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

[Dglgmut]

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.

Yeah, that's a good rule of thumb as far as the acceptable uses of legitimate force.

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.

Yeah, but then again we don't talk about farmers as if they're not part of "the people." The debate is about how people should govern themselves, not how people should deal with the government or how the government should deal with people. That's all I meant.

How should people govern themselves? The term "non-contradiction" get's thrown around a lot within this community... if you're going to construct a political philosophy by first defining the rights of the individual, don't change it in the next paragraph because the individual now wears a blue uniform, or has some sort of social responsibility.

Maybe Rand's theories in politics were her area of weakness because it's all to do with collectives.

Anyway, thanks, George, for all the insight throughout this thread.. you'll probably give me a lot of new ideas.

[Dglgmut]

It is possible and acceptable for a market to be mature to the point where all inefficiencies are evolved out and a single entity has a monopoly. Market monopolies are not by definition immoral.

What market? Oh, you mean the free-legitimate-force market that existed prior to 1865, from which the people unanimously chose the current U.S. government to provide all of their legitimate force needs? Sorry, just kidding around.

To call the constitution merely a "peace of paper" doesn't further any argument.

Probably because nobody would argue that it's not a piece of paper. The fact is that it isn't enough to stop political corruption. It's like a "no trespassing" sign in a town with no guns or cops.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Third, the "correction" of slavery that you speak of was an unintended consequence of the Civil War.

George,

I don't agree with this interpretation (and yes, I've read what Lincoln said about willing to keep slavery if it meant saving the union).

Wars are not fought merely by one person. (Imagine me telling you that. Well I just did, so there. )

There were plenty of people fighting that war for many reasons, including to end slavery. They were very clear about that. You know... underground railroad and so on...

Another point--the fact that preserving the union was an intended consequence of the war in no way prohibits slavery from likewise being an intended consequence. Do you hold that there is only room for one intended consequence in a war and everything else is unintended?

I'm always uncomfortable when I hear the argument belittling the end of slavery in the Civil War. It always comes off to me like the person trying to push an agenda. I'm not trying to be snarky, but the argument just doesn't make any sense to me otherwise.

Here's part of my point. I always read the harshest criticism of the USA government's involvement in wars from libertarian circles, with the insinuation (or outright statement) that the leaders are nothing but corrupt power-lusting thugs. They prove this by initiating force against others.

What would their intended consequence be for promoting wars? The standard response I have read in libertarian literature is to expand the empire.

So what about the soldiers who go off to fight those wars voluntarily? Nowadays they are certainly not forced to go and fight. Most are proud to go. Are they all corrupt power-lusting thugs hellbent on expanding the empire? That is what drives them? They are evil empire builders with no concern for human life?

I know military people and I find that does nor reflect my experience of them. So why do they go voluntarily? Are they deluded? An entire army?

I find that difficult to swallow, too.

And what is the intended consequence of the war that they seek?

That's an interesting question--one I believe needs to be considered.

But let's stay with force being the essential issue with government as per the libertarian view you have stated. All the soldiers have to do is quit if they disagree with a war. it's complicated, granted, but doable. Leaders can't fight a war without armed forces. And for those serving who disagree but don't quit, there will be no one holding a gun to soldiers' heads and telling them to shoot innocents or die.

So why do they do it voluntarily even when they think the war is wrong?

Honoring a contract?

An entire army killing innocents because the individuals in it are primarily concerned with honoring their contract?

That doesn't fly with me, either. I doubt their definition of themselves is as contract killers.

So why?

I believe the answer to that question lies right in the crux of what a government should and should not be able to do.

In other words, I believe I would restrict the government far more than a standard minarchist would, maybe even more than an anarchist would for one of his idealized organizations that handle force. (On the other hand, I also see some specific situations where the government could initiate force and I believe be right--but that is another can of worms. And obviously, my fundamental standard is not NIOF only.)

This is why I talk about human nature as the fundamental standard so much. Force is one fundamental component among several in government, not the fundamental component.

And force is not primarily what drives the folks in the armed forces, especially the young people. Persuasion is. They--the individuals in the armed forces, including law enforcement--are the organized threat and execution of force that keeps the government from being overthrown, and persuasion (sometimes called the "engineering of consent"), not force, is the mechanism that holds the individuals in the armed forces in place.

This sounds woefully incomplete to me so far, and I know I'm not as clear as I should be. But this is serious. That is why I'm laying it out.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The Civil War was primarily fought to preserve the union with the end of slavery slowly blended into the situation much like death and destruction on a massive unanticipated scale and other reality changing consequences spilling out all over the place all part and parcel of the inexorable march of federalism--the American Moloch.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Third, the "correction" of slavery that you speak of was an unintended consequence of the Civil War.

George, I don't agree with this interpretation (and yes, I've read what Lincoln said about willing to keep slavery if it meant saving the union). Wars are not fought merely by one person. (Imagine me telling you that. Well I just did, so there. ) There were plenty of people fighting that war for many reasons, including to end slavery. They were very clear about that. You know... underground railroad and so on... Another point--the fact that preserving the union was an intended consequence of the war in no way prohibits slavery from likewise being an intended consequence. Do you hold that there is only room for one intended consequence in a war and everything else is unintended? I'm always uncomfortable when I hear the argument belittling the end of slavery in the Civil War. It always comes off to me like the person trying to push an agenda. I'm not trying to be snarky, but the argument just doesn't make any sense to me otherwise. (snip)

There are lots of reasons why people go to war. Some Union soldiers enlisted in the hope of finding adventure, and some for the enlistment bounties. May we therefore say that adventure and bounties were among the reasons why the Civil War was fought?

Lincoln was very clear on the purpose of the war; he waged it in order to "preserve the Union," not to free the slaves. As some pro-Lincoln historians have noted, Lincoln did not believe that the federal government had the authority to abolish slavery in the states. As a Free Soil man, however, Lincoln did oppose extension of slavery into the territories, and he believed the federal government did have the power to prohibit this.

Moreover, given the rampant racism in the North, Lincoln knew that most men would never volunteer to risk their lives in order to end slavery. Many would fight for patriotic reasons, however.

Southern states had various motives for secession. The mistaken belief that Lincoln would attempt to end slavery was the overwhelming motive of South Carolina and other states in the deep South. It was a dumb move.

The second wave of secession came after Fort Sumter. Virginia and three other states in the Upper South said that they would not secede so long as Lincoln did not use force to prevent other states from seceding. These states seceded after it became clear that Lincoln planned to use force.

Some abolitionists believed that the war would end slavery, even though this was not Lincoln's intention. Garrison, Phillips and some other abolitionists did not trust Lincoln. In his autobiography, the remarkable Moncure D. Conway -- a southerner who had inherited slaves but freed them and took up the antislavery cause -- told of a meeting he had with Lincoln on this issue early in the war. Conway attempted to convince Lincoln that emancipation would facilitate a Union victory, because the Confederates would need to keep many more men on plantations in order to prevent slaves from escaping and revolting. Most slaves would not be willing to take these risks without the hope of freedom.

According to Conway's account, Lincoln didn't say much about this idea, but it was the strategy he adopted later in the war. The preliminary Emancipation Proclamation stipulated a certain period of time for Southern states to rejoin the Union, after which they could keep their slaves. (The North had four slave states of its own.) The final document frankly called itself a "war measure." It declared emancipation only in those states and parts of states that were under Confederate control. The basic hope here was that slaves in rebel areas would be motivated to escape or rebel, and that this threat would require the South to commit much more manpower to plantations, thereby drawing them away from combat roles.

Here is an excerpt from the Emancipation Proclamation:

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

All this is a matter of the historical record. The facts are not in dispute, and I don't know why they should make you uncomfortable in the least. Perhaps you think that anti-Lincoln types are somehow pro-Confederate. This certainly isn't the case with the libertarian historian Jeffrey Hummel, an old friend of mine who wrote a superb book on this subject (Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War), nor is it true in my case.

Was secession justified -- or, to be more precise, was it constitutional? The libertarian and abolitionist Lysander Spooner believed that the southern states had the right to secede from the Union, just as the American colonies had the right to secede from the British Empire, and that the North was motivated primarily by economic reasons.

For years the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison had called for free states to secede from slaves states -- the motto" No Union with Slaveholders" appeared on the masthead of The Liberator, the leading abolitionist periodical -- so he clearly believed in the right of secession. But Garrison later opposed southern secession on the grounds that only a just cause can justify this measure, and the defense of slavery was obviously not a just cause.

My opinion is that there were reasonable constitutional arguments on both sides, but that the South probably had the stronger case overall. As for the Civil War itself, I believe that secession was a bad move, but that Lincoln's use of force to prevent secession was inexcusable. In short, I have very little sympathy for either side, but I despise Lincoln for bringing about the mass butchery of a savage conflict that could have been avoided.

Leaders on both sides believed that their side would win a quick victory, so the war would not last very long. More of the usual stupidity about war.

H.L. Mencken once speculated on the reason why people never seem to learn any of the obvious lessons about war. Not long after one war has exhausted a people, they can easily be whipped into a frenzy and support yet another war enthusiastically. Mencken suggested that many people are bored with their humdrum lives, and that war makes them feel that they are participating in a great and noble cause. War gives "meaning" to their otherwise pointless lives.

I fear Mencken's cynical explanation may have hit the nail on the head. In the immortal words of the comedian Ron White: You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.

Ghs

[anthony]

Getting to basics, and looking from the point of view of Rand's intent - So, we tacitly hand over to our (hopefully minimal) government the responsibility to protect our person and property from those who would initiate force against us. Why? because few of us desire, or have the ability, to constantly protect ourselves. Second, because it is logical to have one, central Agent, equably protect us with objective laws. With the responsibility - and the duty - justly comes the right of that Agent to be the only one to wield that power.

Few of us desire, or have the ability, to manufacture our own shoes. Does this mean there must be one (and only one) producer of shoes, to ensure people don't go barefoot? It's curious that libertarians and Objectivists are so keen on specialization and division of labour as part of the unintended benefits of a free market, but when the subject of protection, defense and adjudication come up, these insights are lost and the worst prejudices about free markets return. Tim

Getting to basics, and looking from the point of view of Rand's intent - So, we tacitly hand over to our (hopefully minimal) government the responsibility to protect our person and property from those who would initiate force against us. Why? because few of us desire, or have the ability, to constantly protect ourselves. Second, because it is logical to have one, central Agent, equably protect us with objective laws. With the responsibility - and the duty - justly comes the right of that Agent to be the only one to wield that power.

Few of us desire, or have the ability, to manufacture our own shoes. Does this mean there must be one (and only one) producer of shoes, to ensure people don't go barefoot? It's curious that libertarians and Objectivists are so keen on specialization and division of labour as part of the unintended benefits of a free market, but when the subject of protection, defense and adjudication come up, these insights are lost and the worst prejudices about free markets return. Tim

Tim,

I also find it curious that instead of a single, restricted agency operating completely

by permission of the populace, anarchists prefer a mutable number of small agencies

operating by market forces. (And I've got as much distrust for government - and its potential for runaway power - as the average anarchist, I think.)

But, practically, I'd rather have one big camel inside the tent - where I can keep

a careful eye on it, and smack it if necessary - than dozens or hundreds of small ones

running loose outside.

Your private enterprise application is a well taken. However, what I know about business and industry is that there are many slips between cup and lip. Glitches and hiccups of supply, production, work-force and delivery. The shoe manufacturer has to dial in all these short-term factors, occasionally take the odd risk

- and all the while be looking over his shoulder at the competition, and finding ways to expand his territory. A lot of energy is used up in being creative.

When those hiccups result in interrupted production or sales, less shoes are made and sold, and his figures suffer, temporarily.

When private protection agencies suffer glitches, or temporary breakdowns, their clients' property can be damaged, and lives can be lost in the interim.

Individuals and their rights are not a 'product' - and a government (of any form) is not in the business of getting 'creative', or expanding their influence.

Free enterprise in governance, as I understand it.

(But my knowledge about anarchism is limited, I freely admit.)

[George H. Smith]

Getting to basics, and looking from the point of view of Rand's intent - So, we tacitly hand over to our (hopefully minimal) government the responsibility to protect our person and property from those who would initiate force against us. Why? because few of us desire, or have the ability, to constantly protect ourselves. Second, because it is logical to have one, central Agent, equably protect us with objective laws. With the responsibility - and the duty - justly comes the right of that Agent to be the only one to wield that power.

Few of us desire, or have the ability, to manufacture our own shoes. Does this mean there must be one (and only one) producer of shoes, to ensure people don't go barefoot? It's curious that libertarians and Objectivists are so keen on specialization and division of labour as part of the unintended benefits of a free market, but when the subject of protection, defense and adjudication come up, these insights are lost and the worst prejudices about free markets return. Tim

Getting to basics, and looking from the point of view of Rand's intent - So, we tacitly hand over to our (hopefully minimal) government the responsibility to protect our person and property from those who would initiate force against us. Why? because few of us desire, or have the ability, to constantly protect ourselves. Second, because it is logical to have one, central Agent, equably protect us with objective laws. With the responsibility - and the duty - justly comes the right of that Agent to be the only one to wield that power.

Few of us desire, or have the ability, to manufacture our own shoes. Does this mean there must be one (and only one) producer of shoes, to ensure people don't go barefoot? It's curious that libertarians and Objectivists are so keen on specialization and division of labour as part of the unintended benefits of a free market, but when the subject of protection, defense and adjudication come up, these insights are lost and the worst prejudices about free markets return. Tim

Tim, I also find it curious that instead of a single, restricted agency operating completely by permission of the populace, anarchists prefer a mutable number of small agencies operating by market forces. And I've got as much distrust for government - and its potential for runaway power - as the average anarchist, I think. But, practically, I'd rather have one big camel inside the tent - where I can keep a careful eye on it, and smack it if necessary - than dozens or hundreds of small ones running loose outside. (snip)

Ever try "smacking" the U.S. government? How does one do that, exactly?

There is no reason to suppose that a free market in defense and justice would result in hundreds of agencies, at least not within the same limited area. Would a free market in utilities result in hundreds of utility companies? Would a free market in fire protection result in hundreds of fire companies? Of course not. In terms of jurisdiction, an agency might resemble the government of a small municipality, except for the coervice aspect. And if there were several agencies providing the same services in a limited area, they would probably form a loose confederation in matters regarding legal appeals.

Ghs

[anthony]

"Ever try "smacking" the US government?" [Ghs]

Sorry, I was unclear; by "big camel' I meant a proper minimal government - big

in relation to the small anarchical agencies.

(When does a "loose confederation" become a cartel?)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All this is a matter of the historical record. The facts are not in dispute, and I don't know why they should make you uncomfortable in the least.

George,

It's the historical facts that get ignored when people make that argument that make me uncomfortable. I look at the following and think to myself, well, there's what this is really about. I'll have to get more facts elsewhere.

... I despise Lincoln for bringing about the mass butchery of a savage conflict that could have been avoided.

Hatred always makes for a poor filter.

You still haven't made a case as to why concern with preserving the union annuls the influence of the slavery issue. I'm talking fundamentals. You say it's only one. I say it's both (and some other things like how to conduct the Western expansion, but that's beside the point here).

I note that I have pissed many people off because I make always make it clear they cannot teach their hatred to me. I'm not saying this applies here, but in my experience, that's the way these discussions have usually panned out for me.

Apropos, you lay the "butchery of a savage conflict" at Lincoln's feet, yet there were an awful lot of people doing the butchering. Both sides. Do you exempt those people?

If not, how on earth would they have avoided butchering each other in the climate of that era if Lincoln had not come along? It was peace and love that Lincoln disturbed so much that people turned into monsters? From what I have read, the climate was like a gun powder keg near an open fire and almost anything could have set it off.

How about this for another approach? (Which is more in line with my thinking.) The human nature element of following a leader had a lot to do with why all those people butchered each other.

Or do you think it's just "the stupidity of war" on their part, with Lincoln being the truly evil one?

But if that's the case, how does an evil person lead an army of stupid people in an organized fashion? How is it that stupid people are not stupid when it comes time to do their tasks in executing the fighting?

I'm harping on this because a glaring tribal aspect of human nature is on perfect display in war. And I hold this same human nature in people does not go away during peace. Government emerges from that.

Which is why I believe it has to be a fundamental component of government--or better, the root from whence the principles of government are drawn.

Rand said philosophy was fundamentally what moved history. I say it is philosophy plus charismatic leaders--and the flip side, the experience people witness that philosophy explains plus their aspect of human nature that makes them herd together and follow charismatic leaders.

Slavery/antislavery was part of the philosophy of the era. I think it is a mistake to eliminate it from the fundamental motivation of the people back then and call it "unintended."

Michael

[George H. Smith]

All this is a matter of the historical record. The facts are not in dispute, and I don't know why they should make you uncomfortable in the least.

George,

It's the historical facts that get ignored when people make that argument that make me uncomfortable. I look at the following and think to myself, well, there's what this is really about. I'll have to get more facts elsewhere.

... I despise Lincoln for bringing about the mass butchery of a savage conflict that could have been avoided.

Hatred always makes for a poor filter.

You still haven't made a case as to why concern with preserving the union annuls the influence of the slavery issue. I'm talking fundamentals. You say it's only one. I say it's both (and some other things like how to conduct the Western expansion, but that's beside the point here).

I note that I have pissed many people off because I make always make it clear they cannot teach their hatred to me. I'm not saying this applies here, but in my experience, that's the way these discussions have usually panned out for me.

Apropos, you lay the "butchery of a savage conflict" at Lincoln's feet, yet there were an awful lot of people doing the butchering. Both sides. Do you exempt those people? [snip]

I am getting very annoyed, You have presented absolutely no historical facts, only musings about this and that. By all means read more, much more, than what I have said -- but, please, read something. I have not been presenting some kind of eccentric or crackpot point of view. Even those historians who engage in something akin to Lincoln-worship would not disagree with much, if anything, I have said.

I am not attempting to "teach" anyone to "hate" anyone. Your remarks on this topic would apply equally well to Hitler and Stalin. (No, I am not placing Lincoln in their category, so don't go there.) Didn't a lot of people other than Hitler and Stalin participate in the their butchery? Yes, of course. Do I exempt those people from my condemnation? No, of course I don't. What is the point of such questions?

As for my supposedly annulling the slavery issue, I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. After his election and at the outset of the war, Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves. He was as clear about this as clear can be, e.g.:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

How could Lincoln have been any more clear than this (and these are just a few samples)? Was Lincoln lying? Do you have special insight into the inner recesses of his mind that has taught you that Lincoln really fought the war to liberate slaves, even though he explicitly denied this?

History can be complex, but some historical investigations are more complex than others. This issue falls on the very low end of the compex-o-meter scale.

So what historical facts am I supposedly ignoring? Please mention a few of them. Even one would be nice. But remember that I am talking about verifiable facts, not about vague hopes and unfounded speculations.

Lincoln was a typical Whig of his day -- a strong believer in nationalism, internal improvements, a strong central government, etc. Secession, he said, is "the essence of anarchy" -- and Lincoln was not about to tolerate "anarchy." He made his point at the expense of 620,000 American lives and a devasted South.

I don't view Lincoln as a warmonger per se. Rather, I view him as a largely incompetent president who got in way over his head. I doubt if he had an inkling of the devastation that the Civil War would bring about -- and when it did get underway, he proved an even more incompetent commander-in-chief, appointing one ineffective general after other. The Civil War ended up being a war of attrition. If not for the superior industrial capabilities of the North and its greater supply of human cannon fodder, the South would probably have won that extremely brutal and destructive war.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Leaders on both sides believed that their side would win a quick victory, so the war would not last very long. More of the usual stupidity about war.

H.L. Mencken once speculated on the reason why people never seem to learn any of the obvious lessons about war. Not long after one war has exhausted a people, they can easily be whipped into a frenzy and support yet another war enthusiastically. Mencken suggested that many people are bored with their humdrum lives, and that war makes them feel that they are participating in a great and noble cause. War gives "meaning" to their otherwise pointless lives.

I fear Mencken's cynical explanation may have hit the nail on the head. In the immortal words of the comedian Ron White: You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.

Ghs

In spite of Vietnam I wanted, viscerally, to go fight in the first Gulf War. Except for family obligations, I might have managed it in some fighting capacity, even as a civilian. The warrior ethos had thoroughly saturated my DNA and a lot of it was that god old alligator brain being kicked into gear. I also, then and even now identify strongly with American soldiers for we had actually been battle comrades once. By the time of 9/11, after the invasion of Afghanistan but before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, I had had enough. I was only in favor of under the table bitch-slapping of Hussein to make him clean up his act in various ways and putting in a threatening army to make it credible, not the bs justified incursion. After that I wanted us to get out quickly, even though most of the strategic damage had been done. In the following years I simply became more and more disgusted at the obvious perfidy of the American State and the little people who ran it, most of whom were morally dwarfed by the lowliest GI.

I enlisted in 1964 as a way of not getting drafted and signed up for photography school at Ft. Dix. A school my brother as a Marine ironically went to two years later. I got recruited into Special Forces in Basic Training. I was willing to put my life on the line to go fight communists and in 1964 SF was the only way open to do that. Overt use of conventional US forces didn't happen until the following spring. In SF I was surrounded by so much rank, officers and senior NCOs, that even though I was promoted to sergeant no one ever addressed me as "Sergeant!?" except one time at the airbase in Saigon by a private not in SF. I was so startled I did a double take, wondering whom he was addressing.

--Brant

as an anti-communist I was no hypocrite and as a soldier I didn't do support, safe in the rear, but if I had to do it again knowing what I now know I'd go Air Force and have a lot more fun or kiss the psychologist interviewing me at the draft physical explaining how much I loved to love men (not realistic because you would be all but branded as queer and your future employers could see enough the nature of your deferment to guess you were sexually wacko in some way)--the whole American economic-military culture was a sluice into national service for millions of men and the pay then was like $500/month today

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am getting very annoyed,

George,

This is exactly what I mean about people getting pissed off from my refusal to learn their hatred. You apparently haven't read a word of what I have written. (I know you have, but you have seen fit to ignore it and allege crap as my position.)

I've seen this show before too many times in my life and I know where it goes, so I'll stop right here.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

I am getting very annoyed,

George,

This is exactly what I mean about people getting pissed off from my refusal to learn their hatred. You apparently haven't read a word of what I have written. (I know you have, but you have seen fit to ignore it and allege crap as my position.)

I've seen this show before too many times in my life and I know where it goes, so I'll stop right here.

Michael

I have been discussing history, and I expressed my personal opinion about Lincoln. I have no idea what you mean by saying that you piss people off "from my refusal to learn their hatred." What are you talking about? You got me annoyed because you have been making historical claims without presenting any historical evidence for those claims.

Not everything boils down to your personal psychology. History is history, and facts are facts.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, slavery was not a fundamental issue regarding the start of the Civil War except the inability to push slavery into new states in the west meant the South was getting weaker and weaker in Congress which kept passing legislation economically disadvantageous to it. The two fundamental reasons were the preservation of the union and economic, especially tariffs. South Carolina did start the war, but Lincoln could have let it go, but that would have greatly weakened American federalism and other states in the future could have packed their bags and the President was having none of that. That war was the cement that holds everything together politically today in the "great" American federal republic in which democracy is the tail that does not wag the dog.

--Brant

George can't do history if he despises a major player?

[George H. Smith]

Michael, slavery was not a fundamental issue regarding the start of the Civil War except the inability to push slavery into new states in the west meant the South was getting weaker and weaker in Congress which kept passing legislation economically disadvantageous to it. The two fundamental reasons were the preservation of the union and economic, especially tariffs. South Carolina did start the war, but Lincoln could have let it go, but that would have greatly weakened American federalism and other states in the future could have packed their bags and the President was having none of that. That war was the cement that holds everything together politically today in the "great" American federal republic in which democracy is the tail that does not wag the dog.

--Brant

George can't do history if he despises a major player?

I agree with Lord Acton that history should function as a "hanging judge." Acton didn't mean that the historian should interject unnecessary value judgments into his investigations. On the contrary, he argued that the historian should make the best possible case for the other side. But the historian, after ascertaining the facts, should not hesitate to judge so-called "great men" by the same moral standards he uses to judge everyone else.

In his Cato and IHS lectures, my old friend, the historian Ralph Raico, used to ask this tongue-in-cheek question: Why is it that the appellation "the Great" is almost aways applied by historians to mass murderers? Alexander the Great, Catherine the Great, etc., etc. -- mass murderers, one and all.

I agree with Ralph's explanation that historians and other academics are frequently capitivated by "men of action" -- larger than life military and political figures who have marched over millions of dead bodies into the annals of historical immortality.

I don't think that Lincoln was the worst president in U.S. history, but neither would I put him anywhere near the top. The notion that he was "our greatest president" (along, perhaps, with FDR), which has had a resurgence over the past decade or so, thanks largely to popular haigiographical works by Doris Kearns Goodwin and others, is bunk. Such works are typically written by progressive historians who worship at the altar of political power. A wise and far-sighted Lincoln shepherded America through its worst crises, etc., etc. What crap.

I rather like Lincoln personally. But the "movie version" of his story, which portrays him as a folksy backwoods philosopher, is wide of the mark. He was a savvy Whig attorney who, after working to get railroad subsidies from the government for his employees (a favorite Whig project), quickly climbed the ladder of power in the newly formed Republican Party -- the big government party of its day -- a mongrel mix of ex-Whigs, nativists, anti-Catholic activists, social gospel crusaders, temperance reformers, anti-slavery advocates, and others.

There is no doubt that Lincoln genuinely detested slavery. But he was a politician, first and foremost.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I suspect the South knew Lincoln detested slavery and that would have added fuel to the fires of succession.

Maybe South Carolina would have asked back in eventually rather than be a sort of Hong Kong to the U.S. Regardless, I do wonder what would have happened if federalism had disintegrated. I suspect a lot of smaller wars over a far longer period of time. Nothing can gainsay the fact that the U.S. simply started out wrong, but it was a good try. After all, the southern colonies had fought against the Brits in just as important ways as the northern ones, and Yorktown is in Virginia, so why dis-reward them by exclusion because of slavery, a very accepted institution in those days, though hardly by all? The Revolutionary War was very unifying, especially after all those folks who fled to Canada and elsewhere had departed. The triumph of Hamilton was the triumph of Lincoln was the triumph of Roosevelt.

--Brant

it's interesting how both Michael and George can sometimes go off the tracks in various discussions for different reasons and how they keep managing to de-de-rail their expositions

[Brant Gaede]

Perhaps the strongest aspect of federalism was not its beginnings constitutionally speaking, but the inexorable westward expansion, and when that was done the country kept going courtesy of its collectively learned behavior into foreign wars and naval supremacy.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I suspect the South knew Lincoln detested slavery and that would have added fuel to the fires of succession.

Maybe South Carolina would have asked back in eventually rather than be a sort of Hong Kong to the U.S. Regardless, I do wonder what would have happened if federalism had disintegrated. I suspect a lot of smaller wars over a far longer period of time. Nothing can gainsay the fact that the U.S. simply started out wrong, but it was a good try. After all, the southern colonies had fought against the Brits in just as important ways as the northern ones, and Yorktown is in Virginia, so why dis-reward them by exclusion because of slavery, a very accepted institution in those days, though hardly by all? The Revolutionary War was very unifying, especially after all those folks who fled to Canada and elsewhere had departed. The triumph of Hamilton was the triumph of Lincoln was the triumph of Roosevelt.

--Brant

it's interesting how both Michael and George can sometimes go off the tracks in various discussions for different reasons and how they keep managing to de-de-rail their expositions

Nicely put, Brant.

The Confederacy would not have been much of a confederacy without Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina -- and those states probably would not have seceded at all if Lincoln had not forced the issue.

One possibility, which was recommended by some at the time, was to let the Deep South go and then erect tariff barriers against it. The economic pressure might have caused those states to rejoin the Union. In any case, the common notion that the Civil War was somehow inevitable is one of those historical myths that has been used to get Lincoln off the hook, as if he had no control over the course of events.

Ghs

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

Perhaps the strongest aspect of federalism was not its beginnings constitutionally speaking, but the inexorable westward expansion, and when that was done the country kept going courtesy of its collectively learned behavior into foreign wars and naval supremacy.

end quote

That is creative thinking, Brant. But what if the Articles of Confederation were still the laws of the land?

It is 2035. After the collapse of its currency and a world wide depression in 2020, the United States is bankrupt. In fact all the major countries of the world are bankrupt, but the threat of a World War is greatly diminished. All the industrialized countries are decreasing their military personnel and armories to record lows.

The Tea Party is the party of choice for 71 percent of Americans. The Congress votes to declare the Constitution null and void and the President signs the bill, ending his term and the United States of America. The remaining military personnel become state’s guardsmen and arsenals and bases become the property of the various state’s where they are located.

The Congressman and Senators go back to their individual states but almost immediately a call for a States’ Convention is called for in Nebraska and the politicians head for Omaha to discuss a loose confederation of states with assurances of mutual defense and interstate commerce laws.

The anarchist modal of no government is never achieved, but each state begins to evaluate its own Constitution to make it leaner, and a more strictly constructed document to ensure individual rights, including property rights, but as usually happens some states become freer than others . . . .

Try your hand and plausibly end this scenario, or create your own for fun.

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

Uh,

Brant wrote:

Perhaps the strongest aspect of federalism was not its beginnings constitutionally speaking, but the inexorable westward expansion, and when that was done the country kept going courtesy of its collectively learned behavior into foreign wars and naval supremacy.

end quote

That is creative thinking, Brant. But what if the Articles of Confederation were still the laws of the land?

It is 2035. After the collapse of its currency and a world wide depression in 2020, the United States is bankrupt. In fact all the major countries of the world are bankrupt, but the threat of a World War is greatly diminished. All the industrialized countries are decreasing their military personnel and armories to record lows.

The Tea Party is the party of choice for 71 percent of Americans. The Congress votes to declare the Constitution null and void and the President signs the bill, ending his term and the United States of America. The remaining military personnel become state’s guardsmen and arsenals and bases become the property of the various state’s where they are located.

The Congressman and Senators go back to their individual states but almost immediately a call for a States’ Convention is called for in Nebraska and the politicians head for Omaha to discuss a loose confederation of states with assurances of mutual defense and interstate commerce laws.

The anarchist modal of no government is never achieved, but each state begins to evaluate its own Constitution to make it leaner, and a more strictly constructed document to ensure individual rights, including property rights, but as usually happens some states become freer than others . . . .

Try your hand and plausibly end this scenario, or create your own for fun.

Peter Taylor

You've listed some dubious propositions and to what actual point (fun??), I've no idea. Are you attacking libertarian anarchism by a castle-in-the-sky proxy? Your idea that the threat of war would be greatly diminished is naive and quaint. Currency collapse and world-wide depression are coming sooner than you seem to think. Any bill declaring the Constitution null and void would be unconstitutional. De facto world-wide bankruptcy is here right now. Etc.

--Brant

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

You've listed some dubious propositions and to what actual point (fun??), I've no idea.

end quote

No matter who the Planned Rational Anarchist is, they will never give you a hint of how anarchy would work. They claim it would NOT work like unplanned anarchy which we see frequently, and it ain’t pretty. Planned Rational Anarchy on the personal level, with no plan, is too ludicrous to contemplate. Would teenage Beevis and Butthead going on a road trip be the equivalent? Can you imagine any human enterprise you would be involved which had no plan?

Listen up soldiers. We are going on patrol tonight.

When are we going Sarge?

I don’t know. Go when you want to go.

Where are we going, Sarge?

Don’t know. We could go anywhere. Its up to you.

What weapons should we bring?

Whatever you want.

George tries but all he could come up with is this anarchism on a personal level:

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.

end quote

Dope~ sheesh. That reminds me of movie with Ernest Borgnine, called “Marty:”

“What do you want to do Marty?”

I don’t know. What do you want to do?

Long pause.

“I don’t know. What do you want to do?”

Obviously that is moronic, yet that is what the Anarchists give us as a plan. So to elevate the conversation I devised a scenario where a plan could be drawn up, or a contract written.

Yet even on a higher plane, George quotes Rothbard who wrote:

Let us, then, examine in a little more detail what a free market defense system might look like. It is, we must realize, impossible to blueprint the exact institutional conditions of any market in advance, just as it would have been impossible fifty years ago to predict the exact nature of the television industry today. However, we can postulate some of the workings of a freely competitive, marketable system of police and judicial services to be supplied on call.

end quote

Which is once again no plan. How can we possibly know what the market will have for us? How can we know? Nevertheless, lets pretend we are anarchists and talk about competing police forces.

I have run into this problem before and at the end I will reprint a series of letters I wrote to try and devise ONE SIMPLE SCENARIO where any anarchist could devise SOMETHING. ANYTHING!

I will just reprint what I have written about a Rational Anarchist’s Terra Nova, with my final addition at the end. If the anarchists find this concept intriguing let them give it a fling. Otherwise they are just “whistling Dixie.

The cost of prosecuting and warehousing career criminals is a problem, but that is required by our Constitution’s speedy trial clause and prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. A cheaper alternative that is not cruel or unusual might be a “Devil’s Island” situation. Using Rational Anarchic Theory, the convicted career felons, settle on an isolated island in the Hawaiian archipelago, are given seeds, cattle, tools, satellite TV (but not cell phones which might be used to run criminal enterprises outside the island or to plan an escape) and housing. Then, at a lesser cost to law abiding citizens in the fifty states, they would live as sovereign citizens isolated on that island, guarded by the Coast Guard and technology. Obviously in a free society, as Ron Paul has stressed, there would be no one convicted of drug possession or of selling non-poisonous drugs to adults.

George H. Smith wrote “IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM:”

Anarchism is a theory of the good society, in which justice and social order are maintained without the State (or government). Many anarchists in the libertarian movement (including myself) were heavily influenced by the epistemological and moral theories of Ayn Rand. According to these anarchists, Rand's principles, if consistently applied, lead necessarily to a repudiation of government on moral grounds . . .

I call this rational anarchism, because it is grounded in the belief that we are fully capable, through reason, of discerning the principles of justice; and that we are capable, through rational persuasion and voluntary agreement, of establishing whatever institutions are necessary for the preservation and enforcement of justice. It is precisely because no government can be established by means of reason and mutual consent that all Objectivists should reject that institution as unjust in both theory and practice.

end quote

I have my doubts about Rational Anarchism which I have frequently voiced, especially my conviction that the “constant consent” of rationally persuasive people would not last. Here is a way to test the theory. After their last conviction, a clearly defined career criminal would have a choice. Serve out your life in a mainland prison or live semi-free on a tropical island. Your main loss of liberty will be the loss of the right of free movement beyond the Island. That initial choice and Rational Anarchism will ensure that there is nothing cruel or unusual about the punishment.

Continued . . .

My pragmatic test for Rational Anarchism is not stacked against the theory because criminals are used as test subjects. As its most prestigious proponent George H. Smith has clearly stated, “Anarchism is a theory of the good society, in which justice and social order are maintained without the State . . . and we are fully capable, through reason, of discerning the principles of justice; and that we are capable, through rational persuasion and voluntary agreement, of establishing whatever institutions are necessary for the preservation and enforcement of justice.”

George uses the term “we” which means “we humans.” If all those convicted in the United States were *wrongfully convicted* by an immoral government and “Rand's principles, if consistently applied, lead necessarily to a repudiation of government on moral grounds . . .” then using Mr. Smith’s own logic, the good society including anarchists and libertarians can establish a just society by means of reason and mutual consent, even if they are convicted felons. No where does Mr. Smith say the good society must be made up of specific humans, only that anarchists, libertarians and Objectivist should agree with him.

No where does Mr. Smith discriminate on the basis of past wrongful criminal convictions, or race, creed, or ethnicity. Therefore the deck is not stacked in this hypothetical scenario. If anything, those wrongfully convicted would have the most incentive to rationally make the most of their reinstated, limited freedoms.

continued . . .

However a dilemma immediately arises: what if a child is born on the Island? Any child born there would be a United States citizen with rights.

The option to allow children born on the island to live on the island is not a good option because their rights would be denied. Parents are normally the legal guardians and speak for the child until a certain age, but because of the circumstances of their incarceration that is not fair to the children, and even an outside court appointed guardian is not a fair rights protecting option.

Another option would be to put women on one island and men on another island, but for the Rational Anarchic experiment to be fair, this could be considered cruel and unusual, even though that is the common practice in our prisons. Or either all the men or all the women would first be sterilized before voluntary admittance to the same Island.

Accidental pregnancy could occur if sterilization is not successful. What then? Would the mother have access to prenatal, obstetric and medical care? Should surveillance cameras be on the island? Could a TV program using these castaways be made and the proceeds going to victims of their crimes or outside relatives of theirs? These and other problems could be worked out.

continued . . .

a dramatization. Image the grizzled Security Chief from “Terra Nova,: saying the following.

You all signed a contract when you chose to come here.

The contract reads:

“I give consent to the rights of others while living in an anarchistic state of nature. I possess the "executive power" to enforce my own rights against the aggressive actions of others. This consent theory, consistently applied, is the contract I freely sign. True sovereignty resides in each individual, who has the right to assess the justice of another’s act. Using an objective system of justice, I will discriminate between the initiation of force and the retaliatory use of force, thereby providing a rational method for assessing any person or voluntary agency on The Island. Furthermore, I agree that a system of objective justice defines and sanctions the use of defensive violence which is the right of resistance and revolution. I repudiate political sovereignty in favor of individual rights and voluntary institutions.”

That is the end of the contract you signed. We trade voluntarily with the outside world with products we mine or manufacture here. You are free to succeed. You are free to fail. But for the first time in your life you are free.

Welcome to anarchy.

Welcome to Terra Nova!

Continued 20 years later.

Welcome to your new home. The experiment was a success. Drop your bags here. They will be probed by electronics, sniffed by dogs, and fingered by humans. No cell phones allowed! Twenty years have passed since our founding. You are the first citizen’s of the world to immigrate and sign the contract who were not convicts. No longer will we be a convict only nation. We now have a per capita income equal to that of another nation that began as a convict nation, Australia. You, the first group of completely voluntary Sovereign Citizens consists of scientists, authors, bankers, and anyone who wants to be free. Welcome to Anarchy! Welcome to Terra Nova!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Dglgmut]

If society is only made up of individuals, every individual must have equal responsibility for upholding the law... else we are no longer looking at individuals.

What duty does any individual have to pursue justice for someone else?

If nobody owes anything to the collective, the rational role of government is that of a business. Could it ever be rational to guarantee a monopoly to a business?

[Bosco]

Getting to basics, and looking from the point of view of Rand's intent - So, we tacitly hand over to our (hopefully minimal) government the responsibility to protect our person and property from those who would initiate force against us. Why? because few of us desire, or have the ability, to constantly protect ourselves. Second, because it is logical to have one, central Agent, equably protect us with objective laws. With the responsibility - and the duty - justly comes the right of that Agent to be the only one to wield that power.

Few of us desire, or have the ability, to manufacture our own shoes. Does this mean there must be one (and only one) producer of shoes, to ensure people don't go barefoot? It's curious that libertarians and Objectivists are so keen on specialization and division of labour as part of the unintended benefits of a free market, but when the subject of protection, defense and adjudication come up, these insights are lost and the worst prejudices about free markets return. Tim

Getting to basics, and looking from the point of view of Rand's intent - So, we tacitly hand over to our (hopefully minimal) government the responsibility to protect our person and property from those who would initiate force against us. Why? because few of us desire, or have the ability, to constantly protect ourselves. Second, because it is logical to have one, central Agent, equably protect us with objective laws. With the responsibility - and the duty - justly comes the right of that Agent to be the only one to wield that power.

Few of us desire, or have the ability, to manufacture our own shoes. Does this mean there must be one (and only one) producer of shoes, to ensure people don't go barefoot? It's curious that libertarians and Objectivists are so keen on specialization and division of labour as part of the unintended benefits of a free market, but when the subject of protection, defense and adjudication come up, these insights are lost and the worst prejudices about free markets return. Tim

Tim,

I also find it curious that instead of a single, restricted agency operating completely

by permission of the populace, anarchists prefer a mutable number of small agencies

operating by market forces. (And I've got as much distrust for government - and its potential for runaway power - as the average anarchist, I think.)

But, practically, I'd rather have one big camel inside the tent - where I can keep

a careful eye on it, and smack it if necessary - than dozens or hundreds of small ones

running loose outside.

Your private enterprise application is a well taken. However, what I know about business and industry is that there are many slips between cup and lip. Glitches and hiccups of supply, production, work-force and delivery. The shoe manufacturer has to dial in all these short-term factors, occasionally take the odd risk

- and all the while be looking over his shoulder at the competition, and finding ways to expand his territory. A lot of energy is used up in being creative.

When those hiccups result in interrupted production or sales, less shoes are made and sold, and his figures suffer, temporarily.

When private protection agencies suffer glitches, or temporary breakdowns, their clients' property can be damaged, and lives can be lost in the interim.

Individuals and their rights are not a 'product' - and a government (of any form) is not in the business of getting 'creative', or expanding their influence.

Free enterprise in governance, as I understand it.

(But my knowledge about anarchism is limited, I freely admit.)

Why expend so much energy trying to restrain the size of a single agency, when firms in the market can act as a counterbalance and check against one another? And remember, it's not merely "force" that is being sold in a free market, but (in a libertarian society) the legitimate use of force, which is defined by moral principles and argument, and not who wins an election. This is what would generate the need for courts in the first place. Anyone can potentially use force in a free society, so, considered in isolation, it's value as a professional service would be extremely limited, as opposed to the ability to justify and persuade others. The same facts and social needs that give rise to competing defense agencies also explain why they would tend to respect rights rather than violate them.

You wrote:

"When private protection agencies suffer glitches, or temporary breakdowns, their clients' property can be damaged, and lives can be lost in the interim.

Individuals and their rights are not a 'product' - and a government (of any form) is not in the business of getting 'creative', or expanding their influence."

When private protection agencies suffer glitches, or temporary breakdowns, clients can also take their business elsewhere. When the same happens with government, you pretty much have to suck it up and keep the "payments" rolling in. Individials and their rights may not be a product, but the protection of these individuals and their rights is most definitely a service with perceptible levels of quality. And what existing government is not in the business of getting creative or expanding it's influence at the expense of freedom?

[Peter]

Dglgmut wrote:

If society is only made up of individuals, every individual must have equal responsibility for upholding the law... else we are no longer looking at individuals.

end quote

The delegation of that responsibility is honorable and just, if the police swear to uphold the law which is based on the local jurisdiction’s laws, which are based on a State’s Constitution’s laws, and which in turn are based on The United State’s Constitution which is based on individual rights. A private security firm could also fulfill the responsibility of upholding the law. All police forces must also be staffed by officers who are reasonably well trained, and honest. All sub-jurisdictions must uphold the Constitution and agree that the Federal Government and Constitution are the final authorities as to when it is legal to utilize the retaliatory use of force.

Dglgmut wrote:

What duty does any individual have to pursue justice for someone else?

end quote

A duty can be rational and not sacrificial. A rational duty could be to swear to tell the truth, and to testify honestly if called upon to do so by a police officer or a court of law. I can also see instances when an individual is obligated to pursue justice in an emergency such as when a murder could be halted by you, calling 911 if needed, or when a crime could be halted by you, or you could save someone who has been in an accident. There are many layers to such Good Samaritan Laws and Vigilante or Stand Your Ground Laws which could use their own threads here on OL. At a minimum I think a person would be negligent if they did not save the life of someone when they could have easily done so.

Dglgmut wrote:

If nobody owes anything to the collective, the rational role of government is that of a business. Could it ever be rational to guarantee a monopoly to a business.

end quote

A business is owned by private individuals and the argument could be made that the retaliatory use of force is exclusively granted to Government (or its representative such as a private security firm) because the business of Government is owned by the entire people who are of course made up of individual citizens. So in the sense that everybody owns the government and it works for we the people then it is rational to say Government is *morally* the final authority for justice and they are guaranteed a monopoly in this special function.

In contrast a business is privately owned by fewer people than the people who live in the United States and a business is never “granted” a monopoly by Government. That would be crony capitalism or more correctly it would be Fascism.

As an aside, I will be off site for a medical issue and I do not know for how long. I haven’t signed my advanced directive yet. It is creepy.

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

Brant wrote:

You've listed some dubious propositions and to what actual point (fun??), I've no idea.

end quote

No matter who the Planned Rational Anarchist is, they will never give you a hint of how anarchy would work. They claim it would NOT work like unplanned anarchy which we see frequently, and it ain’t pretty. Planned Rational Anarchy on the personal level, with no plan, is too ludicrous to contemplate. Would teenage Beevis and Butthead going on a road trip be the equivalent? Can you imagine any human enterprise you would be involved which had no plan?

Listen up soldiers. We are going on patrol tonight.

When are we going Sarge?

I don’t know. Go when you want to go.

Where are we going, Sarge?

Don’t know. We could go anywhere. Its up to you.

What weapons should we bring?

Whatever you want.

George tries but all he could come up with is this anarchism on a personal level:

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.

end quote

Dope~ sheesh. That reminds me of movie with Ernest Borgnine, called “Marty:”

“What do you want to do Marty?”

I don’t know. What do you want to do?

Long pause.

“I don’t know. What do you want to do?”

Obviously that is moronic, yet that is what the Anarchists give us as a plan. So to elevate the conversation I devised a scenario where a plan could be drawn up, or a contract written.

Yet even on a higher plane, George quotes Rothbard who wrote:

Let us, then, examine in a little more detail what a free market defense system might look like. It is, we must realize, impossible to blueprint the exact institutional conditions of any market in advance, just as it would have been impossible fifty years ago to predict the exact nature of the television industry today. However, we can postulate some of the workings of a freely competitive, marketable system of police and judicial services to be supplied on call.

end quote

Which is once again no plan. How can we possibly know what the market will have for us? How can we know? Nevertheless, lets pretend we are anarchists and talk about competing police forces.

I have run into this problem before and at the end I will reprint a series of letters I wrote to try and devise ONE SIMPLE SCENARIO where any anarchist could devise SOMETHING. ANYTHING!

I will just reprint what I have written about a Rational Anarchist’s Terra Nova, with my final addition at the end. If the anarchists find this concept intriguing let them give it a fling. Otherwise they are just “whistling Dixie.

The cost of prosecuting and warehousing career criminals is a problem, but that is required by our Constitution’s speedy trial clause and prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. A cheaper alternative that is not cruel or unusual might be a “Devil’s Island” situation. Using Rational Anarchic Theory, the convicted career felons, settle on an isolated island in the Hawaiian archipelago, are given seeds, cattle, tools, satellite TV (but not cell phones which might be used to run criminal enterprises outside the island or to plan an escape) and housing. Then, at a lesser cost to law abiding citizens in the fifty states, they would live as sovereign citizens isolated on that island, guarded by the Coast Guard and technology. Obviously in a free society, as Ron Paul has stressed, there would be no one convicted of drug possession or of selling non-poisonous drugs to adults.

George H. Smith wrote “IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM:”

Anarchism is a theory of the good society, in which justice and social order are maintained without the State (or government). Many anarchists in the libertarian movement (including myself) were heavily influenced by the epistemological and moral theories of Ayn Rand. According to these anarchists, Rand's principles, if consistently applied, lead necessarily to a repudiation of government on moral grounds . . .

I call this rational anarchism, because it is grounded in the belief that we are fully capable, through reason, of discerning the principles of justice; and that we are capable, through rational persuasion and voluntary agreement, of establishing whatever institutions are necessary for the preservation and enforcement of justice. It is precisely because no government can be established by means of reason and mutual consent that all Objectivists should reject that institution as unjust in both theory and practice.

end quote

I have my doubts about Rational Anarchism which I have frequently voiced, especially my conviction that the “constant consent” of rationally persuasive people would not last. Here is a way to test the theory. After their last conviction, a clearly defined career criminal would have a choice. Serve out your life in a mainland prison or live semi-free on a tropical island. Your main loss of liberty will be the loss of the right of free movement beyond the Island. That initial choice and Rational Anarchism will ensure that there is nothing cruel or unusual about the punishment.

Continued . . .

My pragmatic test for Rational Anarchism is not stacked against the theory because criminals are used as test subjects. As its most prestigious proponent George H. Smith has clearly stated, “Anarchism is a theory of the good society, in which justice and social order are maintained without the State . . . and we are fully capable, through reason, of discerning the principles of justice; and that we are capable, through rational persuasion and voluntary agreement, of establishing whatever institutions are necessary for the preservation and enforcement of justice.”

George uses the term “we” which means “we humans.” If all those convicted in the United States were *wrongfully convicted* by an immoral government and “Rand's principles, if consistently applied, lead necessarily to a repudiation of government on moral grounds . . .” then using Mr. Smith’s own logic, the good society including anarchists and libertarians can establish a just society by means of reason and mutual consent, even if they are convicted felons. No where does Mr. Smith say the good society must be made up of specific humans, only that anarchists, libertarians and Objectivist should agree with him.

No where does Mr. Smith discriminate on the basis of past wrongful criminal convictions, or race, creed, or ethnicity. Therefore the deck is not stacked in this hypothetical scenario. If anything, those wrongfully convicted would have the most incentive to rationally make the most of their reinstated, limited freedoms.

continued . . .

However a dilemma immediately arises: what if a child is born on the Island? Any child born there would be a United States citizen with rights.

The option to allow children born on the island to live on the island is not a good option because their rights would be denied. Parents are normally the legal guardians and speak for the child until a certain age, but because of the circumstances of their incarceration that is not fair to the children, and even an outside court appointed guardian is not a fair rights protecting option.

Another option would be to put women on one island and men on another island, but for the Rational Anarchic experiment to be fair, this could be considered cruel and unusual, even though that is the common practice in our prisons. Or either all the men or all the women would first be sterilized before voluntary admittance to the same Island.

Accidental pregnancy could occur if sterilization is not successful. What then? Would the mother have access to prenatal, obstetric and medical care? Should surveillance cameras be on the island? Could a TV program using these castaways be made and the proceeds going to victims of their crimes or outside relatives of theirs? These and other problems could be worked out.

continued . . .

a dramatization. Image the grizzled Security Chief from “Terra Nova,: saying the following.

You all signed a contract when you chose to come here.

The contract reads:

“I give consent to the rights of others while living in an anarchistic state of nature. I possess the "executive power" to enforce my own rights against the aggressive actions of others. This consent theory, consistently applied, is the contract I freely sign. True sovereignty resides in each individual, who has the right to assess the justice of another’s act. Using an objective system of justice, I will discriminate between the initiation of force and the retaliatory use of force, thereby providing a rational method for assessing any person or voluntary agency on The Island. Furthermore, I agree that a system of objective justice defines and sanctions the use of defensive violence which is the right of resistance and revolution. I repudiate political sovereignty in favor of individual rights and voluntary institutions.”

That is the end of the contract you signed. We trade voluntarily with the outside world with products we mine or manufacture here. You are free to succeed. You are free to fail. But for the first time in your life you are free.

Welcome to anarchy.

Welcome to Terra Nova!

Continued 20 years later.

Welcome to your new home. The experiment was a success. Drop your bags here. They will be probed by electronics, sniffed by dogs, and fingered by humans. No cell phones allowed! Twenty years have passed since our founding. You are the first citizen’s of the world to immigrate and sign the contract who were not convicts. No longer will we be a convict only nation. We now have a per capita income equal to that of another nation that began as a convict nation, Australia. You, the first group of completely voluntary Sovereign Citizens consists of scientists, authors, bankers, and anyone who wants to be free. Welcome to Anarchy! Welcome to Terra Nova!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Sounds like the NYC society in the movie Escape from New York.

But since I start with what is now, not what should be, I'm out of the anarchist-minarchist debate. An extant anarchist society would provide a competitive counter party to the extant statist societies. Where is it? I see no real possibility of anything other than wrestling with what is which is where the true moral worth is to be found. I think the libertarian anarchist is more of an optimist than I am, and more positive about human nature. I just see Lord of the Flies.

--Brant