Thoughts on Rand, Government, and Anarchism


Recommended Posts

Now, at long last, I will explain why Roy's "Open Letter" converted me to anarchism, even though I was not influenced by my previous exposure to anarchism and anarchists via my work with S.L.A.M. Again, you can find Roy's "Open Letter" here .

Although I was a minarchist at the time, I did not feel hostile to Roy's article before I read it. My attitude quickly changed, however, after I skimmed the piece to get a general idea of what to expect. I got annoyed by what I regarded as Roy's presumptuous style, as found in passages like this:

Finally, I want to take up a major question: why should you adopt free market anarchism after having endorsed the political state for so many years? Fundamentally, for the same reason you gave for withdrawing your sanction from Nathaniel Branden in an issue of The Objectivist: namely, you do not fake reality and never have. If your reputation should suffer with you becoming a total voluntarist, a free market anarchist, what is that compared with the pride of being consistent – of knowing that you have correctly identified the facts of reality, and are acting accordingly? A path of expedience taken by a person of self-esteem is psychologically destructive, and such a person will find himself either losing his pride or committing that act of philosophical treason and psychological suicide which is blanking out, the willful refusal to consider an issue, or to integrate one's knowledge. Objectivism is a completely consistent philosophical system you say – and I agree that it is potentially such. But it will be an Objectivism without the state.

I did not believe that Rand needed to be lectured on the value of consistency, especially by someone my age. (Roy was one month older than I.) And the business about "withdrawing your sanction from Nathaniel Branden" as an instance of Rand's refusal to "fake reality" struck me as an obvious case of sucking up to Rand by appealing to a situation about which Roy knew very little. (It seemed obvious to me, after reading the accounts by both Rand and NB, that Rand had not mentioned a lot of relevant information. There was a consensus among the members of UA Students of Objectivism that far more had happened to precipitate the split than we knew about.)

Another source of annoyance for me was Roy's belief that his article might actually change Rand's mind. I regarded this premise as a publicity stunt, because I did not believe that Roy could be that naive. Only a few years later, after I became good friends with Roy, did I understand that he was in fact that naive. Roy was a little embarrassed when I brought this issue up, but he conceded that he really did think pure logic alone would win Rand over. Despite his polemicism, Roy had an innocent streak in him that was part of his charm. Thus, despite my negative reaction to Roy's rhetoric, his article was written from the heart, and what we see there is the real Roy. But I didn't know this at the time.

My initial response is what gave me the idea of writing a refutation of Roy's article, Strange Bedfellows: The Objectivist Anarchism of Roy .A. Childs, Jr. I then read the article more carefully looking for vulnerable spots to attack, and, finding several, I sat down at my portable typewriter and started writing. The article seemed to divide itself naturally into three parts: the first several pages where we find Roy's argument about a basic contradiction in Rand's theory of government; a middle section in which Roy numbers some subsidiary issues and responds to them one by one; and the last third, which covers some miscellaneous points and returns to the "contradiction" discussed in the first third.

The middle section (with the numbered points) struck me as the most vulnerable, so I started there. I covered the five points in around three pages....

To be continued....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Fascinating. The moral fall of Objectivism started before Roy's letter, but once his letter was ignored, that was it. It was over. I disagree with Roy, but his case for anarchism is absolutely devastating to Objectivism's political philosophy. And I think the letter's very existence can by itself explain the Objectivist movement's many problems. By not addressing the arguments there, it guaranteed that the best minds would leave Objectivism, leaving only the dishonest and the incompetent, and as I can attest, much to the confusion of the younger generation that were attracted to Ayn Rand's ideas after all this had gone down.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating. The moral fall of Objectivism started before Roy's letter, but once his letter was ignored, that was it. It was over. I disagree with Roy, but his case for anarchism is absolutely devastating to Objectivism's political philosophy. And I think the letter's very existence can by itself explain the Objectivist movement's many problems. By not addressing the arguments there, it guaranteed that the best minds would leave Objectivism, leaving only the dishonest and the incompetent, and as I can attest, much to the confusion of the younger generation that were attracted to Ayn Rand's ideas after all this had gone down.

Shayne

Shayne, I very seldom agree strongly with anything you say, but here's an exception. Bravo!

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating. The moral fall of Objectivism started before Roy's letter, but once his letter was ignored, that was it. It was over. I disagree with Roy, but his case for anarchism is absolutely devastating to Objectivism's political philosophy. And I think the letter's very existence can by itself explain the Objectivist movement's many problems. By not addressing the arguments there, it guaranteed that the best minds would leave Objectivism, leaving only the dishonest and the incompetent, and as I can attest, much to the confusion of the younger generation that were attracted to Ayn Rand's ideas after all this had gone down.

Shayne

Shayne, I very seldom agree strongly with anything you say, but here's an exception. Bravo!

JR

Mega dittos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys.

And coming from usually grumpy JR, what a compliment.

I am looking forward to reading the rest of George's story, this is really good stuff.

When I get some time I'm going to re-read Roy's article and see if I can come up with something to address his particular stance, which is a very rational and principled response to Rand, in spite of what is in my opinion an error on his part (caused at least in part by accepting one of Rand's erroneous ideas). The essay I wrote against anarchism was written more broadly, based in good part on discussions I've had with anarchists (not just George). It is longer than it needs to be to address Roy's argument.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The middle section (with the numbered points) struck me as the most vulnerable, so I started there. I covered the five points in around three pages....

To be continued....

The middle section (with the numbered points) struck me as the most vulnerable, so I started there. I covered the five points in around three pages, but I implicitly knew that I could not really address them adequately unless I confronted Roy's "contradiction" argument in the first part of his "Open Letter." My earlier reading of that part had left me with a vague feeling of uneasiness. Although a rebuttal did not occur to me, I assumed one could easily be found. Why? Because the contradiction posited by Roy seemed far too simple and obvious not to have been noticed before. I thought Rand surely would have caught it, and, if she had noticed even the appearance of a contradiction, given an explanation. Even supposing that the apparent contradiction had escaped Rand's attention, it seemed highly unlikely that no one would have noticed it until Roy pointed it out, nearly six years after "The Nature of Government" had been published in The Objectivist Newsletter (Dec. 1963).

I took an hour break from my writing in order to reread "The Nature of Government" and related material by Rand, but I could find nothing that addressed the basic contradiction that comprised the core of Roy's argument. I then reread the first part of Roy's article very carefully in a search of some "fudging" on his part. But I could find nothing like this. I then focused on this passage by Roy:

The quickest way of showing why it must either initiate force or cease being a government is the following: Suppose that I were distraught with the service of a government in an Objectivist society. Suppose that I judged, being as rational as I possibly could, that I could secure the protection of my contracts and the retrieval of stolen goods at a cheaper price and with more efficiency. Suppose I either decide to set up an institution to attain these ends, or patronize one which a friend or a business colleague has established. Now, if he succeeds in setting up the agency, which provides all the services of the Objectivist government, and restricts his more efficient activities to the use of retaliation against aggressors, there are only two alternatives as far as the "government" is concerned: (a) It can use force or the threat of it against the new institution, in order to keep its monopoly status in the given territory, thus initiating the use of threat of physical force against one who has not himself initiated force. Obviously, then, if it should choose this alternative, it would have initiated force. Q.E.D. Or: It can refrain from initiating force, and allow the new institution to carry on its activities without interference. If it did this, then the Objectivist "government" would become a truly marketplace institution, and not a "government" at all. There would be competing agencies of protection, defense and retaliation – in short, free market anarchism.

I put the problem to myself this way: Suppose a Randian government does something that is objectively just. Then suppose another agency does exactly the same thing. Why would Rand's monopolistic government have the right to prohibit another agency, by the use or threat of physical force, from doing exactly the same thing that it does? How can the same activity be regarded as proper when performed by one group of people (the government) but as improper when performed by another group of people? If the competing agency did not initiate force in any way, then Rand's government would have no right to interfere in its activities, and it could only do so by initiating force against the competing agency.

There was only one logical conclusion: Rand's government, which, according to her, is never permitted to initiate force, must necessarily initiate force (or threaten to initiate force) by its very nature as a coercive monopoly.

When this inescapable conclusion became clear to me, I sat back in my chair and said aloud, "Well, I guess I am an anarchist." I crumpled up the pages of my unfinished article, threw them away, and went on with my life, as if my sudden and painless transition to anarchism was no big deal. And it wasn't a big deal, philosophically speaking, for reasons I will explain in my next post.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I put the problem to myself this way: Suppose a Randian government does something that is objectively just. Then suppose another agency does exactly the same thing. Why would Rand's monopolistic government have the right to prohibit another agency, by the use or threat of physical force, from doing exactly the same thing that it does? How can the same activity be regarded as proper when performed by one group of people (the government) but as improper when performed by another group of people? If the competing agency did not initiate force in any way, then Rand's government would have no right to interfere in its activities, and it could only do so by initiating force against the competing agency.

There was only one logical conclusion: Rand's government, which, according to her, is never permitted to initiate force, must necessarily initiate force (or threaten to initiate force) by its very nature as a coercive monopoly.

Ghs

How would "one group" know the "other group" was doing "something that is objectively just" without, potentially, one compelling the other to provide sufficient information to draw that conclusion? If that "compelling" is "initiation of force," it seems initiation of force may be a necessary feature of the interaction between the two groups as they go about protecting against something that may be objectively unjust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I put the problem to myself this way: Suppose a Randian government does something that is objectively just. Then suppose another agency does exactly the same thing. Why would Rand's monopolistic government have the right to prohibit another agency, by the use or threat of physical force, from doing exactly the same thing that it does? How can the same activity be regarded as proper when performed by one group of people (the government) but as improper when performed by another group of people? If the competing agency did not initiate force in any way, then Rand's government would have no right to interfere in its activities, and it could only do so by initiating force against the competing agency.

There was only one logical conclusion: Rand's government, which, according to her, is never permitted to initiate force, must necessarily initiate force (or threaten to initiate force) by its very nature as a coercive monopoly.

Ghs

How would "one group" know the "other group" was doing "something that is objectively just" without, potentially, one compelling the other to provide sufficient information to draw that conclusion? If that "compelling" is "initiation of force," it seems initiation of force may be a necessary feature of the interaction between the two groups as they go about protecting against something that may be objectively unjust.

Every human being or group of human beings is obligated to provide everyone else with evidence that their prima facie attacks on others are just. If having two or more groups means that government actually becomes compelled to provide such information, so much the better for humanity, for the worst actions against innocents have been caused by unaccountable governments. I.e., you are making George's argument, not breaking it.

Shayne

Edited by sjw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George has been accepting congratulations on this thread so I will just post one brief contrary view until he is done.

George wrote:

Quote

Suppose a Randian government does something that is objectively just. Then suppose another agency does exactly the same thing. Why would Rand's monopolistic government have the right to prohibit another agency, by the use or threat of physical force, from doing exactly the same thing that it does? How can the same activity be regarded as proper when performed by one group of people (the government) but as improper when performed by another group of people? If the competing agency did not initiate force in any way, then Rand's government would have no right to interfere in its activities, and it could only do so by initiating force against the competing agency.

End quote

PERHAPS Rand’s choice of words was imprecise and a correct formulation could objectively and contextually change those words. It is odd to think that Rand called for monopolistic government control of the retaliatory us of force when there were already other institutions or agencies at the time she wrote that phrase that do use retaliatory force AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT CONTRADICT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

A quick listing of the individual institutions or agencies that do use the retaliatory use of force other than the Federal Government are:

States.

Other municipalities.

Private Security Firms.

And state courts can be used before federal courts. Private arbitration can replace the civil courts. Even private arbitration using Sharia Law is OK – as long as the Federal Constitution is abided by – and there is no cutting off of hands.

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A response to Roy A. Childs Jr. who wrote in “An Open Letter to Ayn Rand:”

Quote

“There is a battle shaping up in the world – a battle between the forces of archy – of statism, of political rule and authority – and its only alternative – anarchy, the absence of political rule. This battle is the necessary and logical consequence of the battle between individualism and collectivism, between liberty and the state, between freedom and slavery.”

end quote

Is there evidence of a battle between freedom (or *anarchy* as Childs terms complete freedom) and his postulated antithesis, limited government? I will present evidence of the truth of what Roy Childs wrote.

Are personal crimes and crimes against property evidence of such a battle? No. Anarchists like Roy Childs and Murray Rothbard would disagree. They rightly despise common criminals.

But Anarchists praise private agencies of entrepreneur–ship, commerce, and defense, such as Private Security Firms and a “Gentile” profit and justice seeking Mafia, as seen in “The Godfather Trilogy.”

So, I will count the above as evidence with some reservations.

Battles definitely occur between the governments, border police and the drug cartels. Without a demand from the citizens of the United States there would be no reason for their services.

I will also count the above as evidence with some reservations.

Do *victimless crimes* demonstrate a battle between “political rule and authority – and its only alternative – anarchy?” A battle definitely occurs daily over some personal actions and the police over prohibited actions and substances.

The *victimless criminal* is in a battle but I do not absolutely declare it to be a battle between anarchy and collectivism which are *loaded words* and not objective in this instance.

I will state positively that the case of the *victimless criminal* is always a battle between personal sovereignty and some restrictive law of government.

I will count the above as evidence of some sort of battle without reservations.

Do limited governments historically enhance their authority over time? So far, yes, but my reservation is that governments have also PRESERVED rights over a long period of time within Western Civilizations. Usually more freedom is written into a Constitution, but over time there is less freedom. Occasionally restrictions found in the original constitution or laws enacted later are overturned by amendment or the Supreme Court. So, occasionally more freedom is experienced by the citizens over time.

I will count the above as evidence of some sort of battle without reservations.

There is battle between *Statism*, which is a governmental system that initiates force, and limited government, which retains for itself the retaliatory use of force against those who threaten or use physical force. Rand persuasively argued that it was moral but not always practical for a limited government to destroy a dictatorship or protect another country’s citizens from harm, as the United States does frequently.

In his second inaugural address President Bush said:

quote

From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights and dignity . . . . Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government." And he vowed to "all who live in tyranny and hopelessness" that "when you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

end quote

I will count the above as evidence of some sort of battle without reservations.

It is incontestable that there is a battle between liberty and the state in the IMAGINATIONS and WRITINGS of a few people world wide. Most people in a representative government are complacent. It can be argued that the battle is real for some individuals in their minds, but it is not *objectively true.* A person in a hypnotic state might intensely experience an alien abduction but this event is not *objectively true.* Roy Childs’ declaration, is personally correct for him, and could still be *objectively TRUE or UNTRUE*.

I will count the above as evidence of some sort of battle without reservations.

Here is a summation of my proof, which is open to additions.

One) Private agencies of entrepreneur – ship, commerce, and defense, such as Private Security Firms and a “Gentile” profit and justice seeking Mafia, continuously coexist with governments. Therefore, at present there is a *need* for them.

Two) Battles definitely occur between governments, border police and the drug Cartels. The Cartel’s business is desired by the citizens of the United States, for example. This commerce is desired, and profitable, but prohibited by government.

Three) A struggle occurs daily between individual citizens and the local, state, and federal police, over personal actions and use of prohibited substances,

Four) Historically, Limited Governments “generally” enhance their authority over time.

Five) There is battle between *Statism*, a governmental system that initiates force, and limited government, which retains for itself the retaliatory use of force against those who use physical force against itself or its citizens.

Six) It is incontestable that there is a battle in the IMAGINATIONS and WRITINGS of a few people, between liberty and the state.

Proofs Seven, Eight or more could exist and may could be added to the list.

The Objectivist scholar George H. Smith wrote that some theories have been discarded not just modified..

George H. Smith wrote in “WHY ATHEISM?”

Quote

"We might say that these and other scientific theories (Aristotelian physics, Neo-Platonic metaphysics, or Ptolemaic astronomy) - which have not been merely revised, but completely *discarded* - were justified beliefs for medieval thinkers, given the apparent evidence in their favor and their overall coherence with the medieval worldview. But they were false nonetheless, absolutely and unequivocably, however justified they may have been at one time.”

End quote

So, when confronted with the historical transition of monarchies to limited government Roy Childs would argue that monarchy may have been justified belief for it’s time, but was always false and with today’s context, never justified.

When confronted with the above historical proofs (One to Six or more) Roy Childs would argue that Limited Government was justified belief for post – monarchist, enlightenment thinkers. It was simply the best that those thinkers could come up with, but it was false nonetheless, however justified it may have SEEMED TO BE at the time.

Therefore, according to Roy Childs, Rational Anarchism is based on logical cognition, authentic evidence, and Modern Political Science, and it is not a revision of *limited government* because *limited government* was not legitimate Political Science at the time it was enacted. Rational Anarchism solves the incipient relativism of Randian Government which was contextually the best she could come up with at the time but was not the absolute *Good,* to be found in *anarchism*.

George H. Smith wrote in “WHY ATHEISM?”

Quote

A contextual theory of knowledge, in my judgment, must strike a delicate balance between relativism and absolutism. And this is precisely why we should retain the traditional view that knowledge is justified *and* true belief. Justification is relative, whereas truth is absolute. That is to say, what counts as adequate justification for a belief may be relative to the available evidence and one’s context of knowledge, whereas the truth of a belief is absolute. A proposition either corresponds to a fact or it does not, and this matter has nothing to do with the relative justification for a belief . . . ."

End quote

And this is where the science, proof, contextualism and absolutism of Roy Childs falters. *Anarchism* is not a fact. The concept *Anarchy* is not the *truth.* Find its fact in ancient or more modern history. Do we find *Anarchism’s* actuality and factuality today?

Let us observe recent history for concrete examples of *true facts.*

Constitutionally limited governments were imposed on Afghanistan and Iraq by former President George W. Bush. He had the theory that the benefits of personal freedom secured by limited governments, even though imposed by the United States, would stand favorably in contrast to the former repressive theocracy of Afghanistan and the brutal dictatorship in Iraq. Critics wondered, “Would this change be sustainable and pleasing to the current inhabitants?” It was, yet the battle rages on. The battle will always rage on.

The difference WAS startling. That difference is now obvious to all the other Arab nations in the world. It is obvious to all of the Limited Governments that have achieved longevity. “No more dictatorships!” could be the Arab rallying cry. George W. Bush was right and history will judge him accordingly.

A real life, historically demonstrated, test of the necessity of planned anarchy evolving from limited government, has been going on for hundreds of years. If there were any logical, rational, or evolutionary imposed imperative of human normalcy for *Planned Rational Anarchy* it would have manifested itself by now. We would see it older democracies, we would see it in newly emerging nations with constitutional government; yet we don’t. In the newly emerging nations they know intuitively that anarchy is not even faintly in the running as a viable form of society.

The concept *Planned Rational Anarchism* is a floating abstraction which has never been concretized by anyone. Rand wrote that, “Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete.” *Planned Rational Anarchism* is an attempt to abstractly unite total voluntarism with order. It is an attempt to unite voluntarism with long lived justice and the protection of individual rights.

Perceived violations of individual rights under anarchism would be subject to innumerable methods of personal retaliation. Violations (and even unsuccessful retaliations to perceived violations) would be subject to whatever punishment is deemed appropriate by the winner of the dispute whatever the means used to settle the dispute.

Violations to perceived violations under anarchism would be subject to whatever punishment is deemed appropriate by the winner of the dispute and by the next winner, and the next winner, onwards . . . in the next instance of retaliation in the next instant, to the next instance . . . forever.

According to Rational Anarchism’s right to constantly personal voluntarism, and constantly personal sovereignty, retaliation cannot be deemed unlawful by a constitution.

Justice can only be decided to be *true* by individuals acting according to their rational self-interest and on the basis of their rational judgment, however, THE DELEGATION OF THIS AUTHORITY IS A LOGICAL OPERATION CONSISTENT WITH JUSTICE OVER TIME. It is consistent with Justice which can be amended on the basis of any individual’s rational judgment, for all its citizens, now and forever, unless the constitution is later changed through consented amendment, by dissenters.

Rational Anarchism is a perversion of the *Consent Theory.*

How does Randian government deal with Dissenters? In a Randian Territory, it is OK to dissent and petition for justice. Perpetual Personal Sovereignty is achievable outside of Rational Anarchy, and not just for the nearly universally perceived, practical reason of justice prevailing over time. Redress under the auspices of an objectively written constitution is available. If all appeals are exhausted, then any citizen may continue to proselytize their point of view to all who listen.

Has Roy Childs, “absolutely and irrefutably shown that governments cannot exist without initiating force, or at least threatening to do so, against dissenters”? Has he proved by reason, logic and concrete facts that *Rational Anarchism* is *justified and true belief*?

No.

Rand wrote:

Quote

"The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures."

End quote

Roy Childs retorted:

Quote

There is also a need for objective rules in order to produce a ton of steel, an automobile, an acre of wheat. Must these activities, too, therefore be made into a coercive monopoly? I think not.

End quote

His argument is juvenile and invalid. The set of rules we call the Constitution cannot be compared to the rules to make a paper clip or to grow a tomato.

Roy Childs tries to show some logical INCONSISTENCY in the very idea of government.

Quote

If there is a need for government to settle disputes among individuals, as you state, then you should look at the logical implications of your argument: is there not then a need for a super-government to resolve disputes among governments?

End quote

No. An agency is needed. Governments generally stay out of the territory and business of other countries. Governments have consorted with each other through an agency called the United Nations, though usually disputes are settled by a world court where arbitration is voluntary. Roy’s fear of a *Big Brother* is understandable, but it is just the fear of something fictional.

The government has the *duty* to oversee and interfere as needed with private companies or as a last resort, with other nations. The reason is that the government is under objective control through the Constitution. It means that the government has no rights, only the *duties* delegated to it by the citizens as expressed in The United States Constitution.

This following is excerpts showing Rand’s sequence of thought concerning *government* as it was printed in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. My intent, with this compilation was precision, so consider the following quotes as my understanding of Ayn Rand.

From The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand, excerpts from pages 107, 109 and 110; and Galt’s Speech from For the New Intellectual, page 183; and Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, page 46.

Quote

A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area . . .

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws . . . .

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence . . .

it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose. No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power . . . .

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

My close reading of those excerpts from Rand, show that she DID NOT prohibit another agency, by the use or threat of physical force, from doing exactly the same thing that government does. Rand simply prohibits the other agency from INITIATING FORCE. A Private Security Firm is still under government’s objective control and therefore under objectively defined laws. All of the above restrictions, required by government must be complied with by a private agency.

Future generations of Citizens can change The Constitution and other laws. It can make them more contextually ideal as more knowledge is accumulated over the passage of time. When she says “a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force” Rand means that a Private Security Firm cannot negate or contradict the Constitution of the United States, for to do so would betray the consent of the people.

If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled by a constitution which explains what it can do, and that is to protect individual rights. A Private Security Firm must also, in the final *moral* analysis, ONLY protect individual rights.

AT THE TIME SHE WROTE THOSE PHRASES OTHER INSTITUTIONS OR AGENCIES DID USE RETALIATORY FORCE AS LONG AS THEY DID NOT CONTRADICT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. Individual States, other municipalities, and Private Security Firms existed, without contradiction before Rand wrote all that she ever wrote. They exist after Rand wrote all that she would ever write.

Live long and prosper,

Peter Taylor

Edited by Peter Taylor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know exactly why this occurred to me just now, but there is this really good line Dr. McCoy says in "The Undiscovered Country":

Gen. Chang: "I AM AS CONSTANT AS THE NORTHERN STAR!"

Bones: "I'd give real money if he'd shutup!"

I wish I could find it on YouTube.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name=George H. Smith' timestamp='1301679111'

post='131036]

When this inescapable conclusion became clear to me, I sat back in my chair and said aloud, "Well, I guess I am an anarchist." I crumpled up the pages of my unfinished article, threw them away, and went on with my life, as if my sudden and painless transition to anarchism was no big deal. And it wasn't a big deal, philosophically speaking, for reasons I will explain in my next post.

Ghs

There are a number of things that need to be said about the "free market anarchism" that logically follows from Roy's argument about a fundamental contradiction in Rand's theory of government. (A year before Roy's "Open Letter" was published in The Rational Individualist, he had published an earlier version of his argument, titled "The Contradiction in Objectivism," in the Spring, 1968 issue of Rampart Journal.)

1. Roy's argument leaves the Objectivist with two options. First, he can reject any "government" that seeks to establish a coercive monopoly. Or, second, he can modify Rand's NIOF principle so that it is no longer unconditional, but permits an exception in the case of a limited government that is otherwise legitimate.

The second option never occurred to me, and I doubt if it ever occurred to others who were influenced by the "Open Letter." To say that a government, and a government alone, can and should violate the NIOF principle in the course of establishing its own monopolistic status would make a mockery of Rand's political theory.

The same is not true of the first option, however. One can reject the monopolistic feature of Rand's government without rejecting other aspects of her political theory. Indeed, this is what typically happened with those who --like myself, Randy Barnett, and many others -- crossed the bridge from minarchism to anarchism as a result of reading the "Open Letter." We still agreed with Rand about the need for a system of law based on individual rights, objective procedures for enforcing laws, and so forth. The only substantial difference is that we now looked for how these goals could be achieved outside the framework of a monopolistic government that initiated force against other institutions that violated the rights of no one. (Here as elsewhere, when I refer to the initiation of force, I include threats of force.)

This is why my transition to anarchism never struck me as a "big deal, philosophically speaking." As I saw the matter, the basic goal of Objectivist political theory is to explain how matters pertaining to justice (the protection of rights) can best be adjudicated and enforced by an institution that does not itself violate rights. Any candidate that cannot satisfy the latter condition -- i.e., any institution that necessarily violates the rights of innocent parties, via the initiation of force, in the name of protecting rights -- is automatically disqualified as a viable candidate.

The fact that the disqualified candidate in this case was Rand's ideal government did not seem significant, philosophically speaking, because her institution got most things right. The troublesome feature (the monopolistic aspect) was like a highly localized cancer that could be surgically removed without killing the institution in the process. And this is why we former Objectivist minarchists, after our transition to anarchism, fundamentally viewed ourselves as Objectivists still. True, we had repudiated one feature of Rand's ideal government, but nothing else had changed. All our other beliefs remained intact.

2. This is what I meant when, on several occasion in earlier posts, I referred to the transition from minarchism to anarchism as a small jump. The discovery of a contradiction in Rand's conception of government did not demolish her overall approach, so it did not require the repudiation of her basic principles. In this sense, the transition to anarchism seemed more like an evolutionary step than a revolutionary leap. It seemed like nothing more than what I previously described as a "course correction" in a theoretical journey.

The fact that this course correction ended in a destination called "anarchism" made the transition seem more radical than it actually was. When I said, "Well, I guess I am an anarchist," I had no feeling that anything dramatic had occurred. The label per se was unimportant to me at the time. Having defended "atheism" for many years (long before I discovered Rand), unpopular or disreputable labels held no terrors for me. Nor did their radical chic appeal to me. If the logic of the NIOF principle, consistently applied, led me to a position called "anarchism," then so be it.

If someone had convinced me that my new position was not really anarchism at all, but was best described by some other label, then I would have embraced the other label. If, for example, I had adopted A.J. Nock's distinction between "State" and "government" (a distinction he took from Oppenheimer's book, The State), I would have said (as Nock did) that I rejected all States but not all governments. I would have said that "government" simply refers to a governing institution of some kind, and that only "States" claim an exclusive territorial jurisdiction -- a coercive monopoly that can only be enforced via the initiation of force.

None of these possibilities occurred to me for the simple reason that none was relevant. Nor did I fret over Rand's definition of government as "an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area." Even Roy said that he disagreed with this definition but would accept it for the purpose of his argument. Indeed, this acceptance became the crux of Roy's argument, since he went on to show that the "exclusive power" mentioned in Rand's definition amounted to nothing less than a coercive monopoly that could only be enforced via the initiation of force.

To be continued....

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of these possibilities occurred to me for the simple reason that none was relevant. Nor did I fret over Rand's definition of government as "an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area." Even Roy said that he disagreed with this definition but would accept it for the purpose of his argument. Indeed, this acceptance became the crux of Roy's argument, since he went on to show that the "exclusive power" mentioned in Rand's definition amounted to nothing less than a coercive monopoly that could only be enforced via the initiation of force.

To be continued....

Ghs

To continue....

In "The Nature of Government," Rand predicts that a Hobbesian state of nature -- a war of every man against every man, in effect -- would ensue if "a society provided no organized protection against force." I was suspicious of this claim. Why? Well, because my interest in freethought had caused me to read Thomas Paine's Age of Reason while I was a high school sophomore, two years before I read anything by Rand. And from that freethought classic I went on to read other works by Paine, including Rights of Man, before I read anything by Rand.

Although Paine was not an anarchist, I knew from my reading of freethought history that his political views profoundly influenced some anarchistic thinkers, such as William Godwin. Essential to Paine's approach was his contention that government is a convenience, not a necessity, and I vividly recalled his discussion (which I believe appears in a footnote in Rights of Man) of how some American cities had functioned successfully for years during the Revolution with no formal governments.

As I studied more political philosophy, I understood that Paine's position was the standard view of Jefferson and other Founders who had been heavily influenced by John Locke. Locke specifically justified government as a remedy for various "inconveniences" that would supposedly exist in an anarchistic state of nature; but, contrary to Hobbes, Locke viewed the state of nature as essentially peaceful and civilized. For reasons I cannot explain here, this Lockean perspective was an essential element in the revolutionary ideology of Americans.

Lockeans regarded an anarchistic society as a viable alternative to government in some circumstances -- see my previous discussion of Jefferson on the anarchistic societies of American Indians -- and this position sharply conflicts with the Hobbesian view of Rand, according to which government is an indispensable prerequisite to social order. Looking back to 1969, however, I don't think I perceived this conflict clearly, if at all. Instead, I assumed, based on Rand's high regard for the Declaration of Independence and the Founders, that Rand was essentially a Lockean when it came to the need for government. This tacit belief probably accounts, in part, for my belief that my transition to a type of anarchism was no big deal within an Objectivist framework. If the convenience of Rand's monopolistic government violated the NIOF principle, which was a fundamental moral principle in Rand's political philosophy, then it seemed clear that we needed to look for another institutional framework that would pass the NIOF test.

In any case, to speak of the societal need for "organized protection against force" did not mean that only a monopolistic institution could provide this service. Nor was a monopolistic institution implied by Rand's treatment of a "proper government," according to which "men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules" (VOS, p. 331)

Of course, I was aware of Rand's polemic against "competing governments," but her remarks struck me as ad hoc and superficial. They were a contemptuous dismissal, not a rebuttal, of a position that she regarded as too absurd to be taken seriously. And, indeed, there may have been no reason seriously to consider alternatives to Rand's monopolistic government until and unless I understood the contradiction that Roy Childs so clearly identified. But after I understood this contradiction, there was no turning back. Either I jettisoned the monopolistic feature of Rand's government, or I jettisoned the NIOF principle as it applied to governments. One or the other had to go.

The choice in my mind was clear: the monopolistic feature of Rand's government had to go. My choice was made without considering how alternative systems might work, or if they would work at all. I knew nothing about Rothbard's competing protection agencies at the time; the viability of his "anarcho-capitalism" was irrelevant to my choice in any case. After reading the "Open Letter," I rejected Rand's monopolistic government on moral grounds -- and this was no incidental moral bump that might be smoothed over with some philosophical tinkering. It was a fundamental moral contradiction.

To be continued....

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PERHAPS Rand's choice of words was imprecise and a correct formulation could objectively and contextually change those words. It is odd to think that Rand called for monopolistic government control of the retaliatory us of force when there were already other institutions or agencies at the time she wrote that phrase that do use retaliatory force AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT CONTRADICT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

A quick listing of the individual institutions or agencies that do use the retaliatory use of force other than the Federal Government are:

States.

Other municipalities.

Private Security Firms.

And state courts can be used before federal courts. Private arbitration can replace the civil courts. Even private arbitration using Sharia Law is OK – as long as the Federal Constitution is abided by – and there is no cutting off of hands.

Peter Taylor

And I think this is why George has focused on the concept of sovereignty, and the debate often centers around the issue of a final arbiter. Yes, a government permits a number of non-governmental institutions to employ violence, The defining characteristic, however, is that this decision making and the chain of appeals ends with the state itself. And assuming this is a more precise characteristic, the moral dilemma remains.; if a government is delegated the task to rule correctly on the proper use of force, and in parallel fashion, a private agency is also retained to do the same by another individual, and both discharge their contractual duties in accordance with the principles of justice, both the government and the private company have no valid claims for interfering with one another.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider this another digression. I have more to say about Roy's "Open Letter." but I first want to discuss some other things. I have my reasons for taking this detour, though they may not be apparent to others.

I know I have been rambling in my effort to explain my mind-set in 1969, both before and after I read Roy's "Open Letter." I would apologize for this rambling, but there isn't much point in apologizing for the inevitable. I have been attempting to reconstruct my thinking from over 40 years ago, and I have been posting my memories as they occur to me, without smoothing over the glitches first and paring away possible inconsistencies.

I have mentioned before my intention to write an autobiography, and the autobiographical tidbits on this thread have been written with that project in mind. I decided to post these tidbits publicly instead of using them as private notes. I have various reasons for doing this, some of which are difficult to explain, but suffice it to say that I think a public airing will lead to a more accurate final account.

Near the beginning of his two-volume Autobiography, Herbert Spencer explains that his life was fairly uneventful, if viewed from an external point of view, so an autobiography would not have been worth writing from that perspective. But Spencer believed that the story of his inner life -- i.e., how his ideas had originated, developed, and changed -- was worth telling, so his autobiography would essentially be an intellectual history of his life.

Now, Spencer was one of the most influential thinkers of his era, so it is understandable why people would be interested in his inner history. But few of us can lay claim to such fame, so the question naturally suggests itself: Why should anyone care about my inner history? This is an excellent question to which I have no excellent answer. The proof will be in the pudding, as they say.

My posts in this thread have been an attempt to sketch my intellectual autobiography during the year 1969, both before and after I read Roy's "Open Letter." My approach to this kind of project was profoundly influenced by some remarks that I read by George Orwell many years ago. Orwell cautioned against taking our memories from our early years at face value. Why? Because the world looks different to us at different periods of life, especially when we are children, and it can be exceedingly difficult to reconstruct a perspective that we no longer have. Orwell notes that even the physical perspective of young children differs from that of adults, and this perspective fades from memory as we grow older.

Of course, I have been recounting things that happened when I was 20, so Orwell's observations about young children may not not strictly apply. But his point struck me as sound cautionary advice nevertheless, for it also applies to things that happened during the formative stages of our intellectual development, before we viewed the world through the same intellectual lenses that we have been wearing for years. I think most OLers will know what I am talking about here. When people claim, as they often do, that reading Rand changed their lives, I think it is fair to say that they are referring in large measure to their overall intellectual perspective. And once this intellectual perspective becomes settled, once we have viewed the world from this perspective for many many years, it can be difficult to recall exactly how the world appeared years earlier, during our intellectual "childhood."

The influence that Orwell's advice had on me is illustrated in the concluding lines in my essay, "My Path to Atheism." which is the only attempt at an intellectual autobiography that I have ever published. I wrote this essay in 1990. specifically intending it to serve as the first chapter in my anthology, Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies.

Shortly before writing "My Path to Atheism," I had purchased the four volumes of The Collected Essays, Journalism, and Letters of George Orwell. Although I had read Orwell's most famous stories, such as Animal Farm, long before this. I was largely unfamiliar with his essays -- and it was after devouring the material in these four volumes that I became convinced that Orwell was, quite simply, the best essay writer of the 20th century that I had ever read. I could not say that Orwell was my favorite essay writer of all time, because I held some 19th century essay writers, such as J.S. Mill and the historian T.B. Macaulay, in equally high esteem. But if ever there was an essay writer to whom I could point and say, "I wish I could write essays like he does," it was George Orwell.

Reading Orwell's essays is what convinced me to try my hand at essay writing. By that time I had written and published many articles, but I had never sat down with the intention of writing a pure essay, much less an autobiographical essay. In some ways, the model for my experiment -- for this is how I viewed it -- was Orwell's memoirs of his miserable school days, "Such, Such Were the Joys..." Orwell's remarks about the perspective of a child appears at the end of this essay, but something else stuck in my mind as well, namely, the fact that Orwell begins his memoir by recalling how he started wetting his bed at age eight, how in those days this was "looked on as a disgusting crime which the child committed on purpose and for which the proper cure was a beating," and the dramatic impact of this crime on his school days.

This was scarcely the "heroic" account of one's childhood that an Objectivist might write. Orwell did not tell about his profound philosophical insights at age four, or how he admired the best in man at age six, or how he did not get along with other eight-year-olds because of their irrationality and malevolent sense of life. (This is something of a caricature, obviously, but it is not too far removed from how some Objectivists recall their childhoods.) Rather, as Orwell explains later in his piece, after discussing the unique perspective of a child: "I base these generalizations on what I can recall of my own childhood outlook. Treacherous though memory is, it seems to me the chief means we have of discovering how a child's mind works. Only by resurrecting our own memories can we realize how incredibly distorted is the child's vision of the world."

Again, the application of Orwell's remarks to later periods of life are problematic, but I believed that they might apply as well to the years of our intellectual immaturity. Thus, when writing "My Path to Atheism," I deliberately avoided the "heroic" mode of recounting my intellectual journey from Christianity to atheism. I even told of some things which seemed reasonable to me at the time, but which appear silly in retrospect, such as how a friend and I, while high-school sophomores, printed up business cards for a two-person organization that read: "The Anti-Biblical League. For People Who Aren't Afraid to Think."

A more heroic version of "My Path to Atheism" would not have mentioned such childish foibles. Nor would a heroic version of my conversion to Objectivism have included details like this:

I eagerly devoured Rand's ideas and, like many of her followers, spat them up undigested. I memorized passages and definitions from her writing, blamed altruism and Immanuel Kant for all that is wrong in the world, and adamantly proclaimed the existence of a world external to consciousness. (It was difficult to find anyone who would argue this last point with me.)

Most of my story about my relationship to Ayn Rand -- all of us had a personal relationship with Ayn Rand at that age, even those of us who had never met the woman -- focuses on an incident that had absolutely nothing to do with Rand, namely, my reaction to a photograph that appeared in I.F. Stone's anti-war tabloid. It was that photograph, more than any other single factor, that shook my Randian worldview to its roots and caused me to rethink some fundamental issues. In its initial stages, this incident could be described as a purely aesthetic reaction on my part, one that did not involve any discursive reasoning. If I had been writing my memoirs in the heroic style, I might have downplayed that incident or omitted it altogether. But having been inspired by the stark honesty of Orwell, I resolved that I would attempt to recapture, as best as I possibly could, my perspective at age 18, rather than transport my current perspective into my formative years.

As I was reviewing the book manuscript before sending it to Prometheus, I read "My Path to Atheism" for the first time since completing it a few months earlier. I became troubled about some of the details. Did such-and-such really happen as I had described it? Other memories occurred to me that I had not recalled at the time of writing the piece. It was clear that I had not manufactured any of the facts, but at times the significance I had placed on certain facts seemed questionable.

I wondered if I should attempt a rewrite in the name of accuracy, but I quickly realized that the passing of time would render my rewrite as questionable as my original. Thus, with Orwell explicitly in mind, I solved my problem a day before sending off the manuscript by adding a completely new and somewhat tongue-in-cheek ending for "My Path to Atheism":

So, is that the way it all happened? Probably not, but that's the way I remember it."

This is probably the most Orwellian thing I will ever write. My current problem is how to write an account of my transition to anarchism in the cautious, self-critical and realistic Orwellian style, and not in the heroic prose of Objectivism.

So much for this digression, which might be classified as a Note to Self.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current problem is how to write an account of my transition to anarchism in the cautious, self-critical and realistic Orwellian style, and not in the heroic prose of Objectivism.

Ghs

Minarchism to anarchism: certainty to certainty? The ideal to the ideal?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fear that my digressions and tendency to flit from one point to another, though perhaps understandable when writing preliminary reflections, may have left many readers behind, who have lost track of what my essential points are in regard to Roy's "Open Letter." So I will attempt to summarize some key points in this post.

1. The Open Letter confronted me with two alternatives, but these alternatives were not minarchism versus anarchism. Rather, my choice was between a monopolistic institution that was inconsistent with Rand's NIOF principle versus some as yet unknown institutional structure that was consistent with the NIOF principle. In other words, I did not choose anarchism as a preferable alternative to Rand's conception of government. Rather, I rejected Rand's monopolistic government before I even considered any options, because it clearly contradicted the NIOF principle.

The fact that Roy called his alternative "free market anarchism" meant virtually nothing to me, because I had not yet studied this alternative in any detail. For all I knew at the time, free market anarchism might prove unacceptable for other reasons. All I knew at the time of my conversion -- all that was relevant to my conversion -- was the fact that a coercive monopoly clearly had to initiate force in order to sustain itself, so Rand's monopolistic government could not serve the role specified in Rand's description of a "proper government," to wit: "A [proper] government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control --i.e., under objectively defined laws."

2. Because Randian anarchism emerges from within Rand's system of political principles, most notably her NIOF principle, it is best described as an In-House anarchism. By this I mean that Randian anarchism is a negative conclusion forced upon Randians who cannot live with a contradiction in her monopolistic government. Randian anarchists have not chosen the anarchistic alternative so much as they have been forced into it by the problem discussed in Roy's "Open Letter." And they would never have been pushed in this direction if they had not taken Rand's NIOF principle so seriously to begin with.

In OPAR, Leonard Peikoff claims that Rand was original in specifying the initiation of force as the method by which rights are violated. This is not true; many other political philosophers have said the same thing since the 17th century, even if they didn't use the word "initiate." Rand was largely original, however, in her insistence that a government should never violate the NIOF principle. Virtually every other philosopher in the classical liberal tradition treated this prohibition as a presumption, not as an inflexible rule. (I discuss this presumption is some detail in my forthcoming book, Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism.) To treat the NIOF as a presumption meant that it was taken as the norm, and this norm could only be overridden when a greater good (often called "the public good") was at stake. Thus even a limited government was authorized to take actions that violate individual rights when such violations would achieve a greater good that could not otherwise be attained.

If the NIOF principle is viewed as a defeasible presumption, then Roy's argument would have no force, for we would not be dealing with an authentic contradiction. A classical liberal would simply say that the NIOF principle is a presumption, not a hard and fast rule, so even if it is true that a government cannot maintain its monopolistic status without initiating force, this is no big deal if a greater good is thereby attained. And since these classical liberals would agree with many O'ists that anarchism is a wholly unacceptable alternative that would plunge society into chaos, then a relatively minor infraction of the NIOF principle is a small price to pay for enabling a monopolistic government to maintain the rule of law and protect individual rights.

Many classical liberals would look with astonishment at the furor caused by the minarchist/anarchist debate. Given their perspective, they would place the blame for this overblown and and senseless ideological squabble not upon this side or that, but upon how Rand treats the NIOF principle in the first place, i.e., as an inflexible rule rather than as a defeasible presumption. They would say, in effect:

So a government cannot maintain its monopoly on legitimate force -- i.e., its sovereign status -- without threatening to use force against some hypothetical competitors? BFD. Only a rigid ideologue would care about such theoretical trivia. And only a rigid ideologue with no sense of the real world would insist that a government should never initiate force. Should a government permit its country to be destroyed rather than violate this supposed rule? Or, to use a lesser example that John Locke posited, if, when attempting to control a fire, a government needs to pull down some houses in order to keep a fire from spreading throughout a city, must it first acquire the permission of the owners? Of course not, reasoned Locke. The government, in this case as in many others, may violate rights of individuals when this is necessary for a greater public good. Similarly, the very idea that a government must surrender its sovereign status (which is merely another way of formulating its nature as a coercive monopoly) because of a technical violation of the NIOF principle is absurd on its face. This pseudo-problem would never have arisen if Rand had adopted a sensible view of political principles and treated them as defeasible presumptions.

To my knowledge, this crucial aspect of Rand's NIOF principle has never received much attention, even though it clearly does lie at the root of the minarchist/anarchist controversy. Imagine if Rand had argued that a government should not normally initiate force, and that it is justified in initiating force only on those rare occasions when a greater public good can be attained by no other means. If this had been Rand's position, Roy's argument would have been impossible, and Rand's monopolistic government would have been secured from moral objections by anarchists, leaving to its critics no option but to use much weaker utilitarian arguments for anarchism.

Then again, to suppose this change in Rand's approach to the NIOF principle would be to imagine an Objectivist political theory without its distinctive characteristics -- a bland and mushy political theory that looks like a host of other political theories and which lacks the power to excite or motivate anyone.

Thus, if we wish to dig beneath the surface of the minarchist/anarchist debate to its basic cause, we need to pay close attention to how Rand treats her NIOF principle. I will try to write more on this later, but I am pretty much burned out on this issue, so it may be a while. This will be my last missive for a while on this topic, though I will respond to some posts by others, if I find them interesting enough.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current problem is how to write an account of my transition to anarchism in the cautious, self-critical and realistic Orwellian style, and not in the heroic prose of Objectivism.

Ghs

Minarchism to anarchism: certainty to certainty? The ideal to the ideal?

--Brant

Huh?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George wrote:

Quote:

Near the beginning of his two-volume Autobiography, Herbert Spencer explains that his life was fairly uneventful, if viewed from an external point of view, so an autobiography would not have been worth writing from that perspective. But Spencer believed that the story of his inner life -- i.e., how his ideas had originated, developed, and changed -- was worth telling, so his autobiography would essentially be an intellectual history of his life.

End quote

I would like to hear about your inner life, which is intriguing, but I would also like to hear about the fetching Wendy McElroy who writes on her site:

Quote

Wendy McElroy has compiled a comprehensive index to Benjamin Tucker's 19th century periodical Liberty, and Tucker's Radical Review,

End quote

I am not being mean, though I am looking for a chuckle, George. There used to be quotes all over the web from her about you. However, during a quick look at her site I saw nothing, not even a citation for George H. Smith.

I once wrote to Rush, who lives in sunny Florida, that he should date hot Hispanic girls (he was between marriages). They would appreciate his politics because they grew up in families that listened to him. The lovely senoritas would appreciate nice presents and would keep him happy in every way.

Can you believe it? he never answered or listened to me and continued to be attracted to pretty, blond, career women like Wendy.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim Hopkins wrote:

Quote

The defining characteristic, however, is that this decision making and the chain of appeals ends with the state itself . . . . if a government is delegated the task to rule correctly on the proper use of force, and in parallel fashion, a private agency is also retained to do the same by another individual, and both discharge their contractual duties in accordance with the principles of justice, both the government and the private company have no valid claims for interfering with one another.

End quote

Tim, that was insightful. I used reason to unite your answer into one incisive point. There was no intent to muddle your thinking. My intent was to be concise. So consider the above quote as my meaning and not yours, if you wish.

There is one error in your formulation when you say that both the government and the private company have no valid claims for interfering with one another.

The government does have the *duty* to oversee and interfere as needed with the private company. The reason is that the government is under objective control through the Constitution. It means that the government has no rights, only the *duties* delegated to it by the citizens as expressed in The United States Constitution.

This is the sequence of thoughts concerning *government* in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. There was no intent to muddle Rand’s thinking. My intent was precision, so consider the following quotes as my understanding of Ayn Rand.

From The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand, excerpts from pages 107, 109 and 110; and Galt’s Speech from For the New Intellectual, page 183; and Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, page 46.

Quote

A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area . . .

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws . . . .

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence . . . .

it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose. No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power . . . .

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

Tim, my close reading of those excerpts from Rand show that she DID NOT prohibit another agency, by the use or threat of physical force, from doing exactly the same thing that government does. Rand simply prohibits the other agency from INITIATING FORCE. A Private Security Firm is still under government’s objective control and therefore under objectively defined laws.

Future generations of Citizens can change The Constitution and other laws and make them more contextually ideal as more knowledge is accumulated over the passage of time. When she says “a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force” she means that a Private Security Firm cannot negate or contradict the Constitution of the United States, for to do so would betray the consent of the people.

If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled by a constitution which explains what it can do,which is to protect individual rights, and Private Security Firms must also ONLY, in the final *moral* analysis, protect individual rights.

AT THE TIME SHE WROTE THOSE PHRASES OTHER INSTITUTIONS OR AGENCIES DID USE RETALIATORY FORCE AS LONG AS THEY DID NOT CONTRADICT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. Individual States, other municipalities, and Private Security Firms existed, without contradiction before Rand wrote all that she ever wrote. They exist after Rand wrote all that she would ever write.

Peter Taylor

After reading Roy Childs Open Letter to Ayn Rand, George responded to Rand:

quote

There was only one logical conclusion: Rand's government, which, according to her, is never permitted to initiate force, must necessarily initiate force (or threaten to initiate force) by its very nature as a coercive monopoly.

When this inescapable conclusion became clear to me, I sat back in my chair and said aloud, "Well, I guess I am an anarchist" . . . .

end quote

and George explained:

quote

Roy's argument leaves the Objectivist with two options. First, he can reject any "government" that seeks to establish a coercive monopoly. Or, second, he can modify Rand's NIOF principle so that it is no longer unconditional, but permits an exception in the case of a limited government that is otherwise legitimate.

End quote

George wrote:

Quote

Suppose a Randian government does something that is objectively just. Then suppose another agency does exactly the same thing. Why would Rand's monopolistic government have the right to prohibit another agency, by the use or threat of physical force, from doing exactly the same thing that it does? How can the same activity be regarded as proper when performed by one group of people (the government) but as improper when performed by another group of people? If the competing agency did not initiate force in any way, then Rand's government would have no right to interfere in its activities, and it could only do so by initiating force against the competing agency.

End quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus, if we wish to dig beneath the surface of the minarchist/anarchist debate to its basic cause, we need to pay close attention to how Rand treats her NIOF principle. I will try to write more on this later, but I am pretty much burned out on this issue, so it may be a while. This will be my last missive for a while on this topic, though I will respond to some posts by others, if I find them interesting enough.

Ghs

This reminds me of grandpa gathering all the grandchildren to tell them the first half of a wonderful story, then sends them all to bed.

I might have some remarks later, my main remark is that I found your posts very engaging and want to see how it all turns out.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current problem is how to write an account of my transition to anarchism in the cautious, self-critical and realistic Orwellian style, and not in the heroic prose of Objectivism.

Ghs

Minarchism to anarchism: certainty to certainty? The ideal to the ideal?

--Brant

Huh?

Ghs

Perhaps these are false alternatives with neither, Rand and Rothbard, being applicable to the real world, not now, not ever. We need ideals to work toward, for grounding and orientation, but I think the best ideal is the ideal of the protection of individual rights and to strive from today's context to where the culture is in general agreement with both that and the humbling knowledge of the imperialistic, hubristic danger of Leviathan via patriotism, nationalism and altruistically sticking your nose into other people's business with various forms of war, death and destruction--i.e., the war on DDT--i.e., the war in Afghanistan--i.e., wars all over the world--the modern, very stupid version of the British empire.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps these are false alternatives with neither, Rand and Rothbard, being applicable to the real world, not now, not ever.

Yes. Rand's was an intellectual blunder, Rothbard kept the blunder but put an opposite spin on it. It was a classic case of "check your premises," but the premises weren't actually checked.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current problem is how to write an account of my transition to anarchism in the cautious, self-critical and realistic Orwellian style, and not in the heroic prose of Objectivism.

Ghs

Minarchism to anarchism: certainty to certainty? The ideal to the ideal?

--Brant

Huh?

Ghs

Perhaps these are false alternatives with neither, Rand and Rothbard, being applicable to the real world, not now, not ever. We need ideals to work toward, for grounding and orientation, but I think the best ideal is the ideal of the protection of individual rights and to strive from today's context to where the culture is in general agreement with both that and the humbling knowledge of the imperialistic, hubristic danger of Leviathan via patriotism, nationalism and altruistically sticking your nose into other people's business with various forms of war, death and destruction--i.e., the war on DDT--i.e., the war in Afghanistan--i.e., wars all over the world--the modern, very stupid version of the British empire.

--Brant

None of this has anything to do with what I called the Orwellian style of autobiographical writing, which I contrasted with the "heroic" style. If, alluding to the last line of Roy's "Open Letter," I wrote, "Thus did I walk forward into the sunlight of free market anarchism," this would have been an example, if an exaggerated example, of the heroic style.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current problem is how to write an account of my transition to anarchism in the cautious, self-critical and realistic Orwellian style, and not in the heroic prose of Objectivism.

Ghs

Minarchism to anarchism: certainty to certainty? The ideal to the ideal?

--Brant

Huh?

Ghs

Perhaps these are false alternatives with neither, Rand and Rothbard, being applicable to the real world, not now, not ever. We need ideals to work toward, for grounding and orientation, but I think the best ideal is the ideal of the protection of individual rights and to strive from today's context to where the culture is in general agreement with both that and the humbling knowledge of the imperialistic, hubristic danger of Leviathan via patriotism, nationalism and altruistically sticking your nose into other people's business with various forms of war, death and destruction--i.e., the war on DDT--i.e., the war in Afghanistan--i.e., wars all over the world--the modern, very stupid version of the British empire.

--Brant

None of this has anything to do with what I called the Orwellian style of autobiographical writing, which I contrasted with the "heroic" style. If, alluding to the last line of Roy's "Open Letter," I wrote, "Thus did I walk forward into the sunlight of free market anarchism," this would have been an example, if an exaggerated example, of the heroic style.

Ghs

True. It has to do with this thread, however.

--Brant

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