Defining Anarchy

[syrakusos]

Adam said:" ... thinking that we should agree to a definition of anarchism."

It is difficult to work via negatives, like calling health unsickness or wealth unpoverty. We have the same problem with atheism. Personally, I accept maybe as a matter of faith that there are beings greater than humans who might actually create planets and maybe even created ours and maybe even us. I look to Arthur C. Clarke's "Sentinel" and Carl Sagan;s Contact. But that is very different from any of usual claims of any of the world's usual religions. So, "atheism" is pretty close, even though it depends on a negative.

So, too with an-archy.

Technically, anarchy refers to those times in Athenian politics when no archon was elected. The Assembly still met. They only lacked one (or two) elected officials. No archon = anarchy. And yet the town survived. (Go figure....) So, is the Assembly the same as the Government? Other offices existed and were chosen usually by lot, sometimes allocated by phratry or tribe and then by lot.

We have not really determined the point at which society continues without government. We have not defined government. If we go with the Weberian ("Randian") definition that government is the institution with a legal monopoly on the use of force, then we have to deal with the deeper problem of law. How can government be granted a LEGAL monopoly, except by an institution antecedent to government? Can a government grant itself the legal right to this or that? How would we determine which if any "competing" claims to be the government is valid, except by the rule of "the last man standing." If so, then every government is valid and no government requires consent of the governed.

My definition:

Anarchy is when an actor determines for himself whether to hire via contract, and whom to hire via contract, for adjudication of disputes.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[tjohnson]

1. One who believes in or advocates the absence of government in all forms (compare anarchism), especially one who works toward the realization of such.
2. One who disregards laws and social norms as a form of rebellion against authority.
3. By extension from previous sense, one who promotes chaos and lawlessness; a nihilist or terrorist.
4. One who resents outside control or influence on his or her life, in particular a government, and therefore desires the absence of political control.

I don't think it's possible for humans to live together without laws - to do so we would be animals. If you have laws then you need an agency to enforce them and so government is formed. That being said I see nothing wrong with #4 above if you simply substitutre 'absence' with 'mimimization' or something.

[Selene]

1. One who believes in or advocates the absence of government in all forms (compare anarchism), especially one who works toward the realization of such.
2. One who disregards laws and social norms as a form of rebellion against authority.
3. By extension from previous sense, one who promotes chaos and lawlessness; a nihilist or terrorist.
4. One who resents outside control or influence on his or her life, in particular a government, and therefore desires the absence of political control.

I don't think it's possible for humans to live together without laws - to do so we would be animals. If you have laws then you need an agency to enforce them and so government is formed. That being said I see nothing wrong with #4 above if you simply substitutre 'absence' with 'mimimization' or something.

GS:

Good work. I also have no problem with number four (4). The crazy eyed bearded bomb throwing anarchists image has been the social image for almost one hundred and fifty [150] years.

File:WWIposter2.jpg

It really doesn't work anymore.

Adam

[Christopher]

I like the background history on anarchy. As for a definition, ditto for #4 of GS's post

[Peter]

Michael E. Marotta wrote:

How can government be granted a LEGAL monopoly, except by an institution antecedent to government?

End quote

I always thought it was simultaneous with the signing, and ratification by the individual States. You are over-thinking the answer. Before the signing, it was just a bunch of State representatives. After the signing, they represented The United States of America.

Michael wrote

My definition:

Anarchy is when an actor determines for himself whether to hire via contract, and whom to hire via contract, for adjudication of disputes.

End quote.

Nobody I know uses the word Anarchy in that way. I go to the store without the government knowing, and I can settle a dispute with my neighbor about his dog chasing my cat, but it is not Anarchy.

I am going to pee now, and nobody better try to stop me.

I like your humor Michael.

How about a Sliding scale of political worth next? I still like that Kelley-ian idea. How about Personal worth, from (avoid, delete their letters unread, and shun = Zero) to (shake hands with, 100 points.)

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[syrakusos]

Capitalism -- "1. the economic system in which all or most of the means of production and distribution, as land, factories, railroads, etc., are privately owned and operated for profit, originally under fully competitive conditions; it has been generally characterized by a tendency toward concentration of wealth, and in its latter phase, by the growth of great corporations, increased government control, etc. 2. the principles, methods, interests, power, influence, etc., of capitalists, especially of those with large holdings. 3. the state of being a capitalist." --Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Cleveland, 1968.

Capitalism -- "2. An economic system in which capital and capitalists play the principle part., specif., one in which the ownership of land and natural wealth, of production and distribution and exchange of goods, and the operation of the system itself, are effected by private enterprise and control under competitive conditions." -- Merriam-Webster's Third Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1961.

Capitalism -- "1. an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." -- Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield, Massachusetts, 2003.

If we are going to quote dictionaries, then this is not going to be very fruitful.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Aaron]

Adam said:" ... thinking that we should agree to a definition of anarchism."

We have not really determined the point at which society continues without government. We have not defined government. If we go with the Weberian ("Randian") definition that government is the institution with a legal monopoly on the use of force, then we have to deal with the deeper problem of law.

I'd actually thought the Randian definition referred to a 'legitimate monopoly' on the use of force. I see now that your quote is correct, though 'legal monopoly' seems more circular and problematic. 'Legitimate' would refer to the use of force by the government being in accordance with individual rights, i.e. the actions of a just government. I thought Rand meant this, aiming toward a normative definition of government. What may be a more useful (if cynical) definition would be Rothbard's, of government as a monopoly on the legitimized use of force. That is, an entity which - justly deserved or not - generally is seen by those under its power as the only legitimate institution of wielding force.

I think this is a reasonable definition to start with here in that can fit the real world range of governments from western mixed economy to totalitarianism. It also provides a clear path to what would count as 'anarchy'. If people generally recognized multiple entities as having valid authority in wielding force, then the definition would not apply; this seems to be what market anarchists identify with. However, also if the populace stops recognizing the authority and justice of an incompetent or collapsing/collapsed government, then the definition wouldn't apply. This seems to encompass well the more common use of 'anarchy', and would apply often to much of Somalia, or Haiti now.

My definition:

Anarchy is when an actor determines for himself whether to hire via contract, and whom to hire via contract, for adjudication of disputes.

The resulting definition seems too narrow - encompassing only market anarchy. If that's really what you specifically want to define that's OK, but if the goal is 'anarchy', I think you have to also include the 'lawlessness' cases.

Aaron

[Selene]

Adam said:" ... thinking that we should agree to a definition of anarchism."

We have not really determined the point at which society continues without government. We have not defined government. If we go with the Weberian ("Randian") definition that government is the institution with a legal monopoly on the use of force, then we have to deal with the deeper problem of law.

I'd actually thought the Randian definition referred to a 'legitimate monopoly' on the use of force. I see now that your quote is correct, though 'legal monopoly' seems more circular and problematic. 'Legitimate' would refer to the use of force by the government being in accordance with individual rights, i.e. the actions of a just government. I thought Rand meant this, aiming toward a normative definition of government. What may be a more useful (if cynical) definition would be Rothbard's, of government as a monopoly on the legitimized use of force. That is, an entity which - justly deserved or not - generally is seen by those under its power as the only legitimate institution of wielding force.

I think this is a reasonable definition to start with here in that can fit the real world range of governments from western mixed economy to totalitarianism. It also provides a clear path to what would count as 'anarchy'. If people generally recognized multiple entities as having valid authority in wielding force, then the definition would not apply; this seems to be what market anarchists identify with. However, also if the populace stops recognizing the authority and justice of an incompetent or collapsing/collapsed government, then the definition wouldn't apply. This seems to encompass well the more common use of 'anarchy', and would apply often to much of Somalia, or Haiti now.

My definition:

Anarchy is when an actor determines for himself whether to hire via contract, and whom to hire via contract, for adjudication of disputes.

The resulting definition seems too narrow - encompassing only market anarchy. If that's really what you specifically want to define that's OK, but if the goal is 'anarchy', I think you have to also include the 'lawlessness' cases.

Aaron

Good points Aaron:

Long time between posts. I do not know you and you have been a member since '06 - I joined about two (2) years ago. I attended NBI when it first opened in NY City back in the sixties.

Adam

[syrakusos]

The resulting definition seems too narrow - encompassing only market anarchy. If that's really what you specifically want to define that's OK, but if the goal is 'anarchy', I think you have to also include the 'lawlessness' cases.

I take much from Wolf deVoon (See here: http://wolfdevoon.tripod.com/) who posts to this site on occasion. He demonstrated his theories in a novella, The Good Walk Alone. As a lawyer, deVoon placed law ahead of or antecedent to government. Government is a mechanism for instantiating law. Other modes remain valid, as well. My own studies in social science support that view. From history, anthropology and sociology, it is clear that societies have cultures and law is an attribute of culture and governments come and go though the law tends to be more tenacious. Aristotle pointed out that tradition is stronger than law. Laws come from assemblies that can change like the winds. I believe that it is in Plutarch's biography of Coriolanus that the Romans have surrounded a city and demanded its surrender and the city fathers ask for new terms. The Roman says, Look the senate voted on this and we're here to prosecute a war. And the city fathers say to go back to Rome and ask the senate to vote again. And the Roman asks, "Do you think we are Greeks?"

So, the point is that governments can come and go, but laws remain and they do so with greater stability when they derive from culture, as opposed to be being imposed (by conquest, etc.).

Therefore, a definition of anarchy would include government as an element. Government would be a monopoly. Societies have monopolies in religion, for instance. (Rome and Mecca today are good examples of that.) Societies have economic monopolies such as central banks and state-owned automobile factories or trade barriers in support of farmers, etc., etc. Even the practice of law is a legal monopoly. Some societies have linguistic monopolies. There are all kinds of monopolies. Government per se is a monopoly in defense and adjudication.

Therefore, anarchy is a pluralistic market in those services.

We have that today. Multinational, transnational, international, and globalist businesses transcend local monopoly governments and find their own solutions to defense and adjudication.

[Aaron]

Good to meet you Adam. I've been a long-time member of the three sites that resulted after SOLOHQ - OL, SOLOP, and RoR, though for reasons of time had become active almost solely at SOLOP. I won't have much time for a couple months still, but hope to be more active again on the other sites.

Aaron

[Peter]

Michael M. wrote:

So, the point is that governments can come and go, but laws remain and they do so with greater stability when they derive from culture, as opposed to be being imposed (by conquest, etc.).

end quote

I think “common law” is what you are referring to. The English monarchs came and went but English Common Law remained. After the Norman Conquest in 1066, French culture was imposed, but rather than sticking, the English despise The Frogs to this day.

Anarchy, as I have said, is a manifestation of one of the first “untaught feelings” we have as a child: Personal Sovereignty.

What is mine, is mine. What is yours, is yours.

If you hog, there will be a struggle.

I will do what is right for me.

From this earliest “untaught feeling” which is universally owned by all humans, springs common law, with all the myriad differences common to human cultures.

Michael M. wrote and I cobbled together:

Therefore, a definition of anarchy would include government as an element . . . . Government per se is a monopoly in defense and adjudication.

end quote

No monopoly in anything except defense and adjudication? No one will accept that definition, though in your next quote, you express a somewhat different sentiment. Certainly a Rational Anarchist like George H. Smith, would NOT accept the above definition of Anarchism, nor will I. In the above quote you are talking about a Randian Government within a certain geographical area. Do you AGREE that once established, a government will not wither away? Most individual citizens are vested in it.

Even if only an interim, Utopian Anarchic Society is established it will need to be in a failed country like Haiti, or in space beyond all jurisdictions. It would need to be a Planned Community, with anarchy as a universally desired cultural ideal for the people who join the colony.

Michael M. wrote:

Therefore, anarchy is a pluralistic market in those services. We have that today. Multinational, transnational, international, and globalist businesses transcend local monopoly governments and find their own solutions to defense and adjudication.

End quote

As a Randian I have NO problem with multinationals, even if American Courts have no jurisdiction if there is a disagreement. It is just not what most Anarchists or Randians mean when they say the word Anarchy. It is a lack of government within a specified geographical area, not a market beyond jurisdictions. Since every Anarchist has a different definition there is no perfect dictionary definition.

Anyway, plural defense agencies, not under a superior umbrella defense agency, within the same territory, don’t exist for long. Multinational businesses, not under a country, or global government are interim systems not a Rational Anarchic community.

Let’s look at the conventional wisdom.

From Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: an•ar•chy

Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\

Function: noun

Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-

Date: 1539

1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

3 : anarchism

Main Entry: an•ar•chism

Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-ˌki-zəm, -ˌnär-\

Function: noun

Date: 1642

1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Learn more about "Anarchism" and related topics at Britannica.com

End quote

Notice that, for more info about Anarchism, they ironically refer you to Britannica and not to the more Anarchic Wikipedia.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon is a combination of a dictionary and a brief Encyclopedic article:

Anarchism

Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 112.

End quote

Educated, Rational Anarchists usually argue with Rand. George H. Smith said, and I am paraphrasing, that the Lexicon definition is one of the dumbest things, Rand said, and when shown a shorter version in OPAR Smith said, that is one of the stupidest things Peikoff ever said.

This is an “open” Objectivist site, and I like debate, but when you argue with “US,” like, Smith, you must include a refutation of what Rand said, discussing the essentials, and not minutia. Limited Randian Government IS an ideal reality. And so to you apparently, is Anarchism. But I agree with Rand’s expanded definition. I truly “think” there is something wrong with people who espouse Anarchism.

You may want to be an Anarchist, or just like the rebellious sound of it, but you need to take your system to its logical conclusion. If an anarchist cannot kill, then he is a slave.

I have observed two types of anarchists. Educated anarchists, and Free range anarchists.

There are free range, philosophically uneducated Anarchists who seek unfettered territories or join motorcycle gangs to experience lawlessness, which to them, is freedom.

As a former educator, I am interested in what point, the innate sense of Personal Sovereignty, combined with social interaction skills taught by parents and teachers, changes to anarchic behavior: “I will do what I please until another human (or governmental agency) persuades or forces me to stop.” I know that with free range Anarchists criminal behavior usually begins with lying as a way of life, at an early age.

Then there are the philosophically educated Anarchists. They read Smith or Rothbard, and think they are onto something. I have no idea how many Anarchist start by reading Rand, but I would estimate that out of the millions of fans of Rand, fifty become spokesmen for Anarchism.

There is something free range, philosophically uneducated and Philosophically educated Anarchists need to understand. There are women who ride on the back or drive their own motorcycles, but overall, very few women will ever sign up for Anarchy. They are physically weaker, and they lack the aggressive testosterone-driven spirit of even a small tom cat.

If confronted ONCE by a larger, threatening male, and a smaller guy knows he is going to lose, he will back down and give up his lunch. But the second time the smaller male will be carrying a gun.

A female will just not put herself into harms way. She will never be an Anarchist. My seemingly weird contention, born out by reality, is true: Anarchism is a sexually HOMO-genus grouping. The Klingon females out there are few and far between.

“Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam” or today is a good day to die, will not catch on with hew-mon females.

An Anarchist Utopian Society will be inhabited by homosexual males. It will not be multi-generation, though if it were to be, I imagine, test tube babies, and the birthing chambers of The Borg. Resistance is futile.

Aaron wrote:

I think this is a reasonable definition to start with here in that can fit the real world range of governments from western mixed economy to totalitarianism. It also provides a clear path to what would count as 'anarchy'. If people generally recognized multiple entities as having valid authority in wielding force, then the definition would not apply; this seems to be what market anarchists identify with. However, also if the populace stops recognizing the authority and justice of an incompetent or collapsing/collapsed government, then the definition wouldn't apply. This seems to encompass well the more common use of 'anarchy', and would apply often to much of Somalia, or Haiti now.

End quote

Rand would say Anarchism would be on a sliding scale, of zero to a hundred, down there near zero with the Totalitarians. I would agree with her. Every interim anarchic society quickly becomes hierarchical, with might making right.

Let us hypothesize that zero to twenty, would include totalitarians, benevolent dictators, and anarchists while limited Constitutional, Laissez Faire Capitalist society would be 100.

I think what many are saying is that Randian Government would be about a 95 and a Utopian Anarchism would be a one hundred. And that I do not agree with. Reality and human nature would intervene.

Perhaps when we evolve into Vulcans . . .

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

Are there any other definitions, red herrings or straw men that you wish to raise?

If not, would you be so kind as to pick a definition and propose it.

This way we can argue around a fixed proposition and either agree with it, modify it, reject it, or make a counter definition [singular] and debate it.

This is, frankly, getting tedious. I would gladly try to help you with the "quote" function, which I am barely ept at.

Fair enough. I know Michael M. and Chris [California] and I have mentioned the difficulty in reading some of your posts.

Adam

[tjohnson]

....the English despise The Frogs to this day.

As soon I read this I stopped reading. I don't think I've been missing anything in these REALLY long posts.

[Peter]

I wrote:

....the English despise The Frogs to this day.

and received this reply:

As soon I read this I stopped reading. I don't think I've been missing anything in these REALLY long posts.

end quote

OK. What I said was not PC. And historically there have been several wars since 1066 between France and England. My basis for the word "Frogs" comes from the novels of Patrick O'Brien. No you have probably not missed anything from my posts. If you had read them it may have pissed you off even more. Or perhaps you have lost something. But that is what archives are for.

Adam wrote:

Are there any other definitions, red herrings or straw men that you wish to raise? If not, would you be so kind as to pick a definition and propose it.

end quote

I prefer straw men and I will be sure to include a red herring before the end of my post. Here is a montage of past suggestions.

Straw man definitions: Unfortunately, an anarchist’s definition of *Anarchism* only pertains to him. Like Wikipedia the next anarchist will write his own definition. Just try and stop him. Anarchists continue to insist *Reason* will unite them and create a stable Utopian Society. I joke around a lot but I am reasonable. I think Adam is reasonable. Would Adam trust me to always do the right thing? Would he and General Semanticist ever agree on anything?

I think we have the mental equipment to voyage through the stars, but not without a *system* that works. A *Non- System* is not a *System.* On one small globe we have Objectivists, Renaissance Men, and Enlightened Men, while at the same time blood thirsty Pirates, Communists, Fascists, and Ayatollahs.

I think an expanded definition more in the line of a demonstration or working model is in order. An Anarchist needs to produce that model. Would you trust it to me? It would be astounding if you did. Because I think no two Anarchists would agree on anything. I think a lot of Philosophical Anarchists are prudent predators. I can’t help you except with a funny model. Perhaps that will jog your creativity buttons.

Thought experiments, as with "The locked Room," are cumbersome. But, will you predict the outcome of the following?

This is Rod Serling. Welcome to the "Twilight Zone." Let us transplant the people currently inhabiting . . . Objectivist Living . . . to another dimension, beyond sight and sound.

How would their community fare? I will let you fill in any details. I won't stack the deck. Pick any group of people. What do you envision . . . .?

I want a statistical analysis of potential stability. Perhaps something in visual form like a graph, utilizing discontinuous functions, or a simple tale, like Lost on a Desert Island.

Or a model, with points assigned to behaviors. The computer we use, will be the human mind.

Rational behaviors get plus 5. Rational behaviors would be behaviors that have in the past, demonstrated success, efficacy, respect for individual rights, and the advancement of civilization.

Sociopath behaviors get a minus 5.

Zero, is the middle of the road where most people get run over.

My simple model will consist of three archetypical clans who travel to a geographical area where no previous government exists: The Scientists, The Crusaders, and the Machiavelli’s.

The Scientists are nearly always rational, and consistently exhibit plus 5 behaviors.

The Crusaders are nice folks, idealist, prone to True Beliefs, charismatic leaders and, new religions.

The Machiavelli’s are “Prudent Predators.” They ALSO CONSISTENLY EXHIBIT plus 5 behaviors, but, infrequently, when they can get away with “the big score,” minus 5.

Of course, my experiment has three basic groups. Anarchist posit one group; the highly rational. In reality there might be dozens or hundreds of types of people.

Feel free to think about it.

I have published this before but General Semanticist may not have read it. Why not build your system in outer space? NOT Utopian. Anarchy in this sense is whatever happens in free space, happens.

In this scenario Anarchy is not a reified Lack of a Code, it is just the absence of a prescription set in stone. More in line with what Michael M. has been proposing, only not just global economics but trans-global.

People will bring their systems, mechanical devises, habitats, sense, and sensibilities into space but there will be zones beyond jurisdictions. This is Laissez Faire Capitalism. However, on the frontiers, agreements will be made without the benefit or detriment of a State backing up agreements. This sounds a bit like the chaotic society in Blade Runner, or Star Wars. Periodically, Harrison Ford may arrive to scuttle the Flying Barbary Pirates.

What will it be like living and working in Space? (thanks to my airforce buddy for some of these ideas)Some workers might have long term contracts with Earth and return periodically. Some might be ground workers operating remotely controlled equipment. Some Trekkers may have one way contracts with payment to relatives left behind, like America’s illegal immigrants today. Others may buy their tickets to travel and work as independent contractors. There are any number of combinations of free market solutions. What we need in Space are people, profitable factories and industrialization – and at some point PERHAPS military or generational ships.

Different free market solutions result in different organizational structures. The market will decide what will work depending on what technology and what societies develop. Getting government out of the way MAY BE a profitable first step.

I know this is a downer, but as population densities increase, so inevitably will the laws. People want surety more than they want to exercise their “Will.” They always have. Can it ever be free? I prefer a System with the optimism of The Fountainhead.

Now for the obnoxious red herring. I was proposing that an Anarchist Society would be sexually Homogenous.

They could clone themselves. What would Ayn think? What does reality require? Should there be a ban on cloning? If human life is the standard of value, then isn't creating a new life more ethical than not?

I love these old discussions. Barbara Branden replied, in 2001, about the advisability of cloning:

By 'life is the standard of value,' Ayn Rand was stating that one's own life is the standard, not the lives of others.

End quote

Bill Dwyer responded to Barbara:

According to Rand, one's own life is the *purpose* of morality (which may be what Barbara intended), not the standard.

In her essay, "The Objectivist Ethics", Rand states: The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the ~standard~ of value -- and ~his own life~ as the ethical ~purpose~ of every individual man.”

Bill continues:

The difference between "standard" and "purpose" in this context is as follows: a "standard" is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man's choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose. 'That which is required for the survival of man ~qua~ man' is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man. The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose -- the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being -- belongs to every individual man and the life he has to live is his own.

End quote

For me, that was not an answer to cloning, but it contained some serious ideas to include in a Randian inspired Anarchy. I just love that phrase man qua man. I think cloning could have a rational purpose. But the Society the cloned individuals grow up in will determine if the System can sustain longevity.

That is all from the nattering class. Come up with something I can trash 8-) If your theory can get by me, and the wiser heads here at OL, it will be forged in a very hot furnace.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Edited January 21, 2010 by Peter Taylor

[Peter]

General quoted:

4.One who resents outside control or influence on his or her life, in particular a government, and therefore desires the absence of political control.

General wrote:

I don't think it's possible for humans to live together without laws - to do so we would be animals. If you have laws then you need an agency to enforce them and so government is formed. That being said I see nothing wrong with #4 above if you simply substitutre 'absence' with 'mimimization' or something.

end quote

I never saw this post. Interesting, General. I agree.

An anarchic expedition.

1000 people agree to found an anarchic community, in a place claimed by no country. With sperm banks and frozen eggs the continued genetic diversity and viability of the colony should be guaranteed. Their dilemma is how do they agree to no government, yet continue to guarantee all 1000 people will respect individual rights and NOT resort to the initiation of force, over time, residing in the same geographical location?

Their solution is that all 1000 sign a contract before relocating. There is no consent of the governed. While a contract is not a government, they all give their consent to abide by the contract. There IS a consent to be free. They agree on arbitration if disputes arise. For the general tranquility, they count on the continued rationality and benevolence of a majority of the 1000 people to “obey” the contract they signed.

What if a majority decides that a minority of one or more, is misbehaving, and must stop their misbehaving behavior, and the misbehaver refuses to stop?

What if two individuals have a disagreement? And neither likes the arbitrated result?

What if they have kids, and the kids refuse to sign the contract? What if the kids misbehave? Will families abide by the contract, when their kids won’t sign or misbehave, or will they fight to save their kids from exile or imprisonment? What if the kids form secret societies upon reaching their teenage years, as all kids do, and they think their parents are fools?

What if two splinter groups form? What if there is war? Does the original contract still pertain? Will Rationality prevail?

I don't think so.

So how else can we guarantee all will abide by “The Contract?” Make a religion of it? Implant chips in the 1000 existing settlers, or new kids just after their birth? Inflict pain if the minority does not respect the rights of the others? How do they do that? 51, 60, or 75 percent votes for censure and the misbehavers are jolted by electricity?

Stop, stop, I’m out of breath.

I hope I have gotten through to at least one person. Limited government is a heck of a lot better. We just need to stop the incremental increases in governmental power.

Thank you, General Semanticist.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[syrakusos]

... A female will just not put herself into harms way. She will never be an Anarchist. My seemingly weird contention, born out by reality, is true: Anarchism is a sexually HOMO-genus grouping. The Klingon females out there are few and far between.

“Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam” or today is a good day to die, will not catch on with hew-mon females.

Scientific proof that Peter Taylor is a blithering idiot occasionally misspeaks the antecedent cases of his proposed hypotheses.

Here we show that the sublingual administration of a single dose of testosterone in women causes a substantial increase in fair bargaining behaviour, thereby reducing bargaining conflicts and increasing the efficiency of social interactions. However, subjects who believed that they received testosterone—regardless of whether they actually received it or not—behaved much more unfairly than those who believed that they were treated with placebo. Thus, the folk hypothesis seems to generate a strong negative association between subjects’ beliefs and the fairness of their offers, even though testosterone administration actually causes a substantial increase in the frequency of fair bargaining offers in our experiment.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/abs/nature08711.html

Edited January 23, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Peter]

Michael M. wrote:

Scientific proof that Peter Taylor is a blithering idiot.

End quote

Michael, I have kidded, quoted, elucidated, insulted, and cajoled anyone who claims to be “for Anarchism,” yet I have yet to get a description, let alone a definition of Anarchism, that includes just a few more details than no government, arbitration of disputes, free markets, and competing defense agencies.

Describe a workable society. Until you can do that, you do not know what you are talking about. Blithering is when a group of guys who claim to support Anarchism are ignorant of what they are talking about, but still they keep chattering away like a bunch of 14 year olds on the phone.

Adam insinuated that I publish too much, so I will tack on an ARI loyalty oath that I sent to Roger Bissell yesterday, and ARI’s Board of Directors, to pad my letter. The oath is just to let you see how some view your Anarchism. They would not throw you a life line if you were drowning.

Your version of Anarchy, which I gather is, “What will be, will be, just don’t tread on me” is the most poetic. Can’t you guys do better than that?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

From: BBfromM@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com, SOLO_forum@yahoogroups.com

Subject: ATL: In case anyone thought I was exaggerating. . .

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 21:37:23 EDT

This is from Harry Binswanger's announcement of his discussion group, The Harry Binswanger List.

Philosophic issues:

The HBL is primarily for Objectivists. Full agreement with Objectivism is not required, but certain people are excluded--see the Loyalty Oath below. You need not sign or return it. If you join the list, that indicates your

agreement with its provisions.

The HBL Loyalty Oath

I have created this list for those who are deeply and sincerely interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and its application to cultural-political issues. It is understood that Objectivism is limited to the philosophic principles expounded by Ayn Rand in the writings published during her lifetime plus those articles by other authors that she published in her own periodicals (e.g., The Objectivist) or included in her anthologies. Applications, implications, developments, and extensions of Objectivism--though they are to

be encouraged and will be discussed on my list--are not, even if entirely valid, part of Objectivism. (Objectivism does not exhaust the field of rational philosophic identifications.) I do not make full agreement with Objectivism a condition of joining my list. However, I do exclude anyone who is sanctioning or supporting the enemies of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. "Enemies" include: "libertarians," moral agnostics

or "tolerationists," anarchists, and those whom Ayn Rand condemned or who have written books or articles attacking Ayn Rand. I do not wish to publicize the myriad of anti-Objectivist individuals and organizations by giving names, so if you have questions about any such, email me privately and I will be glad to discuss it with you. If you bristle at the very idea of a "loyalty oath" and declaring certain ideological movements and individuals as "enemies," then my list is probably not for you. To join my list while concealing your sanction or support of these enemies, would be to commit a fraud. Again, if you have any questions on this policy, please let me know.

Barbara

ARI Board of Directors

Michael S. Berliner

Board Co-Chair

Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D. in philosophy, is the editor of Letters of Ayn Rand. For many years a department chairman at California State University, Northridge, he has extensive experience in university administration and has published articles in philosophy and the philosophy of education.

Arline Mann

Board Co-Chair

Arline Mann is an attorney. She is Managing Director and Associate General Counsel of Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Yaron Brook

President and Executive Director

Yaron Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. He is a regular contributor to Forbes.com and a contributing editor of The Objective Standard. A former finance professor, he has been published in academic as well as popular publications, and his opinion-editorials appear in major newspapers. He is frequently interviewed on national TV and radio. Dr. Brook lectures on Objectivism, business ethics and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.

Carl Barney

Carl Barney, among other business activities, is the Chairman and CEO of Independence University, Stevens-Henager Colleges, CollegeAmerica, and California College San Diego. These colleges offer exclusively degree programs—associate’s, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees.

Harry Binswanger

Harry Binswanger, Ph.D. in philosophy, teaches for the Objectivist Academic Center. He was an associate of Ayn Rand and is editor of The Ayn Rand Lexicon and the revised edition of Ayn Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. He is the author of The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts and the founding editor/publisher of The Objectivist Forum.

Peter LePort

Peter LePort, M.D., is a surgeon in private practice. Active in the fight against government control of health care, he is a co-founder of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.

John P. McCaskey

John P. McCaskey, Ph.D. in history, is the founder and chairman of the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship. He spent twenty years in the computer business, most recently as founder of Epiphany, Inc., before returning to academia in 2001. He studies and teaches history and philosophy of science at Stanford University.

John B. Ridpath

John B. Ridpath, Ph.D. in economics, is a retired associate professor of economics and social science at York University in Toronto. Specializing in intellectual history, he is a frequent lecturer on college campuses.

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael M. wrote:

Scientific proof that Peter Taylor is a blithering idiot.

End quote

Michael, I have kidded, quoted, elucidated, insulted, and cajoled anyone who claims to be "for Anarchism," yet I have yet to get a description, let alone a definition of Anarchism, that includes just a few more details than no government, arbitration of disputes, free markets, and competing defense agencies.

Anarchism is not an IS. It is more of an ISN'T.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Peter:

I have yet to get a description, let alone a definition of Anarchism, that includes just a few more details than no government, arbitration of disputes, free markets, and competing defense agencies.

Anarchism is:

a system organized around the principles that:

1) there shall exist no structure that has the exclusive power to initiate physical force;

2) there shall exist no exclusive structure to judge individual actions;

3) there shall exist an open competitive market place wherein arbitration of disputes, free markets, and competing defense agencies shall function free of one (1) and two (2) above.

You see, the minute you establish that "...monopoly on the use of force..." all the devils are in play...you know those detail type things.

As Robert said in his last post...

Anarchism is not an IS. It is more of an ISN'T.

OK

Now your next point is...?

Adam

[Peter]

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote:

Anarchism is not an IS. It is more of an ISN'T.

end quote

And Adam pretty much agrees. It is an absence of, but not a . . . what? A non system of what will be will be, and no one may initiate force. A cannot be non A, therefore, until someone shows me the money, it is all about nothing.

Peter

[Steve Gagne]

Michael, I have kidded, quoted, elucidated, insulted, and cajoled anyone who claims to be “for Anarchism,” yet I have yet to get a description, let alone a definition of Anarchism, that includes just a few more details than no government, arbitration of disputes, free markets, and competing defense agencies.

Describe a workable society. Until you can do that, you do not know what you are talking about.

Actually, Peter, there is a historical record that describes an anarcho-capitalist society that survived for over 200 years, from c.1200 B.C.E. to c.1000 B.C.E.

We know this society by the name of Ancient Israel, and the record of the rise and fall of this society is recorded in the Holy Bible, specifically in the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and First & Second Samuel.

Don't give me any anti-theistic crap about contradictions or magical stories; the archaeological evidence for these historical records may be thin, but in no wise contradicts them. You know full well that what falsehoods you may think you have found are totally irrelevant to the truth, if that is what you are actually seeking, so if you were to actually read it with an eye to the truth rather than trying to discredit your source, you might actually learn something from it.

[Christopher]

Anarchism is not an IS. It is more of an ISN'T.

Ba'al Chatzaf

By goodness, one of those rare moments when Ba'al and I agree on something!

Most depictions of anarchy tend to emphasize lack of a system, and therefore no systematic rules can be applied to a state of anarchy. I was recently reading O. Newsletter, and Rand was again discussing how anarchy leads to gangs, random arbitration of disputes (e.g. a neighbor thinks his wallet was stolen by you, he doesn't like the look you give him, so he shoots you and searches your house for his wallet), etc.

I think the best historical evidence of anarchy would occur before centralization and civilization. I think 50,000 B.C. should be a good time period for looking at successful anarchy... before there were centralized rules, so-to-speak.

[Xray]

In interpersonal relationships, there are only two fundamental choices: Initiation of force and coercion, or non-initiation of force and non coercion. It makes no difference what varying subjective labels are attached, these basics never go away.

Anarchy is when an actor determines for himself whether to hire via contract, and whom to hire via contract, for adjudication of disputes.

This would oppose Rand's idea of government as a "necessity" for settling of disputes.

She does not consider (as you did) the potential for the parties to mutually select and hire an arbiter in case of dispute.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anarchism is not an IS. It is more of an ISN'T.

Ba'al Chatzaf

By goodness, one of those rare moments when Ba'al and I agree on something!

Christopher,

Hear hear.

That's a real nice turn of phrase.

When Bob is good, he is very very good, and when he's bad...

... well... we all know about that...

Michael

[Peter]

Steve Gagne wrote:

Actually, Peter, there is a historical record that describes an anarcho-capitalist society that survived for over 200 years, from c.1200 B.C.E. to c.1000 B.C.E . . . Don't give me any anti-theistic crap about contradictions or magical stories; the archaeological evidence for these historical records may be thin, but in no wise contradicts them.

End quote

And Iceland, and our old west. I don’t dispute that agrarian societies have existed in relative peace unless invaded. But Civilizations did not arise unless a more organized State apparatus also arose. Look at the history of trade routes, and the cities that sprang up with an abundance of goods, food, and leisure. To call freely trading barbarians anarcho-capitalists is a stretch. You are mixing free range anarchism with philosophical anarchism. I think there is a link between level of civilization and level of government. And I do not disagree that at a certain point, too much government has a detrimental affect.

No official government, usually equals an interim state, and corresponds to trading and agrarian life, probably under a hierarchical Clan system. If towns spring up, government springs up shortly before or after. It’s almost a cliché how a sheriff is hired in our old western shows. Do you really doubt this is true?

Xray wrote:

In interpersonal relationships, there are only two fundamental choices: Initiation of force and coercion, or non-initiation of force and non coercion . . . This would oppose Rand's idea of government as a "necessity" for settling of disputes. She does not consider (as you did) the potential for the parties to mutually select and hire an arbiter in case of dispute.

End quote

Rand agreed on the advisability of personal defense agencies or personal arbitration as long as it existed under the umbrella of a Constitutional Government guaranteeing individual rights. Her apartment building existed as a personal contract between the owner and Rand. There was a doorman who enforced rules of admittance. There was probably an association to handle neighborly disputes. Give Rand the benefit of the doubt before you formulate some theory of IF - THEN – THEREFORE, BINGO, Rand was wrong. “Ay Layk Ayn.” That’s archaic Icelandic for “I like Ayn.”

Christopher wrote:

Most depictions of anarchy tend to emphasize lack of a system, and therefore no systematic rules can be applied to a state of anarchy . . . I think the best historical evidence of anarchy would occur before centralization and civilization. I think 50,000 B.C. should be a good time period for looking at successful anarchy... before there were centralized rules, so-to-speak.

End quote

I agree. And so does Michael Stuart Kelly. What I refer to as free range anarchism is simply what will be, will be, when less civilized people interact. Higher population densities necessitate a means to arbitrate disputes and keep the peace.

I will not pretend to speak for Rand, but I think her epiphany about the irrationality of Anarchism concerns Philosophical Anarchism. Her utter disdain is for Philosophical Anarchists, not indigenous people who lack a government. I have yet to see a Philosophical Anarchist make any sense. They tear down the concept of government but replace it with nothing.

Routinely, a number of court cases work their way up to the Supreme Court. The very existence of The Supreme Court proves Rand’s contention that legitimate disagreements will arise among reasonable people. A specific type of Government is better than no government. Rand would say look at reality for your proof.

Peter