terribly appreciative you must be that I took the time to clarify that for you.

You're welcome.

No libertarian anarchist has ever advocated leaving the use of physical force to the private discretion of individuals. This is just another red herring. Equally absurd is the contention that anarchists advocate a "market in force." They advocate no such thing. They advocate a market in the objectively justifiable use of force, i.e., in justice. And, even by O'ist standards, we don't need a monopolistic government to tell us what is just and unjust. The very notion is absurd on its face.

Libertarian anarchists have done a lot of serious work on the philosophy of law. O'ists, in contrast, have produced virtually nothing. All they do, for the most part, is regurgitate Rand.

Ghs

It isn't the least bit absurd to say, as Rand does, that government must retain a monopoly if the use of force is to be strictly restrained under objective law, because “its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed,” with “no touch of whim or caprice permitted in its performance.” And “a market in the objectively justifiable use of force” is still a market in force, because when agencies differ with each other on what “objectively justifiable” means, one agency will eventually have to impose its view on those who disagree. The notion that the enforcement agencies will never disagree on that issue is, as you say, “absurd on its face.”

Dennis, Regurgitater-in-Chief

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem is identifying the essential characteristics of government. As I understand the anarcho-capitalist position, noninitiation of force is the No. 1 sole fundamental from which all else derives (in terms of thinking about government--and thinking about doing away with government). NIOF is their ballast for the ship of individual rights.

I put human nature in that place. My reasoning is that the institution of government is a human insitution--by and for human beings. So it has a cognitive side (principles and so forth), but it also has a biological side that derives from our preconceptual natures as animals. This last is where the institution of familiy is rooted, for an example of how I am using this idea.

I don't get the point of this at all. The governments of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia flowed from human nature as surely as any concerto by Mozart or novel by Ayn Rand. Concentration camps are human institutions -- by and for human beings. So what?

As David Hume pointed out, humans always act according to their nature in some sense. But this has nothing to do with the debate betwen anarchists and minarchists. Both sides agree that no government should initiate force. Why? Because no individual has the right to initiate force, and a government does not have special rights over and above the rights of individuals. The crux of the debate is whether a government must initiate force in the course of sustaining its monopoly. Minarchists say no, and anarchists say yes.

Now, if you happen to believe that the initiation of force, whether undertaken by a government or by individuals, is no big deal (for whatever reason), then -- well, that pretty much puts you outside the boundaries of this controversy. But to appeal to a "biological side that derives from our preconceptual natures as animals" has no bearing on this controversy.

Perhaps you mean to say that individuals and governments will always initiate force, because this is part of human nature. If so, I agree with you, but this doesn't mean that we should not attempt to eliminate aggression from social interaction to the extent that this is humanly possible. And the place to begin is with governments -- by far the greatest aggressors and killers in history.

I maintain that we need to understand the essential nature of government itself, if we are to have any hope of restraining its power.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And “a market in the objectively justifiable use of force” is still a market in force, because when agencies differ with each other on what “objectively justifiable” means, one agency will eventually have to impose its view on those who disagree. The notion that the enforcement agencies will never disagree on that issue is, as you say, “absurd on its face.”

As usual, you speak in generalties without drawing crucial distinctions. The relevant distinction here is that between fundamental laws and the application of those laws to particular cases.

Why do you think it is inevitable that two justice agencies will disagree on fundamental issues of law? And if two agencies happen to disagree on the application of laws (e.g., court verdicts), then why wouldn't they agree to submit their disagreement to an impartial arbiter? Wouldn't this serve their rational self-interest much better than fighting? Would you do business with an agency that is fighting all the time? I certainly would not.

If you reply that justice agencies will not necessarily be rational, I will point out that you began with the working assumption of a fully rational, ideal Randian government. I am therefore justified, for the sake of argument, in positing fully rational, ideal justice agencies. And such agencies would negotiate rather than fight, just as rational governments will negotiate rather than fight. Or do you think the U.S. should go to war with Great Britain or Canada whenever a disagreement or conflict arises?

Is that what your ideal government would do with the "competing governments" in other countries -- go to war rather than negotiate a reasonable settlement, in the event of different decisions? Would you consider this rational behavior?

If you wish to descend from the clouds of theory and talk about what real governments are actually like, then I would be more than happy to discuss that issue with you. But in the current debate you cannot eat your cake and have it, too. You may not assume that your ideal government will be rational but that justice agencies will be irrational. Or if you want to assume this, then I will compare an irrational and tyrannical government against private agencies that are rational and just.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few more observations about this comment:

And “a market in the objectively justifiable use of force” is still a market in force, because when agencies differ with each other on what “objectively justifiable” means, one agency will eventually have to impose its view on those who disagree.

In other words, one of the agencies will inevitably become a government, because that is what governments do: they impose their views in matters of law on those who disagree. Would this outcome make you happy?

This was Nozick's basic argument in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. He believed that the "dominant protection agency" will inevitably impose its own notion of procedural justice on competing agencies, thereby giving rise to the "ultraminimal state." The difference is that Nozick attempted to show how this could happen with no "morally impermissible steps," via a process he called "compensation."

Unfortunately, you haven't even attempted to show how one agency, which calls itself the government, can legitimately impose, by coercive means, its own notion of justice on other agencies. You predict that this is what will inevitably happen with market justice agencies, so one might think that you don't approve of this violent procedure. On the other hand, you think that this is precisely what a government should do. Go figure.

As Rothbard once said of Nozick's argument: Even if it should happen that a dominant agency eventually uses force to suppress other agencies, thereby transforming itself into a monopolistic government, then at least we will have enjoyed a "glorious holiday."

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how do those in government determine the proper use of force, if not by the use of their reason? Do they have a monopoly on reason, as well as on force?

No. Since force and mind are opposites, then obviously government can wield force whimsically in any way it sees fit, pretty much killing, maiming and imprisoning people in wanton fashion.

The same is true of justice agencies. So what's the problem? If I am confronted with two justice agencies that enforce the same system of law, but one agency does this much more efficiently than the other, then why may I not use my own reason to decide which agency I wish to employ? Where do you get the right to tell me: "You cannot choose that agency, even if it is more efficient. Why? Because I call the other agency the "government." I like the other agency better, so you must choose it."

If that doesn’t sound like I took your response seriously—well, now you know how it feels.

One must first understand an argument before one can take it seriously. You do not seem well-informed about the issues involved here. Have you ever read the essential presentations of the anarchist side, such as Rothbard's For a New Liberty or The Ethics of Liberty or Power and Market? Have you read any of Randy Barnett's extensive publications on the subject of legal pluralism (some of which were published in the Harvard Law Review), including The Structure of Liberty?

How about Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Harvard, 1983), by the distinguished legal historian Harold Berman? -- a book that has often been cited by libertarian anarchists, even though Berman is nothing of the sort. This book is a fascinating account of the different European legal systems -- canon law, manorial law, mercantile law, urban law, etc -- that functioned simultaneously in overlapping jurisdictions for many centuries throughout Europe. Believe it or not, Dennis, these legal systems usually harmonized quite well. And the wars that did erupt did not match the scale of the highly destructive wars of the era of the modern nation-state. Not even close.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some random thoughts before I call it a night -- or morning, or whatever.

Around 1975, I debated Bob Poole (one of the founders of Reason Magazine) on the issue of abolitionism versus gradualism. During our debate (at the LA Libertarian Supper Club), Bob used a metaphor to describe the current U.S. government. He called it a "garden of flowers overgrown with weeds." I responded by saying that it would be more accurate to describe the government as a garden of weeds in which a few flowers have managed to survive here and there.

I expanded on this metaphor in an early issue of The Voluntaryist (1982). I pointed out that the practical implications of the minarchist/anarchist dispute typically manifest themselves in how libertarians view the current U.S. Government. Minarchists typically view the government as fundamentally legitimate (a garden of flowers), whereas anarchists view it as fundamentally illegitimate (a garden of weeds).

A different but related issue arose during a debate I had with John Hospers on anarchism in 1975. (This was held at Larchmont Hall in Hollywood, and sponsored by my own Forum for Philosophical Studies.) John's basic argument, which he hammered home again and again, is that every legal system must have a final arbiter -- SCOTUS, in our case -- by which legal disputes can be resolved peacefully.

I agreed, of course, but I questioned whether the final arbiter must be the same in each and every case. Contract disputes, for example, are frequently resolved by different private arbitration agencies, and, so long as the parties agree to use the same agency, there is no reason why they must choose the same agency every time. The final arbiter, in other words, need not be a coercive monopoly.

The problem, I went on to argue, is that a final arbiter does not resolve the issue of justice. SCOTUS has made many horrendous decisions that were manifestly unjust.

I don't recall John's exact reply to this (I wish I still had the tape recording of that debate), but it went something as follows: It is better to suffer unjust decisions than to have no final decisions at all. I replied by noting that this argument would justify every government that has ever existed. The Soviet Union had a final court of appeal. Was that better than no final arbiter at all?

Yet another related point, one that I argued for in "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market," is that there is considerable latitude in specific matters of procedural justice. Suppose one legal system uses 12 jurors in criminal trials, whereas another uses 10. Or suppose one system requires the unanimous agreement of 12 jurors to convict in a criminal case, whereas another only requires 10 out of 12. In these and similar variations, is one procedure necessarily just and the other unjust? No, not necessarily, within certain limits (which I also discussed).

My point here is that O'ists should move beyond the second-hand generalizations that they picked up from Rand and begin dealing with some of the fundamental problems of legal theory. As Brant pointed out, a good consequence of the minarchist/anarchist debate has been the focus brought to bear on some of these problems. But as I subsequently pointed out, thus far only the anarchists have taken these problems seriously.

One last thing: Over the years -- and a few times on OL, as I recall -- I have mentioned that the term "anarchism," though technically accurate as a description of the "Rothbardian" position, is also misleading, since libertarian anarchists are as fully devoted to the rule of law as any minarchist. I have also made similar remarks about Rand's use of "government" to describe an institution that lacks the power to tax. Though technically accurate, perhaps, since the Randian government claims a coercive monopoly on the use of force, Rand's "government" differs radically from any government that has ever existed or that has been defended by previous political philosophers -- with the exception of a few 19th century libertarians, such as Auberon Herbert, who advocated "voluntary taxation."

Anyway, I sometimes think that O'ists respond more to the negative connotations of the label "anarchism" than they do to the substance of the arguments presented by modern libertarian anarchists. I say this because few O'ists seem to know what the arguments really are. So why not jettison the label altogether? Well, why did Rand embrace the terms "selfish" and "selfishness," despite all of their negative connotations?

Strictly speaking, Rand played fast and loose with the word "selfishness," since that word was traditionally used to signify behavior that is excessively self-centered, i.e., behavior that entails exploiting others. The selfish man was typically regarded as short-sighted and irrational, in contrast to the man who pursues his long-term rational self-interest. The selfish man would violate the rights of other people to get what he wants, whereas the man concerned with his rational self-interest would respect the rights of others.

Nevertheless, for reasons I won't explain here, I think Rand was wise in refurbishing the words "selfish" and "selfishness" for her own purposes. I would present a similar justification for using "anarchist" and "anarchism," even though these labels don't quite fit at times.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The anarchist-minarchist debate is surely way overdone. Both ideals are pretty much pipe dreams.

So, you reject reality?

Why did you drop my next sentence? It was: "There are too many rights violators in the world and others who approve of them for either ideal to be anywhere near a practical reality." Does that sound like a rejection of reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of talking about the rights of the government, again, as if it's a separate entity from the people, why not talk about the rights of the people that act on behalf of the government?

If only "the government" is allowed to settle rights violations with the use of force, that is creating tiers of rights for people. Police, therefor, have different rights than other individuals. They're expected to uphold laws intended to protect the people, but they've been given the means to do more than that... yet there is no difference between the individual labeled a police or a civilian as far as the law should be concerned.

You can say the people in government have a responsibility, or an obligation, but more specifically and accurately, what they have is a different set of rights from most everybody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An early and succinct defense of "Defense Services on the Free Market" can be found in Murray Rothbard's Power and Market (1970). This excellent summary can be read online at:

http://library.mises...e%20Economy.pdf

See Chapter 1, pp. 1-10.

The anarchist controversy aside, this is one of the best books that Rothbard ever wrote. (Murray thought of it as the third volume, in effect, of his masterpiece, Man, Economy, and State.) Even minarchists will appreciate Rothbard's devasting rebuttals of various statist arguments throughout the book.

When Murray was at this best, he was absolutely superb. This is one of the greatest books on freedom written in the modern era.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of talking about the rights of the government, again, as if it's a separate entity from the people, why not talk about the rights of the people that act on behalf of the government?

If only "the government" is allowed to settle rights violations with the use of force, that is creating tiers of rights for people. Police, therefor, have different rights than other individuals. They're expected to uphold laws intended to protect the people, but they've been given the means to do more than that... yet there is no difference between the individual labeled a police or a civilian as far as the law should be concerned.

You can say the people in government have a responsibility, or an obligation, but more specifically and accurately, what they have is a different set of rights from most everybody else.

I agree with much of what you say.

The rule of thumb is this: If no individual could possibly possess a right in a "state of nature" -- i.e., a society without government -- then no government can legitimately claim such a right. When Rand said that all rights are ultimately the rights of individuals, and that there is no such thing as collective rights, she was echoing a long tradition in classical liberalism.

Now apply this to the police.

Suppose that 100 people are stranded on a desert island. These people would exist in a state of nature before they formed a government (if they ever did). Okay, suppose one guy finds some cannibis plants and decides to smoke a joint. Does any another person, who may disapprove of drugs, have the individual right to use force to stop the smoker? No, of course not.

All we need to do, in essence, is to examine every "right" claimed by police (or a government generally) and then ask whether any individual could legitimately claim such a right in a state of nature. If not, then no such right exists.

Btw, a government is in fact an institution separate from "the people." The latter is a collective abstraction, whereas a particular government is a concrete institution.To say, as some Americans do, that "we, the people" are the government is arrant nonsense.

Of course, many civilians participate in the political process, e.g., through voting. But we also participate, say, in the agricultural market as consumers. That doesn't make us farmers.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merlin Jetton said:

The anarchist-minarchist debate is surely way overdone. Both ideals are pretty much pipe dreams.

end quote

Michael Marotta responded:

So, you reject reality?

end quote

Constitutional Government (Minarchy) is real and it is tried constantly, but its ideal version is always reserved for sometime in the future. Planned Rational Anarchy is an ideal that has no versions, no trials, and no plans to be tried.

Adam wrote:

Therefore, the individual citizen must maintain the right to not only use force, but to initiate force against a local, state or federal entity that is corrupt.

end quote

Of course, we the citizens retain the right of self-defense against a tyranny. I agree whole heartedly with Dennis Hardin and Brant. That is not the “initiation of force,” Adam and the difference between retaliation and initiation is not simply semantics. Self defense within a government with a legitimate system of voting begins with voting the bastards out of office, amending the Constitution, and allowing the states to do the regulating, if it is needed. Just look at the major “anarchist” bugaboos of restrictive laws and the police to enforce those laws, taxation and drug laws. All those actions vary from state to state. You are freer and taxed less in some states.

Look around you to see Rational Anarchism. Look to history. Look for a modal of Anarchy. None exists. Anarchy is nothing. If a theory is not founded on real life, it is not real. It is a construct without referents in reality, like Camelot or heaven.

Planned anarchy is not real, and anarchists have no “plan” to implement it. It is subjective to say, “Someday there will be a revolution, and Rational Anarchy will spontaneously slide into place.” But where is it coming from? What part of political thinking? What experimental proof? The most erudite Rational Anarchist can only proclaim “profound nothingness.”

An anarchist might belabor the point that constitutional government is flawed but it is real and it can be amended. The unknown can be constructed from ideas but the anarchist builders refuse to try. They can only harp about what does exist, which is constitutional government and its flaws.

We who engage in discourse with them are giving them too much credit. Rational Anarchy’s holiday is April Fools Day.

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George H. Smith wrote:

So how do those in government determine the proper use of force, if not by the use of their reason? Do they have a monopoly on reason, as well as on force? The fact is that Rand simply skipped over many fundamental problems in political philosophy, especially in the philosophy of law. This is understandable, since she couldn't cover everything. Not as understandable is why her followers have made no serious effort to move beyond her summary remarks.

end quote

George’s wonderful summation encapsulates his importance to Objectivism. It is why I enjoy discussing Anarchy which “has no referent in reality,” with him. I want George to answer his own conundrum. Why hasn’t he made a serious effort to move beyond Rand’s summary remarks? If Anarchism and Objectivist Government (without coercive taxation) are unattainable ideals as George maintains, then why does he not put his efforts towards what is attainable?

George maintains that no Rational Anarchists, and:

No libertarian anarchist has ever advocated leaving the use of physical force to the private discretion of individuals . . . They advocate no such thing. They advocate a market in the objectively justifiable use of force, i.e., in justice.

end quote

A realistic solution is to change what exists. Since Randians, Jeffersonians, and Rational Anarchists think “a market in the objectively justifiable use of force, i.e., in justice . . .” does exist in our political philosophy, can George be saying that the time to rebel is now? Or is it time to amend the Constitution? Let us step onto the path of amendment.

Repeal all federal drug laws beyond stopping the “illegal importation” of drugs across our country’s boarders. Allow the state’s to regulate drug sales if they so choose. Many states have legalized previously illegal drugs. If a person does not like that state’s laws they can immigrate to a freer state or seek to amend the offensive laws.

Decrease Federal Taxation. Look at a Mitt Romney's Presidential victory and the Paul Ryan plan as the first steps.

Allow states to enact “stand your ground laws” as had Florida with mixed results after the Trayvon shooting by neighborhood watchman Zimmerman.

Idealism is the inspiration. Practicality is the attainable. I am rooting for George.

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constitutional Government (Minarchy) is real and it is tried constantly, but its ideal version is always reserved for sometime in the future. Planned Rational Anarchy is an ideal that has no versions, no trials, and no plans to be tried.

Funny how the critics of 18th century America said the same thing. They called the American form of republican government a dangerous "experiment" that had never been tried before, and they warned that it would lead to chaos and other disasters.

Too bad you weren't around back then to tell the Founders to stick with a monarchical form of government. We would have been so much better off.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The governments of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia flowed from human nature as surely as any concerto by Mozart or novel by Ayn Rand. Concentration camps are human institutions -- by and for human beings. So what?

George,

I totally disagree.

These governments came into being in order to "perfect" human nature, not reflect it.

They did not "flow from human nature." They flowed against it in their intent.

That was my meaning.

(Reality showed that human nature cannot be dismissed so easily without a nasty price since the underbelly of human nature will assert itself given the power to do so, but that is another issue.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of talking about the rights of the government, again, as if it's a separate entity from the people, why not talk about the rights of the people that act on behalf of the government?

If only "the government" is allowed to settle rights violations with the use of force, that is creating tiers of rights for people. Police, therefor, have different rights than other individuals. They're expected to uphold laws intended to protect the people, but they've been given the means to do more than that... yet there is no difference between the individual labeled a police or a civilian as far as the law should be concerned.

You can say the people in government have a responsibility, or an obligation, but more specifically and accurately, what they have is a different set of rights from most everybody else.

I agree with much of what you say.

The rule of thumb is this: If no individual could possibly possess a right in a "state of nature" -- i.e., a society without government -- then no government can legitimately claim such a right. When Rand said that all rights are ultimately the rights of individuals, and that there is no such thing as collective rights, she was echoing a long tradition in classical liberalism.

Now apply this to the police.

Suppose that 100 people are stranded on a desert island. These people would exist in a state of nature before they formed a government (if they ever did). Okay, suppose one guy finds some cannibis plants and decides to smoke a joint. Does any another person, who may disapprove of drugs, have the individual right to use force to stop the smoker? No, of course not.

All we need to do, in essence, is to examine every "right" claimed by police (or a government generally) and then ask whether any individual could legitimately claim such a right in a state of nature. If not, then no such right exists.

Btw, a government is in fact an institution separate from "the people." The latter is a collective abstraction, whereas a particular government is a concrete institution.To say, as some Americans do, that "we, the people" are the government is arrant nonsense.

Of course, many civilians participate in the political process, e.g., through voting. But we also participate, say, in the agricultural market as consumers. That doesn't make us farmers.

Ghs

The rights of police as police that don't overlap their rights as private citizens are a form of privilege powered by law, talking about a free society. Suppose a crime--a violation of rights--has taken place and the powers-that-be come to the conclusion that you are likely guilty of that crime, but you aren't, and warrants are issued for your arrest and to search your home. Such is done. Primarily, this is the use of retaliatory force, albeit against the wrong person. Derivatively, it is the initiation of force by the police (and the judge who signed the warrants and the prosecutor or detectives who asked for them) against you. Here is where the issue of consent comes into play. To live in this society with this legal system and its processes one implicitly at least agrees to be subject to its laws and processes considering them to be reasonable if the crime being dealt with is an actual initiation of force rights' violating. It's the price one pays for the protection of laws and the police for the sake of a generally peaceful and society-safe existence.

--Brant

it also provides a platform for kvetching and learned philosophical discourse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The governments of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia flowed from human nature as surely as any concerto by Mozart or novel by Ayn Rand. Concentration camps are human institutions -- by and for human beings. So what?

George,

I totally disagree.

These governments came into being in order to "perfect" human nature, not reflect it.

They did not "flow from human nature." They flowed against it in their intent.

That was my meaning.

(Reality showed that human nature cannot be dismissed so easily without a nasty price since the underbelly of human nature will assert itself given the power to do so, but that is another issue.)

Michael

So where does the desire to "perfect" human nature come from, if not from human nature itself? Everything that humans have ever done "reflects" human nature in some fashion. The sadistic pleasure that comes from torturing others, or burning them at the stake, reflects some aspect of human nature.

What O'ists and libertarians wish to do is restrain some of the undesirable aspects of human nature -- especially the aggressive use of force -- to the extent this is possible. So what is wrong with that?

Ghs

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George H. Smith wrote:

According to Jefferson, the federal government should be sovereign in some respects, the states should be sovereign in some respects, local townships should be sovereign in some respects, and individuals should be sovereign in some respects -- even though all these divided sovereignties exist within the same geographical area . . . . It is significant that, prior to the Civil War, it was customary to say "The United States are," not "The United States is" . . . . I am therefore justified, for the sake of argument, in positing fully rational, ideal justice agencies. And such agencies would negotiate rather than fight, just as rational governments will negotiate rather than fight.

end quote

What you are positing is a contractually agreed upon regulatory agency instead of a Supreme Court. Interesting. And if the States don’t like the decision from their agreed upon arbiter do they grin and bear it, or shoot at each other? There can be no fully rational, ideal justice agency. Why not, before hostilities begin, go to the less than ideal Supreme Court for a retrial and final verdict? But what if Kentucky does not like the SCOTUS decision? As Lil Abner might say, you can’t fight with the Fedr’all Guv’mint.

Isn’t that what we have now, to a degree? What would be different in your “better” version? I think I see an objective shift in your thinking and I like what I see. Forget about the “Promised Land.” How would you ALTER our current system?

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where does the desire to "perfect" human nature come from, if not from human nature itself?

George,

Utopia is in the charters of these governments. They presumed, based on a flawed biological premise, they should have the power to perfect the human nature of other people rather than let the individual deal with the state of his own soul.

That flawed biological premise is not human nature. It is the nature of aliens of some sort, maybe, but not human beings. Those governments you cited are not governments by and for human beings at root. (I am talking fundamentals, not fringe concretes.) They are governments by people who have a pipe dream of what human beings (but not themselves, of course) should be.

Just because people have irrational desires, this does not mean they don't have rational ones, too. Both are part of human nature.

"Flowing from human nature" in my sense means you correctly identify identify human nature rather than cherry-pick one part and deduce a theory and practice of the whole from that. (I hold the preeminence of NIOF in the libertarian arguments I have read do precisely that.)

So just as humans have an aggressive side, they also have a rational side. I hold government should reflect both. A great example is one I keep mentioning for the human soul's underbelly--checks and balances. Rather than say we are going to condition love for power out of human nature, the framers of the Constitution accepted this part of human nature as inherent and chopped the exercise of it up.

People who have power almost always want to increase it. What better constraint is there than allowing them to have only a slice of the power cake and the only way they can get the whole cake is to take the slices away from others who have equally powerful slices? Other power holders do not want to give up what they have and exercise. On the contrary, they want to increase their own lot. I hold the Founding Fathers were brilliant in devising a system held in place like that.

On the rational side, you have individual rights. I agree with Rand that man's reason is his tool of survival (and I would say, survival of the species), so freedom to use it is essential in society.

Both of those examples are what I mean by reflecting human nature.

I believe reestablishing some limitations on government based on individual rights is the way to go to correct the government's growth. But it will be done by dragging the power-holders kicking and screaming away from their increased power. The only way I see to do this effectively is to elect people for specific offices of power who are inclined to work in that direction and let them collide within the checks and balances just like the power-mongers do.

Is this slow? Yes. And I hold this is another way the Founding Fathers took the underbelly of human nature into account and our government reflects that. They made it possible to make drastic changes to the system, but made it hard as hell to do it. They knew that when people get lathered up in a mob, they can do very stupid things in the short term.

You do not see such constraints based on human nature in the governments you cited. On the contrary, in those governments, the leader says the system now requires everyone to jump and suddenly everyone has to jump.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George wrote:

All we need to do, in essence, is to examine every "right" claimed by police (or a government generally) and then ask whether any individual could legitimately claim such a right in a state of nature. If not, then no such right exists.

end quote

The Ninth amendment “declares that the listing of individual rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; and that the other rights not specifically mentioned are retained by the people.”

The Tenth Amendment “reserves to the states respectively, or to the people, any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States, nor prohibit the states from exercising."

I agree with George that these two amendments need to be enforced, though, in a sense they appear to be THE VERY Rational Anarchism that George posits. Can anyone list some other essentially needed additions to The Bill of Rights?

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote, “Constitutional Government (Minarchy) is real and it is tried constantly, but its ideal version is always reserved for sometime in the future. Planned Rational Anarchy is an ideal that has no versions, no trials, and no plans to be tried.”

And George responded:

Funny how the critics of 18th century America said the same thing. They called the American form of republican government a dangerous "experiment" that had never been tried before, and they warned that it would lead to chaos and other disasters. Too bad you weren't around back then to tell the Founders to stick with a monarchical form of government. We would have been so much better off.

end quote

George, consider yourself the modern Thomas Jefferson, because you ARE the most respected political visionary amongst us. We critics may get ornery and disagree with you, but we respect you. If you were an elected delegate to a Constitutional Convention, or to an Anarchist’s Convention, please tell your readers what would occur in a certain geographical territory if your vision for the future were enacted.

And what do you consider yourself if not an Anarchist? Are you ready to reinvent or rename your position?

Peter Taylor

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