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


Recommended Posts

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.

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).

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.

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

Here are some historical facts which seem to present a slightly more balanced view.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN QUOTES ABOUT SLAVERY

"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.

"Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg" (October 7, 1858), p. 226.

"I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 255.

There are roughly 30 or more similar, documented quotes from Lincoln cited here.

Historian Eugene Eugene H. Berwanger says about Lincoln:

Abraham Lincoln has gotten bad press on the topics of emancipation and civil rights for blacks. Much revered as the "Great Emancipator" in the earlier part of this century, Lincoln in the post-World War II era became the "Reluctant Emancipator," Among historians, it became fashionable in the 1950s and 1960s to dissociate Lincoln from his Radical Republican colleagues because of his seeming reluctance to interfere with slavery.

Historians have used Lincoln's own words to prove their assertion. They note, for example, his comment to a Cincinnati audience in 1859: "I now assure you, that I neither ... had, nor have, nor ever had, any purpose in any way of interfering with the institution...." or they quote from Lincoln's statement to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery."

The view that Lincoln was reluctant on slavery implies a complete change of attitude once he took the presidential oath. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even as late as 1864 his ethical views were unqualified. "I am naturally anti-slavery," he wrote. "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel."

Inferring from Lincoln's words in the 1860s a reluctance toward abolition, historians have largely misjudged his position. At heart, Lincoln doubted any constitutional basis for emancipating the nation's slaves; he was not sure that federal authorities had such a mandate. Beyond that, Lincoln had always to measure his words. As president, he was in fact responsible to the diversity of public opinion on abolition, and he had, as a political reality, to please all factions whatever his personal view. Were he to speak forth in too liberal a tone, he might well alienate those Americans supporting the war but opposed to abolition; anything too conservative, in turn, could produce criticism from the Radicals. Taken together, the president's words and efforts leave no reasonable doubt. Lincoln was committed to a free society and amenable to some limited form of black suffrage. And he moved with more conviction and even haste than he has been given credit for doing.

During his presidency, Lincoln took a reasoned course which helped the federal government both destroy slavery and advance the cause of black suffrage. For a man who had denied both reforms four years earlier, Lincoln's change in attitude was rapid and decisive. He was both open-minded and perceptive to the needs of his nation in a postwar era. Once committed to a principle, Lincoln moved toward it with steady, determined progress.

Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association

Perhaps one could make the case that Berwanger is a Lincoln apologist. I don't claim to have enough knowledge about the facts to give his account of Lincoln's actions an unqualified endorsement. On the other hand, there is obviously plenty of evidence from Lincoln's own statements to show that he despised slavery and very much wanted to end it, and that this was a very significant factor in his decision to prosecute the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 900
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

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.

An excellent common sense analysis, Tony. "Individuals and their rights are not a 'product'. . ." An eloquent way of saying that a "market in force" (including 'objectively justifiable force') is a contradiction in terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Bingo. The only logical solution to rule by objective law is having a single agency entrusted with that power, subject to democratic control. Anything else is a fairy tale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you predict that your Rational Anachism would not resemble the Confederacy, The Mafia, Boss Tweed, The Bowery Boys or The Pug Ugly New York gangs? No one can predict what will happen because you have no signatories to a plan, or a consensus for a plan among a large group of people. You lack a plan.

Doesn't this imply a central planning perspective? How do libertarians and Objectivists respond when asked for a blueprint explaining how health care or education would work? In short, they can make broad, general predictions based on the spontaneous order of the market, But a "plan" is something mapped out in advance by someone independant of the system in question, which misunderstands the position of the anarchist.

Tim

On the contrary, Peter seems to understand the position of the anarchist very well. Central planning is exactly what is needed where the use of force is concerned--a clear, well-defined plan (i.e., the administration of objective law) which, to the maximum extent possible, eliminates force from the marketplace and human relationships. The anarchist, by definition, can have no such plan, since any entrepreneurial thug can enter the game at any time and start selling his own personal brand of "retaliatory force." It is a "system" tailor-made for the Mafia. The Cosa Nostra is the original "private defense agency."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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).

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.

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

Here are some historical facts which seem to present a slightly more balanced view.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN QUOTES ABOUT SLAVERY

"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.

"Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg" (October 7, 1858), p. 226.

"I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 255.

There are roughly 30 or more similar, documented quotes from Lincoln cited here.

Historian Eugene Eugene H. Berwanger says about Lincoln:

Abraham Lincoln has gotten bad press on the topics of emancipation and civil rights for blacks. Much revered as the "Great Emancipator" in the earlier part of this century, Lincoln in the post-World War II era became the "Reluctant Emancipator," Among historians, it became fashionable in the 1950s and 1960s to dissociate Lincoln from his Radical Republican colleagues because of his seeming reluctance to interfere with slavery.

Historians have used Lincoln's own words to prove their assertion. They note, for example, his comment to a Cincinnati audience in 1859: "I now assure you, that I neither ... had, nor have, nor ever had, any purpose in any way of interfering with the institution...." or they quote from Lincoln's statement to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery."

The view that Lincoln was reluctant on slavery implies a complete change of attitude once he took the presidential oath. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even as late as 1864 his ethical views were unqualified. "I am naturally anti-slavery," he wrote. "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel."

Inferring from Lincoln's words in the 1860s a reluctance toward abolition, historians have largely misjudged his position. At heart, Lincoln doubted any constitutional basis for emancipating the nation's slaves; he was not sure that federal authorities had such a mandate. Beyond that, Lincoln had always to measure his words. As president, he was in fact responsible to the diversity of public opinion on abolition, and he had, as a political reality, to please all factions whatever his personal view. Were he to speak forth in too liberal a tone, he might well alienate those Americans supporting the war but opposed to abolition; anything too conservative, in turn, could produce criticism from the Radicals. Taken together, the president's words and efforts leave no reasonable doubt. Lincoln was committed to a free society and amenable to some limited form of black suffrage. And he moved with more conviction and even haste than he has been given credit for doing.

During his presidency, Lincoln took a reasoned course which helped the federal government both destroy slavery and advance the cause of black suffrage. For a man who had denied both reforms four years earlier, Lincoln's change in attitude was rapid and decisive. He was both open-minded and perceptive to the needs of his nation in a postwar era. Once committed to a principle, Lincoln moved toward it with steady, determined progress.

Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association

Perhaps one could make the case that Berwanger is a Lincoln apologist. I don't claim to have enough knowledge about the facts to give his account of Lincoln's actions an unqualified endorsement. On the other hand, there is obviously plenty of evidence from Lincoln's own statements to show that he despised slavery and very much wanted to end it, and that this was a very significant factor in his decision to prosecute the war.

Nothing that you quoted here about Lincoln's opposition to slavery conflicts with what I wrote. As I said in my last post on this topic, "There is no doubt that Lincoln genuinely detested slavery."

I also pointed out - in accord with what you posted -- that Lincoln did not believe the federal government had the power to abolish slavery in the states. He did, however, believe it had the power to prohibit the extension of slavery into the territories.

Lincoln was an antislavery gradualist, not an abolitionist. This is the main reason why Garrison and other abolitionists were very suspicious of him, at least early on.

My sole claim was that Lincoln did not precipitate a war with the South for the purpose of abolishing slavery. For one thing, early in the war he hoped that some of the secessionist states might rejoin the Union, and he knew they would never do so if this meant losing their slaves.

I also pointed out that the defense of slavery was the major reason why South Carolina and other states in the Deep South seceded, so from their point of view the war was about slavery. But not for Lincoln.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, Peter seems to understand the position of the anarchist very well. Central planning is exactly what is needed where the use of force is concerned--a clear, well-defined plan (i.e., the administration of objective law) which, to the maximum extent possible, eliminates force from the marketplace and human relationships. The anarchist, by definition, can have no such plan, since any entrepreneurial thug can enter the game at any time and start selling his own personal brand of "retaliatory force." It is a "system" tailor-made for the Mafia. The Cosa Nostra is the original "private defense agency."

The mafia is better characterized as a byproduct of government. With a similar hierachy and power structure, the mafia competes with the government over control of prohibited activities, like drugs, prostitution and gambling. That has little to do with defense agencies.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you predict that your Rational Anachism would not resemble the Confederacy, The Mafia, Boss Tweed, The Bowery Boys or The Pug Ugly New York gangs? No one can predict what will happen because you have no signatories to a plan, or a consensus for a plan among a large group of people. You lack a plan.
Doesn't this imply a central planning perspective? How do libertarians and Objectivists respond when asked for a blueprint explaining how health care or education would work? In short, they can make broad, general predictions based on the spontaneous order of the market, But a "plan" is something mapped out in advance by someone independant of the system in question, which misunderstands the position of the anarchist. Tim
On the contrary, Peter seems to understand the position of the anarchist very well. Central planning is exactly what is needed where the use of force is concerned--a clear, well-defined plan (i.e., the administration of objective law) which, to the maximum extent possible, eliminates force from the marketplace and human relationships. The anarchist, by definition, can have no such plan, since any entrepreneurial thug can enter the game at any time and start selling his own personal brand of "retaliatory force." It is a "system" tailor-made for the Mafia. The Cosa Nostra is the original "private defense agency."

I cannot understand why you persist in your egregious misrepresentation of the Rothbardian position. You might as well say that strict governmental regulation of candy is necessary, because without a free-market "plan" to prevent the distribution of candy laced with arsenic, any bogus company could enter the market and sell all the poisoned candy it likes. We would also need strict governmental regulation of all schools, because without it any child-molester could set up a bogus school in order to entice children. The list is endless.

This is absolutely nuts. Poison is not candy, just because someone calls it that. Child abuse is not education, just because someone calls it that. And the initiation of force is not retaliatory force, just because someone calls it that.

Consider two hypothetical agencies. The Lipton Agency determines the guilt or innocence of a defendant by reading tea leaves, and the Geller Agency determines guilt or innocence by using psychics. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that rational people could not condemn these and similar agencies as bogus and illegal without the "objective law" supposedly decreed by your government?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A duty can be rational and not sacrificial.

Who's duty is it? It must be everyone's or else, again, we're not looking at society as a collection of individuals.

the business of Government is owned by the entire people who are of course made up of individual citizens.

The government is owned by the entire people? You could say the government ought to benefit the entire people, but to own entails some kind of power over a thing, and that is not so in the case of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot understand why you persist in your egregious misrepresentation of the Rothbardian position. You might as well say that strict governmental regulation of candy is necessary, because without a free-market "plan" to prevent the distribution of candy laced with arsenic, any bogus company could enter the market and sell all the poisoned candy it likes. We would also need strict governmental regulation of all schools, because without it any child-molester could set up a bogus school in order to entice children. The list is endless.

This is absolutely nuts. Poison is not candy, just because someone calls it that. Child abuse is not education, just because someone calls it that. And the initiation of force is not retaliatory force, just because someone calls it that.

lol.. Good post!

After all, objective law must havedistinguishable qualities that set it apart from what others may try to dress up as justice, and people should be free to make that distinction just like consumers in a free market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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).

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.

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

Here are some historical facts which seem to present a slightly more balanced view.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN QUOTES ABOUT SLAVERY

"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.

"Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg" (October 7, 1858), p. 226.

"I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 255.

There are roughly 30 or more similar, documented quotes from Lincoln cited here.

Historian Eugene Eugene H. Berwanger says about Lincoln:

Abraham Lincoln has gotten bad press on the topics of emancipation and civil rights for blacks. Much revered as the "Great Emancipator" in the earlier part of this century, Lincoln in the post-World War II era became the "Reluctant Emancipator," Among historians, it became fashionable in the 1950s and 1960s to dissociate Lincoln from his Radical Republican colleagues because of his seeming reluctance to interfere with slavery.

Historians have used Lincoln's own words to prove their assertion. They note, for example, his comment to a Cincinnati audience in 1859: "I now assure you, that I neither ... had, nor have, nor ever had, any purpose in any way of interfering with the institution...." or they quote from Lincoln's statement to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery."

The view that Lincoln was reluctant on slavery implies a complete change of attitude once he took the presidential oath. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even as late as 1864 his ethical views were unqualified. "I am naturally anti-slavery," he wrote. "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel."

Inferring from Lincoln's words in the 1860s a reluctance toward abolition, historians have largely misjudged his position. At heart, Lincoln doubted any constitutional basis for emancipating the nation's slaves; he was not sure that federal authorities had such a mandate. Beyond that, Lincoln had always to measure his words. As president, he was in fact responsible to the diversity of public opinion on abolition, and he had, as a political reality, to please all factions whatever his personal view. Were he to speak forth in too liberal a tone, he might well alienate those Americans supporting the war but opposed to abolition; anything too conservative, in turn, could produce criticism from the Radicals. Taken together, the president's words and efforts leave no reasonable doubt. Lincoln was committed to a free society and amenable to some limited form of black suffrage. And he moved with more conviction and even haste than he has been given credit for doing.

During his presidency, Lincoln took a reasoned course which helped the federal government both destroy slavery and advance the cause of black suffrage. For a man who had denied both reforms four years earlier, Lincoln's change in attitude was rapid and decisive. He was both open-minded and perceptive to the needs of his nation in a postwar era. Once committed to a principle, Lincoln moved toward it with steady, determined progress.

Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association

Perhaps one could make the case that Berwanger is a Lincoln apologist. I don't claim to have enough knowledge about the facts to give his account of Lincoln's actions an unqualified endorsement. On the other hand, there is obviously plenty of evidence from Lincoln's own statements to show that he despised slavery and very much wanted to end it, and that this was a very significant factor in his decision to prosecute the war.

Nothing that you quoted here about Lincoln's opposition to slavery conflicts with what I wrote. As I said in my last post on this topic, "There is no doubt that Lincoln genuinely detested slavery."

I also pointed out - in accord with what you posted -- that Lincoln did not believe the federal government had the power to abolish slavery in the states. He did, however, believe it had the power to prohibit the extension of slavery into the territories.

Lincoln was an antislavery gradualist, not an abolitionist. This is the main reason why Garrison and other abolitionists were very suspicious of him, at least early on.

My sole claim was that Lincoln did not precipitate a war with the South for the purpose of abolishing slavery. For one thing, early in the war he hoped that some of the secessionist states might rejoin the Union, and he knew they would never do so if this meant losing their slaves.

I also pointed out that the defense of slavery was the major reason why South Carolina and other states in the Deep South seceded, so from their point of view the war was about slavery. But not for Lincoln.

Ghs

I have been reading Lincoln and about Lincoln for some time, and agree with Ghs on this. It is probably important to remember that Lincoln's views evolved over time on this issue, especially in the midst of the Civil War, and especially when the North's fortunes were flagging in that war. Let us not forget that Lincoln at one point wanted to send the slaves back to Africa as well. Although the Lincoln view on slavery is more nuanced than many think, his foremost goal in the Civil War was preservation of the Union. For obvious reasons, that goal is probably most pertinent to the core issues of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 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.
An excellent common sense analysis, Tony. "Individuals and their rights are not a 'product'. . ." An eloquent way of saying that a "market in force" (including 'objectively justifiable force') is a contradiction in terms.
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. 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.
An excellent common sense analysis, Tony. "Individuals and their rights are not a 'product'. . ." An eloquent way of saying that a "market in force" (including 'objectively justifiable force') is a contradiction in terms.

Dennis,

To be honest, maybe only a flash in the pan. I'm stil trying to get my head around the anarchist

position. I mean - dammit - anarchists are rational individualists, too, aren't they!

That's what counts first, in my book. Which makes the min/an divide appear less consequential to me.

I wonder if there is (above all) a deeply visceral distaste for entrenched and arrogant authority that underpins

the ideology of anarchism.

Now THAT I can understand, and will never stop feeling.

Pre-Rand, and CUI, I was almost certainly heading into a vague anarchism, myself - in retrospect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, Peter seems to understand the position of the anarchist very well. Central planning is exactly what is needed where the use of force is concerned--a clear, well-defined plan (i.e., the administration of objective law) which, to the maximum extent possible, eliminates force from the marketplace and human relationships. The anarchist, by definition, can have no such plan, since any entrepreneurial thug can enter the game at any time and start selling his own personal brand of "retaliatory force." It is a "system" tailor-made for the Mafia. The Cosa Nostra is the original "private defense agency."

I cannot understand why you persist in your egregious misrepresentation of the Rothbardian position. You might as well say that strict governmental regulation of candy is necessary, because without a free-market "plan" to prevent the distribution of candy laced with arsenic, any bogus company could enter the market and sell all the poisoned candy it likes. We would also need strict governmental regulation of all schools, because without it any child-molester could set up a bogus school in order to entice children. The list is endless.

This is absolutely nuts. Poison is not candy, just because someone calls it that. Child abuse is not education, just because someone calls it that. And the initiation of force is not retaliatory force, just because someone calls it that.

Consider two hypothetical agencies. The Lipton Agency determines the guilt or innocence of a defendant by reading tea leaves, and the Geller Agency determines guilt or innocence by using psychics. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that rational people could not condemn these and similar agencies as bogus and illegal without the "objective law" supposedly decreed by your government?

Ghs

Let’s descend from the clouds for a moment and concretize your examples.

The Acme Candy Company enters the market and sells arsenic-laced candy to compete with M & M’s and Snickers. As soon as one person dies from eating Acme’s candy, what happens? Publicity about their deadly product promptly puts Acme out of business, Acme’s executives are arrested for endangering the public, and the victim’s heirs recover millions via civil lawsuits.

Sodomite Schools begins offering elementary level classes to young children, but the kids’ parents soon observe alarming signs of abuse on Johnny and Susie’s private parts. They bring this to the attention of other parents, and, overnight, students stop showing up for Sodomite classes. Not only does Sodomite Schools go bankrupt within nano-seconds, but the government puts Sodomite’s teachers and administrators behind bars, and massive civil lawsuits quickly divest those same teachers and administrators of every last dime in their respective bank accounts.

Pray tell, what possible incentive would Acme and Sodomite have to ever start such companies, knowing the dire consequences? The market and the government—limited to its role of protecting individual rights-- work together to totally destroy the perpetrators. People would have to be insane to even think of starting such enterprises.

But now suppose there is no government operating under the constraints of objective law, and private agencies are allowed to start “businesses” consisting of police and court systems which can use physical force to enforce their own versions of “objective law.” The Muslim Brotherhood Protection Agency opens its doors. They don’t use tea leaves or psychics to determine their “laws,” but standards which are totally contrary to that of their competitors. Sharia law, for instance, which a great many muslims in the population consider to represent “justice.”

A substantial segment of the muslim population supports the stoning of wives suspected of infidelity. A newlywed bride of one of MBPA's subscribers smiles at another man, and suddenly finds herself buried in the ground up to her neck. Her head is bombarded with rocks until her skull is fractured and her face is torn to shreds. She had previously subscribed to a different agency but Muslim Brotherhood’s “laws” automatically extend to the wives of their members.

Her previous “Protection Agency” sends its police to her home in an effort to protect her, but they are immediately confronted by the Muslim Brotherhood police, ready to defend their “laws” and their view of "justice" to the death. What do you suppose happens next?

Acme and Sodomite do not have guns to protect their economic “turf.” The Muslim Brotherhood has AK47 rifles, bombs and thousands of supporters cheering them on.

When a society allows private businesses to use force to protect their share of the “market,” there is no more market.

There is just rampant bloodshed, chaos and destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excellent common sense analysis, Tony. "Individuals and their rights are not a 'product'. . ." An eloquent way of saying that a "market in force" (including 'objectively justifiable force') is a contradiction in terms.

Dennis,

To be honest, maybe only a flash in the pan. I'm stil trying to get my head around the anarchist

position. I mean - dammit - anarchists are rational individualists, too, aren't they!

That's what counts first, in my book. Which makes the min/an divide appear less consequential to me.

I wonder if there is (above all) a deeply visceral distaste for entrenched and arrogant authority that underpins

the ideology of anarchism.

Now THAT I can understand, and will never stop feeling.

Pre-Rand, and CUI, I was almost certainly heading into a vague anarchism, myself - in retrospect.

Well, Tony, I believe The Good Intentions Paving Company has an opening for a licensed contractor, if you're interested.

Once their rationalist superhighway is completed, however, I would strongly caution you about following that road to its final destination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, Peter seems to understand the position of the anarchist very well. Central planning is exactly what is needed where the use of force is concerned--a clear, well-defined plan (i.e., the administration of objective law) which, to the maximum extent possible, eliminates force from the marketplace and human relationships. The anarchist, by definition, can have no such plan, since any entrepreneurial thug can enter the game at any time and start selling his own personal brand of "retaliatory force." It is a "system" tailor-made for the Mafia. The Cosa Nostra is the original "private defense agency."
I cannot understand why you persist in your egregious misrepresentation of the Rothbardian position. You might as well say that strict governmental regulation of candy is necessary, because without a free-market "plan" to prevent the distribution of candy laced with arsenic, any bogus company could enter the market and sell all the poisoned candy it likes. We would also need strict governmental regulation of all schools, because without it any child-molester could set up a bogus school in order to entice children. The list is endless. This is absolutely nuts. Poison is not candy, just because someone calls it that. Child abuse is not education, just because someone calls it that. And the initiation of force is not retaliatory force, just because someone calls it that. Consider two hypothetical agencies. The Lipton Agency determines the guilt or innocence of a defendant by reading tea leaves, and the Geller Agency determines guilt or innocence by using psychics. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that rational people could not condemn these and similar agencies as bogus and illegal without the "objective law" supposedly decreed by your government? Ghs
Let’s descend from the clouds for a moment and concretize your examples. The Acme Candy Company enters the market and sells arsenic-laced candy to compete with M & M’s and Snickers. As soon as one person dies from eating Acme’s candy, what happens? Publicity about their deadly product promptly puts Acme out of business, Acme’s executives are arrested for endangering the public, and the victim’s heirs recover millions via civil lawsuits. Sodomite Schools begins offering elementary level classes to young children, but the kids’ parents soon observe alarming signs of abuse on Johnny and Susie’s private parts. They bring this to the attention of other parents, and, overnight, students stop showing up for Sodomite classes. Not only does Sodomite Schools go bankrupt within nano-seconds, but the government puts Sodomite’s teachers and administrators behind bars, and massive civil lawsuits quickly divest those same teachers and administrators of every last dime in their respective bank accounts. Pray tell, what possible incentive would Acme and Sodomite have to ever start such companies, knowing the dire consequences? The market and the government—limited to its role of protecting individual rights-- work together to totally destroy the perpetrators. People would have to be insane to even think of starting such enterprises. But now suppose there is no government operating under the constraints of objective law, and private agencies are allowed to start “businesses” consisting of police and court systems which can use physical force to enforce their own versions of “objective law.” The Muslim Brotherhood Protection Agency opens its doors. They don’t use tea leaves or psychics to determine their “laws,” but standards which are totally contrary to that of their competitors. Sharia law, for instance, which a great many muslims in the population consider to represent “justice.” A substantial segment of the muslim population supports the stoning of wives suspected of infidelity. A newlywed bride of one of MBPA's subscribers smiles at another man, and suddenly finds herself buried in the ground up to her neck. Her head is bombarded with rocks until her skull is fractured and her face is torn to shreds. She had previously subscribed to a different agency but Muslim Brotherhood’s “laws” automatically extend to the wives of their members. Her previous “Protection Agency” sends its police to her home in an effort to protect her, but they are immediately confronted by the Muslim Brotherhood police, ready to defend their “laws” and their view of "justice" to the death. What do you suppose happens next? Acme and Sodomite do not have guns to protect their economic “turf.” The Muslim Brotherhood has AK47 rifles, bombs and thousands of supporters cheering them on. When a society allows private businesses to use force to protect their share of the “market,” there is no more market. There is just rampant bloodshed, chaos and destruction.

You have shifted ground. There are two separate and distinct issues here:

1} Can "objective law" be defined and identified without a monopolistic government? This is a theoretical question.

2) If the answer to the above is yes, then could private agencies effectively enforce objective law? This is a practical question.

Your argument thus far has revolved around issue #1 -- the theoretical problem -- and that was the issue I was addressing in my post. I maintained, as I have repeatedly in previous posts, that we don't need a government to ascertain objective law. You disagreed, or at least I thought you did.

But now you have given up the theoretical ghost. You have conceded, if only implicitly, that we can determine objective law without government, for we clearly know that the Sharia agency is acting unjustly. (The same is true of your other examples.) You now want to know how a market justice system could deal with such problems on a practical level.

Okay, we can discuss this issue, just as we can discuss the "rampant bloodshed, chaos and destruction" that governments have brought about throughout history. But first I want an explicit surrender from you on issue #1. Do you now concede that people would be able to distinguish between just and unjust laws, including just and unjust procedures, in a market system, without a monopolistic government?

You don't need to post a picture of a white flag. A simple statement will do.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But now suppose there is no government operating under the constraints of objective law, and private agencies are allowed to start “businesses” consisting of police and court systems which can use physical force to enforce their own versions of “objective law.” The Muslim Brotherhood Protection Agency opens its doors. They don’t use tea leaves or psychics to determine their “laws,” but standards which are totally contrary to that of their competitors. Sharia law, for instance, which a great many muslims in the population consider to represent “justice.”

A substantial segment of the muslim population supports the stoning of wives suspected of infidelity. A newlywed bride of one of MBPA's subscribers smiles at another man, and suddenly finds herself buried in the ground up to her neck. Her head is bombarded with rocks until her skull is fractured and her face is torn to shreds. She had previously subscribed to a different agency but Muslim Brotherhood’s “laws” automatically extend to the wives of their members.

Her previous “Protection Agency” sends its police to her home in an effort to protect her, but they are immediately confronted by the Muslim Brotherhood police, ready to defend their “laws” and their view of "justice" to the death. What do you suppose happens next?

What I suppose would happen next is the same thing that would happen when your government confronts an armed Muslim gang that is violating individual rights, refuses to submit, and leaves no option but violent suppression. There would be fighting and bloodshed. So your point is....?

As I have pointed out several times, but as I need to point out again, since you have ignored the point every time, we began this discussion with the presumption of an ideal Randian government -- a government that could not exist except within a predominantly rational society. I noted that if you insist on using this "ideal type," then I may likewise employ the ideal types of rational justice agencies.

This is why I began with the example of an agency that adopts the same laws and procedures as your ideal government, but is more efficient and less expensive than your government. I then asked why people should not have the right to withdraw their voluntary financing from your government and do business with its equally just but more efficient and less expensive mirror image. You pretty much ignored this issue, of course, substituting some glittering generalities about "objective law" instead of explaining how the same law can be objective when enforced by one agency (a government) but nonobjective when enforced by another agency.

And now you introduce the possibility of a Sharia Agency, which of course sets up an entirely new set of presumptions, since we are no longer dealing with ideal types in a rational society.

Okay, since you wish to move beyond the boundaries of ideal types and discuss irrational and unjust agencies, let's apply to same presumption to your government.

Your government gets off to a good start, but over time the population becomes predominantly Muslim. Over time, as more and more radical Muslims get elected to office, the legal system is changed. One change is that adultery is now proclaimed illegal, and women found guilty in government courts, which now follow Sharia law, are to be stoned.

So what would you do in this case? Would you respond: Okay, this is bad, but our only recourse is to vote the radical Muslims out of office. After all, we cannot have private agencies springing up that challenge a legitimate government by attempting to protect innocent women with guns. There would be rampant bloodshed, chaos, and destruction! It is better to let thousands of innocent women perish than to have "anarchy."

Will you now tell me that Sharia law is not objective law, so any government that enforces it cannot claim legitimacy? That would be great, except for your prior insistence that only a government can define and determine "objective law." Will you now insist that only a government that enforces individual rights can claim legitimacy, and that such rights can be ascertained rationally, regardless of what the Sharia government might say?

If this is what you would say, then welcome to the small but rational band of anarchists! :laugh:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . people would be able to distinguish between just and unjust laws, including just and unjust procedures, in a market system, without a monopolistic government?

Ghs

My own position is, some people. But I really have nothing to say about this "market system" unless I'm shown one in operation. (A nice way of saying I'm not getting into this argument except both major parties seem to be seeking political-philosophical justification through perfection. In this they have common cause with Ayn Rand who, though, sought most of her perfection in actual people and didn't dwell too much on practicalities. Mixing up her art with philosophy was disastrous. Her art was essentially surreal.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . people would be able to distinguish between just and unjust laws, including just and unjust procedures, in a market system, without a monopolistic government? Ghs
My own position is, some people. But I really have nothing to say about this "market system" unless I'm shown one in operation. (A nice way of saying I'm not getting into this argument except both major parties seem to be seeking political-philosophical justification through perfection. In this they have common cause with Ayn Rand who, though, sought most of her perfection in actual people and didn't dwell too much on practicalities. Mixing up her art with philosophy was disastrous. Her art was essentially surreal.) --Brant

How about an ideal Randian government that does nothing but protect individual rights and is financed without taxation, by voluntary means?

We have never seen this kind of government in operation because nothing like it has ever existed. Do you have anything to say about this ideal Randian government?

The relevant issue here is whether objective laws can, in principle, be defined and identified by rational means. That some individuals may not, cannot, or will not do this is irrelevant. There are many, many rational procedures in sundry areas (ethics, mathematics, science, etc.) that many people may not, cannot, or will not undertake.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

I am not at all clear what you mean by "objective law," so I ask that you clarify this matter for me by answering two straightforward questions.

1) Would you say that current anti-drug laws are examples of "objective laws"?

2) Would you say that Obama Care is an instance of "objective law"?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . people would be able to distinguish between just and unjust laws, including just and unjust procedures, in a market system, without a monopolistic government? Ghs
My own position is, some people. But I really have nothing to say about this "market system" unless I'm shown one in operation. (A nice way of saying I'm not getting into this argument except both major parties seem to be seeking political-philosophical justification through perfection. In this they have common cause with Ayn Rand who, though, sought most of her perfection in actual people and didn't dwell too much on practicalities. Mixing up her art with philosophy was disastrous. Her art was essentially surreal.) --Brant

How about an ideal Randian government that does nothing but protect individual rights and is financed without taxation, by voluntary means?

We have never seen this kind of government in operation because nothing like it has ever existed. Do you have anything to say about this ideal Randian government?

The relevant issue here is whether objective laws can, in principle, be defined and identified by rational means. That some individuals may not, cannot, or will not do this is irrelevant. There are many, many rational procedures in sundry areas (ethics, mathematics, science, etc.) that many people may not, cannot, or will not undertake.

Ghs

I see the ideal Randian government as necessary for orientation and clarity--something to strive for by moving toward more and more freedom under the system we have (but may not have much longer). We will never get there unless it's a very small geo-political unit. We will never achieve the ideal except in that way if it's yours, mine or Rand's. My actual ideal is in critical thinking, rationality, courage and values cultivated in individual human beings through philosophy and culture. If we can achieve a culture dedicated to freedom--moving to more and more freedom over time--it will be so psychologically liberating it will politically snowball and few will care about any anarchist-minarchist debate compared to having one hell of a good time pursuing happiness. But today it's different. Today we see it as important because we are trying to build the foundation for freedom with different sets of plans. Ironically, I think competing philosophies with one winning will also in the end result in competing governments with one winning, so my personal focus is individual rights from within Leviathan because I cannot get out except, maybe, psychologically. For me to achieve that I have to be more of an Utopian--be more like Rand, you, and Dennis.

--Brant

striving for coherence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . people would be able to distinguish between just and unjust laws, including just and unjust procedures, in a market system, without a monopolistic government? Ghs
My own position is, some people. But I really have nothing to say about this "market system" unless I'm shown one in operation. (A nice way of saying I'm not getting into this argument except both major parties seem to be seeking political-philosophical justification through perfection. In this they have common cause with Ayn Rand who, though, sought most of her perfection in actual people and didn't dwell too much on practicalities. Mixing up her art with philosophy was disastrous. Her art was essentially surreal.) --Brant

How about an ideal Randian government that does nothing but protect individual rights and is financed without taxation, by voluntary means?

We have never seen this kind of government in operation because nothing like it has ever existed. Do you have anything to say about this ideal Randian government?

The relevant issue here is whether objective laws can, in principle, be defined and identified by rational means. That some individuals may not, cannot, or will not do this is irrelevant. There are many, many rational procedures in sundry areas (ethics, mathematics, science, etc.) that many people may not, cannot, or will not undertake.

Ghs

I see the ideal Randian government as necessary for orientation and clarity--something to strive for by moving toward more and more freedom under the system we have (but may not have much longer). We will never get there unless it's a very small geo-political unit. We will never achieve the ideal except in that way if it's yours, mine or Rand's. My actual ideal is in critical thinking, rationality, courage and values cultivated in individual human beings through philosophy and culture. If we can achieve a culture dedicated to freedom--moving to more and more freedom over time--it will be so psychologically liberating it will politically snowball and few will care about any anarchist-minarchist debate compared to having one hell of a good time pursuing happiness. But today it's different. Today we see it as important because we are trying to build the foundation for freedom with different sets of plans. Ironically, I think competing philosophies with one winning will also in the end result in competing governments with one winning, so my personal focus is individual rights from within Leviathan because I cannot get out except, maybe, psychologically. For me to achieve that I have to be more of an Utopian--be more like Rand, you, and Dennis.

--Brant

striving for coherence

This is a very reasonable response. Thank you.

Like you, I would be ecstatic if we could ever establish an ideal Randian government. There remains of course the perennial problem of the "corruption of power," but unless this became a fairly serious problem, or unless the government became manifestly inefficient, I doubt if there would be much, if any, demand for competing agencies.

I have said before than the Rothbardian system would probably emerge only after a truly limited government has been established. If dissatisfied, say, with the efficiency of government services, customers could refuse to pay for those services. If these citizens had previously signed contracts for such services, then they could refuse to renew those contracts after they expire.

Or if the government becomes so lax and inefficient as to violate its contractual obligations, then this would release citizens from their financial obligations. Perhaps it will be said that unsatisfied customers should sue the government for breach of contract. Here there would be two options.

The dispute could be decided in a government court, in which case we would have an interested party arbitrating and rendering a verdict in its own case, which is impermissible, owing to lack of objectivity.

The other option would be to have the dispute arbitrated by an impartial third party, a private agency that is not affiliated with either party but one that is acceptable to both parties. In this case the government would be bound by the decision of a nongovernmental agency, and we would have taken the first step on the path to a system of competing agencies.

All such speculations aside, what is the current cash value, so to speak, of the anarchist case? Its main value lies in its ability to delegitimize and demystify current governments, including the U.S. government. It teaches people, including O'ists, that there is nothing sacrosanct about governments. They are merely associations of individuals that use force to enforce their wills. Some governments are better than others, of course, but in no instance should we abandon our rational judgment in deference to people who hide behind the mask of law known as "government."

As Rand said in "What is Capitalism?" man is "a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and its products." Man is not "the property of the tribe (the state, the society, the collective) that may dispose of him in any way it pleases, that may dictate his convictions, prescribe the course of his life, control his work and expropriate his products."

None of this changes just because some morons manage to get themselves elected to political office, after which they cloak their criminal activities in the mystical mantle of government. This is the lesson of libertarian anarchism, and it is an extraordinarily important lesson.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The response to 9/11 finally convinced me we are being ruled by power-seeking morons and cowards pulling the levers at Project X. The first Gulf War didn't quite do that for me, even though the elder Bush through basic incompetence actually fomented policies that caused Hussein to think he had an American green light to invade Kuwait. He should have known better after what the U.S. did to its lackey Noriega in Panama. But when I saw the build up for the second Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, I got cold feet real fast for Bush the younger was pushing crap for justification for a conflict he was determined not to avoid. Then ten years of war shit still going on just made me madder and madder. It's now shit and political shit it seems all the way down all the way back historically to the embracing of the Constitution of this country. This all seems natural enough in the various courses of human history reflected in the lives of most if not all countries. Millions die here and millions die there and not only from wars. Progress continues overall for generally things are getting better and better even if right now here in the U.S.A. things seem to be getting worse. You need the perspective of centuries to see these things, but our lives are short. There is a lot of good in this country of ours, but that good has been camouflage for the bad and is fertilizer for the growth of American warriors going to another unnecessary war.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said before than the Rothbardian system would probably emerge only after a truly limited government has been established. If dissatisfied, say, with the efficiency of government services, customers could refuse to pay for those services. If these citizens had previously signed contracts for such services, then they could refuse to renew those contracts after they expire.

George,

This seems to be synonymous with the view that a truly Rothbardian style market anarchist society can never be established, since the Randian style limited government that would be needed to precede it can never be established as a starting point.

This is a very different perspective that the agorist, counter-economic views of people like SEK3 and, now, Kevin Carson, right? Also, the scenario shown in "Alongside Night", in which a market anarchist society was established from within the wreckage of a society destroyed by a predatory fascist government. Schulman's point was that trying to reform the government into a fiscally responsible limited government would actually be an impediment to the establishment of a market anarchist society. Whereas you seem to be saying that setting up such a limited government is actually a precondition for the establishment of a market anarchist society, but a precondition that can never be brought about.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said before than the Rothbardian system would probably emerge only after a truly limited government has been established. If dissatisfied, say, with the efficiency of government services, customers could refuse to pay for those services. If these citizens had previously signed contracts for such services, then they could refuse to renew those contracts after they expire.
George, This seems to be synonymous with the view that a truly Rothbardian style market anarchist society can never be established, since the Randian style limited government that would be needed to precede it can never be established as a starting point. This is a very different perspective that the agorist, counter-economic views of people like SEK3 and, now, Kevin Carson, right? Also, the scenario shown in "Alongside Night", in which a market anarchist society was established from within the wreckage of a society destroyed by a predatory fascist government. Schulman's point was that trying to reform the government into a fiscally responsible limited government would actually be an impediment to the establishment of a market anarchist society. Whereas you seem to be saying that setting up such a limited government is actually a precondition for the establishment of a market anarchist society, but a precondition that can never be brought about. Martin

Martin,

I said "probably."

I posted other comments on this subject earlier on this thread. I noted that local anarchistic communities might emerge if American governments were to experience dramatic breakdowns. But this would probably entail a "Mad Max" scenario, and I would much rather see evolutionary and (relatively) peaceful progress toward a free society instead of seeing pockets of freedom rise from the ruins of a devastated America.

In Common Sense, in response to those Americans who praised the supposed genius of the British Constitution, Thomas Paine said that Britain owed its freedom to the constitution of its people, not to the constitution of its government. I would apply the same reasoning to America. Until and unless a significant percentage of the American people understand and accept the libertarian principles of individual rights, etc., then there is no hope of stopping the increase of power. There may be temporary slowdowns in some areas here and there, depending on which political party is in power, but in the long run statism will prevail without a sea-change in public opinion.

Here is an example that I used to use in my Cato lectures on American history. 18th and 19th century Americans used to bitch about high taxes, just as we do now. But what tax rate did they consider excessive?

As the War of 1812 got underway, President James Madison wrote a letter to former President Thomas Jefferson soliciting his advice. Madison said that an emergency tax was needed to finance the war, and he wanted to know how high this could go. Jefferson recommended a temporary tax of 1 percent or less on taxable property. Jefferson added that the government might get away with a tax as high as 1.5 percent, but anything higher than this would be excessive and might even provoke a revolution!

Nowadays the "low tax" crowd talk about reducing federal taxes to maybe 20 percent -- and this doesn't even count state and municipal taxes. And these are normal, not emergency, taxes.

Our gooses are cooked, minarchist and anarchist alike, so long as attitudes like this prevail.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The creation of a government is an establishment of a social contract, and I don't see how it is much different from a democratic agreement on what an individuals fundamental rights ought to be.

If people can form a government, they can certainly from anything less than a government that's made of the same stuff. Why is it unrealistic that people could decide what the laws ought to be without deciding who should have the exclusive authority to enforce those laws?

The power of the social contract is amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have shifted ground. There are two separate and distinct issues here:

1} Can "objective law" be defined and identified without a monopolistic government? This is a theoretical question.

2) If the answer to the above is yes, then could private agencies effectively enforce objective law? This is a practical question.

Your argument thus far has revolved around issue #1 -- the theoretical problem -- and that was the issue I was addressing in my post. I maintained, as I have repeatedly in previous posts, that we don't need a government to ascertain objective law. You disagreed, or at least I thought you did.

But now you have given up the theoretical ghost. You have conceded, if only implicitly, that we can determine objective law without government, for we clearly know that the Sharia agency is acting unjustly. (The same is true of your other examples.) You now want to know how a market justice system could deal with such problems on a practical level.

Okay, we can discuss this issue, just as we can discuss the "rampant bloodshed, chaos and destruction" that governments have brought about throughout history. But first I want an explicit surrender from you on issue #1. Do you now concede that people would be able to distinguish between just and unjust laws, including just and unjust procedures, in a market system, without a monopolistic government?

You don't need to post a picture of a white flag. A simple statement will do.

Ghs

I would love to be able to post a white flag. Or maybe one of these: desktop_v_800_600.jpg

Then maybe I could get some sleep.

My scenario was simply intended to explain why central planning is, on a practical level, absolutely mandatory for the objective control of force but totally unnecessary for the prevention of villainy by businesses operating in a free market. I used the extreme example of Sharia law to underscore the fact that, in any society with cultural diversity, there will be large segments of the population eager to impose their warped view of justice on those who do not share their viewpoint.

You asked the question: Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that rational people could not condemn these and similar agencies as bogus and illegal without the "objective law" supposedly decreed by your government?”

Your question seemed to assume that “rational people” will somehow stamp out agencies who wield force unjustly without the need for a single monopoly government. Using the example of an agency adhering to Sharia law emphasizes the fact that there will always be plenty of people who think they are being “rational” no matter how egregious the conduct of their “private defense agency,” and stopping them will not be as simple as you implied. In any realistic projection of a rational society, the vast majority of people would condemn the actions of the Sharia agency. That’s why we need the “central planning” of a single government agency with a monopoly on the legitimate use of objectively limited force subject to democratic control. There would be no such regulatory democratic control mechanism on the use of coercion under anarcho-capitalism.

Now you argue that I “have conceded, if only implicitly, that we can determine objective law without government, for we clearly know that the Sharia agency is acting unjustly.”

It’s certainly true that the majority of people will know that the Sharia agency is acting unjustly, but this does not mean that we can determine objective law without government. Again, I was stressing the fact that private agencies could get away with perpetrating ungodly mayhem in the name of “justice,” and the only way other defense agencies could stop them is with additional mayhem. A single government operating within the confines of objective law would prevent such mayhem.

But the fact that a majority of people condemn obvious instances of “legitimized” injustice is not a sufficient condition for establishing a code of objective law. Procedural safeguards, jurisprudence, constitutions, legislatures, and courts are all necessary for the definition of objective law, and it is only through such a single, established code that we can clarify the limits within which a legitimate government can operate.

To make this clear, let’s examine less extreme examples of rogue private agencies that compete with other such defense agencies. One agency may sanction the use of “retaliatory force” to kill “murderous” abortion doctors. Another agency approves the use of deadly force against bullies who threaten to start fights in beer halls. Another agency announces that henceforth it will arrest anyone using incendiary language in public places where there is the potential for inciting deadly riots. Another agency—opposed to intellectual property--sends in its police to recover money “stolen” from its clients via lawsuits for copyright infringement

When those agencies clash, the outcome will not be that much different from the Sharia Agency scenario.

These are just some obvious examples where there is a potential for rampant disagreement about the meaning of objectively defined retaliatory force. There are numerous other areas where “rational people” can potentially disagree. The only way to maintain any semblance of civilization is for there to be one democratically controlled agency charged with defining an objective code under which everyone agrees to co-exist, even while advocating for changes in laws with which they disagree.

So, I’m sorry, but I cannot agree that everyone can somehow reach a rational consensus on objective law without government.

I know you posted some other questions apparently directed at me, but I’m going to have to call it a night.

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