Dennis Hardin
-
Posts
1,496 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Dennis Hardin
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
In Ayn Rand Nation, Gary Weiss provides some significant new material relevant to the efforts of ARI’s “powers-that-be” to censor and rewrite Objectivist history.
Two brief examples.
Iris Bell, a former graphic designer for NBI, was asked to contribute to 100 Voices, the anthology of commentaries by those who knew Ayn Rand.
Iris spoke bluntly during her interview with the ARI writer. There was “a level of dishonesty that I thought should be on the record,” she said. . . She wanted to be sure that, years from now, “what I experienced, what I actually saw, conversations I had with people, “ would be preserved for posterity. She gave the ARI writer four hours of interviews in 1999, and she recalled that they were “completely negative.”
But when she saw an advance copy of 100 Voices, she was annoyed to find that her interview had been not just abridged but expurgated. “They had managed to find all these positive things I said,” which had “nothing to do with the whole feel of the conversation I had with them.” Iris said she was in touch with a number of other people quoted in the book, and the same thing was done to them.
p. 40
Weiss also describes some interesting correspondence between Ayn Rand and former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. He obtained Rand’s FBI file, and discovered a letter Rand had written to Hoover in 1966 following the publication of some comments he made in The Saturday Evening Post. Hoover was quoting as saying that “he disavows the ultra-conservative political label” and terms himself an “objectivist.” In her letter to him, Rand had asked if he agreed with her philosophy and requested a meeting with him to discuss a “personal-political problem.”
Hoover scribbled on the bottom of her letter “I never said I was an ‘objectivist,’ whatever that is.” He declined to meet with her, citing his busy schedule.
Weiss states:
Rand’s letter and Hoover’s response were, unsurprisingly, omitted from the ARI sanctioned Letters of Ayn Rand.. The nature of that ‘personal-political problem’ has been lost to history. Rand had made two previous attempts to see Hoover, in 1947 and 1957, both without success.
p. 78
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
If I am confronted with two justice agencies that enforce the same system of law, but one agency does this much more efficiently than the other, then why may I not use my own reason to decide which agency I wish to employ? Where do you get the right to tell me: "You cannot choose that agency, even if it is more efficient. Why? Because I call the other agency the "government." I like the other agency better, so you must choose it."
This is hopelessly detached from the real world, George, both with respect to the nature of the institutional structure required for government and the notion that two or more agencies would have identical systems of laws. It is, as I said before, using your words, "absurd on its face."
One must first understand an argument before one can take it seriously. You do not seem well-informed about the issues involved here. Have you ever read the essential presentations of the anarchist side, such as Rothbard's For a New Liberty or The Ethics of Liberty or Power and Market? Have you read any of Randy Barnett's extensive publications on the subject of legal pluralism (some of which were published in the Harvard Law Review), including The Structure of Liberty?
I read some of Rothbard's various writings on this issue many years ago and found his arguments sorely lacking with respect to the world we live in. More recently, I read Chris Sciabarra's extensive examination of Rothbard's utopian theories in Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism. I thought Chris did a fantastic job of analyzing the pro's and con's of Rothbard's utopian fantasies. If you haven't read it, you should. He presents a very thorough, detailed, objective analysis.
I have read nothing that suggests to me that Rand was wrong with respect to her position that ruling force out of human relationships is a precondition of free market capitalism, and that minarchy is the only viable and reaiistic means to that end.
How about Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Harvard, 1983), by the distinguished legal historian Harold Berman? -- a book that has often been cited by libertarian anarchists, even though Berman is nothing of the sort. This book is a fascinating account of the different European legal systems -- canon law, manorial law, mercantile law, urban law, etc -- that functioned simultaneously in overlapping jurisdictions for many centuries throughout Europe. Believe it or not, Dennis, these legal systems usually harmonized quite well. And the wars that did erupt did not match the scale of the highly destructive wars of the era of the modern nation-state. Not even close.
Ghs
Concurrent jurisdiction exists today, of course, not only between state and federal courts but between different levels of state courts and other governmental agencies. But the reason these courts can function in harmony is because there is a single governmental authority overseeing them.
In feudal times,.from what I know, when church and state divisions created a situation where there was no single governmental authority, things did not go nearly as smoothly as you suggest. Concurrent jurisdiction worked fairly well in France during the reign of the House of Capet, for example, just as it does in the United States today. Ecclesiastical courts, courts of feudal lords, mercantile courts, et al—operated under customary laws and were largely subordinate to the crown.
When there were significant disputes between royal jurisdiction and papal supremacy, however, there was also significant civil unrest. After the Norman Conquest of 1066, William the Conqueror successfully centralized ecclesiastical authority for the king and secured the authority to decree canon law. But a century later, under the reign of Stephen (1135-1154), the papal authority made significant gains in prestige and power, leading to what was called “the anarchy of Stephen,” a period characterized by significant civil unrest.
In the minarchy-anarchy debates, the primary discussion revolves around the question of internal chaos created by civil unrest, not wars between nation-states.
-
And “a market in the objectively justifiable use of force” is still a market in force, because when agencies differ with each other on what “objectively justifiable” means, one agency will eventually have to impose its view on those who disagree. The notion that the enforcement agencies will never disagree on that issue is, as you say, “absurd on its face.”
As usual, you speak in generalties without drawing crucial distinctions. The relevant distinction here is that between fundamental laws and the application of those laws to particular cases.
So now the debate has come around to the issue of which one of us is proselytizing from his perch in the clouds. I certainly agree with you that concretizing how minarchy vs anarchy translates to actual practice in the real world constitutes the crucial step in resolving the debate. That’s why I gave numerous instances of the kinds of criminal and civil disputes that would arise under a system of anarchy in post #4.
Why do you think it is inevitable that two justice agencies will disagree on fundamental issues of law? And if two agencies happen to disagree on the application of laws (e.g., court verdicts), then why wouldn't they agree to submit their disagreement to an impartial arbiter? Wouldn't this serve their rational self-interest much better than fighting? Would you do business with an agency that is fighting all the time? I certainly would not.
If you reply that justice agencies will not necessarily be rational, I will point out that you began with the working assumption of a fully rational, ideal Randian government. I am therefore justified, for the sake of argument, in positing fully rational, ideal justice agencies. And such agencies would negotiate rather than fight, just as rational governments will negotiate rather than fight. Or do you think the U.S. should go to war with Great Britain or Canada whenever a disagreement or conflict arises?
Actually, in the kind of ideal, "fully rational" situation you project here, there would be no need for any government or defense agencies at all, since everyone would be so beautifully rational that all disputes could be settled nonviolently, by simple arbitration. There was no 'government' in Galt's Gulch. The reason that limited government is necessary is precisely because, no matter how rational the world becomes, there will always be people who want to use force to get their way, or to obtain something for nothing. In your anarchic society, undoubtedly some of those people, seeing the door left wide open for their whims to prevail, will decide to start their own private defense agencies. And there will be nothing to hold them in check but another defense agency, guns at the ready.
The majority of people in a rational society will simply want to live their lives free of force, which is why they will choose a single government agency which can much more easily be held in check by democratic vote. In your system, no such check exists for those citizens outside the jurisdiction of a given agency.
The potential for disagreements, even among rational agencies who agree on fundamentals, remains massive. In post #4, I reviewed just a few of the kind of disagreements that could arise. This just scratches the surface. Arbiters would be overwhelmed by such a huge complexity of disagreements, that pretty soon the citizens would be calling for the establishment of a single governmental agency with a single set of rules to minimize the chaos. That is after people had to live with such turmoil on a daily basis that the normal conduct of their business and personal lives became impossible.
Is that what your ideal government would do with the "competing governments" in other countries -- go to war rather than negotiate a reasonable settlement, in the event of different decisions? Would you consider this rational behavior?
Ghs
There is a crucial difference between how real governments interact today as opposed to how defense agencies would interact. Under anarchy, the ‘private governments’ have contested jurisdiction over the same population and their conflicting laws directly impact that population every day in thousands of ways. In the international context, the conflicts (territorial disputes, import/export rules, treaties, laws of the sea, customs, travel restrictions, corporate & business law conflicts, state recognition issues, et. al.) do not have the same degree of impact on everyone’s daily life. For the most part, the governments have time to think over their respective positions and map out a strategy to deal with the conflicts. Part of the reason for that is the geographical distance which separates them. If you eliminate that one factor, not only the number of disputes but their intensity level—i.e., their impact on daily life-- increases not only exponentially but with dramatic emotional and personal intensity.
You can wait months or years to decide questions of how a treaty should be interpreted. But if one “government” in a single geographic area wants to arrest a man for murder or rape and the other says he must be allowed to remain free, chaos can break out within days, as the Trayvon Martin case demonstrates. If one government says business A cannot take such and such an action because it violates the contractual rights of another business B, but next door there is another “competing” government that says it can proceed, company A’s survival depends on obtaining immediate clarity about the objective terms of the law. Multiply those two examples by a factor of several thousand similar unresolved criminal and civil cases arising every day and you have total, unmitigated chaos.
The time pressures placed on a geographic population whose citizens want to get on with their lives will lead to one agency pressuring another—and, eventually, the guns will come out, even in the most rational of ideal worlds
Unfortunately, you haven't even attempted to show how one agency, which calls itself the government, can legitimately impose, by coercive means, its own notion of justice on other agencies.
So now we find ourselves back to square one again. This type of context-dropping remark is what makes these debates seem ultimately pointless. Two words: Objective law. Everything I have said in my prior posts explains why objective law requires a single agency entrusted with that purpose, strictly delimited to the protection of rights and subject to democratic control by majority vote.
-
And “a market in the objectively justifiable use of force” is still a market in force, because when agencies differ with each other on what “objectively justifiable” means, one agency will eventually have to impose its view on those who disagree. The notion that the enforcement agencies will never disagree on that issue is, as you say, “absurd on its face.”
As usual, you speak in generalties without drawing crucial distinctions. The relevant distinction here is that between fundamental laws and the application of those laws to particular cases.
If you wish to descend from the clouds of theory and talk about what real governments are actually like, then I would be more than happy to discuss that issue with you. But in the current debate you cannot eat your cake and have it, too. You may not assume that your ideal government will be rational but that justice agencies will be irrational. Or if you want to assume this, then I will compare an irrational and tyrannical government against private agencies that are rational and just.
Ghs
-
George H. Smith wrote:
"The key question here is: Who is the final authority in ethics? Ayn Rand gave a clear answer: each individual, by using his or her reason . . ."
Well, of course, she also said that “force and mind [i.e., reason] are opposites,” and that “morality ends where a gun begins.”
She regarded a proper government doing its strictly delimited task of eliminating force from human relationships as a precondition of civilization where men are free to make their own private ethical choices.
She regarded “a market in force” as a contradiction in terms. Her defense of limited government was as much epistemological as it was ethical.
So how do those in government determine the proper use of force, if not by the use of their reason? Do they have a monopoly on reason, as well as on force?
No. Since force and mind are opposites, then obviously government can wield force whimsically in any way it sees fit, pretty much killing, maiming and imprisoning people in wanton fashion.
If that doesn’t sound like I took your response seriously—well, now you know how it feels.
Force and reason are opposites in terms of human motivation. Obviously that does not mean you cannot reason about force. I know how terribly appreciative you must be that I took the time to clarify that for you.
You're welcome.
No libertarian anarchist has ever advocated leaving the use of physical force to the private discretion of individuals. This is just another red herring. Equally absurd is the contention that anarchists advocate a "market in force." They advocate no such thing. They advocate a market in the objectively justifiable use of force, i.e., in justice. And, even by O'ist standards, we don't need a monopolistic government to tell us what is just and unjust. The very notion is absurd on its face.
Libertarian anarchists have done a lot of serious work on the philosophy of law. O'ists, in contrast, have produced virtually nothing. All they do, for the most part, is regurgitate Rand.
Ghs
It isn't the least bit absurd to say, as Rand does, that government must retain a monopoly if the use of force is to be strictly restrained under objective law, because “its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed,” with “no touch of whim or caprice permitted in its performance.” And “a market in the objectively justifiable use of force” is still a market in force, because when agencies differ with each other on what “objectively justifiable” means, one agency will eventually have to impose its view on those who disagree. The notion that the enforcement agencies will never disagree on that issue is, as you say, “absurd on its face.”
Dennis, Regurgitater-in-Chief
-
Lillian, my dear, "thinking outside the box" was what got you and hubby in trouble in the first place.
Scene: The Rearden bedroom
Hank (passionately, looking down at Lillian): "OMIGOD! OMIGOD! Lil! You are so freakin' gorgeous! I can't hold back any longer!"
Lillian: "Pink! I think I want to redo the ceiling in pink."
Oooh... you think I should have gone for that ugly metallic grey? Well, marriage is compromise... I really feel I am making progress here....
Gratefully, Lili
Mmmmmm. . . “compromise.”
Let's see. I pay for the house, the maid, the cook, your Mercedes and your Jaguar, your Pekinese, your caviar, your diamond jewelry, your bi-monthly trips to Paris with your hairdresser, your sequined dresses, your elaborate parties, your spa membership, your interior designer, your exterior designer, your masseur and your coiffeur.
In return, you lay still while I boink you once a month. And you promise not to call me Henry on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.
Sounds like true love to me, sweetie.
-
Well, I guess Peikoff voted against intuition before he voted for it.
Some men who propose an alternative to reason are explicit emotionalists. Others, however, seeming to eschew reason and emotion, uphold the cognitive efficacy of a variety of candidates, such as intuition, revelation, dialectic inference, Aryan instinct, extra sensory perception, or drug-induced trances,
OPAR, p. 160 (December, 1991)
Nineteen years later. . .
Podcast: What about intuition? (3-15-10)
You can use the word for a rational process. . .It simply gives subconscious integration of information, observation, stored knowledge. . .”
-
Adam,
It's even worse that appears in Rand's case. Here is one of her worst statements--it is from "The Nature of Government."
There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement.The first time I read this, even as a Randroid way back when, I thought, "I don't recall delegaing my 'right of physical self-defense' to anyone." I have yet to hear any argument by an Objectivist (or anyone else for that matter) that convinces me that I can existentially delegate a right without knowing when or how I did it. The plain fact is, I was not consulted.
This led me to the idea that a charter document for a government was a lot different than a simple contract. And it is.
Michael
Michael--This, of course, is the basic anarchist position. See the second question posed to Branden in the post which began this thread.
"Look. I wasn't consulted, I wasn't asked my opinion about this system of government..."
I'm sure George will be delighted to welcome you to his side.
-
Folks:
This is glaring, gaping hole in the nature of a government that has a "monopoly on the initiation of force."
Now, I am not sure it is solvable. However, when you have human beings in government, which you obviously have to have, there is the inherent problem of corruption.
Therefore, the individual citizen must maintain the right to not only use force, but to initiate force against a local, state or federal entity that is corrupt.
I do not see any way out of that conundrum.
Adam
Of course, only it's not a "glaring, gaping hole" in anything, nor a "conundrum." The government only retains its legal monopoly as long as it restricts its function to that of administering retaliatory force. Once it begins to operate outside its legitimate functions, the citizens have every right to take up arms against it.
And Rand never questioned anyone's right to use retaliatory force in emergency situations. She would have been appalled at the suggestion that anyone should not act in self-defense when necessary.
-
A couple of books by Dr. Peter Breggin (a libertarian) on this topic:
Medication Madness: A Psychiatrist Exposes the Dangers of Mood-Altering Medications
“There are over 200 million psychiatric drug prescriptions written annually—Most Do More Harm than Good”
Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of the “New Psychiatry”
-
I'm not sure Dagny and Hank will be getting along all that well when she finds out how much time he's spending in Lillian's trailer.
Exactly, Doctor.
If that corporate trollop thinks she can get my husband away from Me, she had better stop thinking outside the box.
Lilian Rearden (Mrs.)
Lillian, my dear, "thinking outside the box" was what got you and hubby in trouble in the first place.
Scene: The Rearden bedroom
Hank (passionately, looking down at Lillian): "OMIGOD! OMIGOD! Lil! You are so freakin' gorgeous! I can't hold back any longer!"
Lillian: "Pink! I think I want to redo the ceiling in pink."
-
Apropos Ayn Rand and the Tea Parties, here's a link to a post about a letter from David Kelley defending Rand in this month's PLAYBOY.
-
(You might also find some of the pictures interesting.)
In the Rand Playboy interview issue there was a fake centerfold in the Girls of Russia section. It was of a tractor in a field.
Hefner always got it basically wrong*. You want to see women with some clothes on so your imagination can go to work about what's underneath and how you're going to get there.
--Brant
*not with Marilyn Monroe
Jedem das seine.
I also subscribe to MAXIM, a GP-rated version of PLAYBOY which features celebrities in lingerie instead of au naturale. It's sort of like the Victoria's Secret Catalog.
They recently did a photo spread on Jennifer Love Hewitt.
Just made me impatient for the day she feels the need to revive her career.
-
George H. Smith wrote:
"The key question here is: Who is the final authority in ethics? Ayn Rand gave a clear answer: each individual, by using his or her reason . . ."
Well, of course, she also said that “force and mind [i.e., reason] are opposites,” and that “morality ends where a gun begins.”
And then she said this:
The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.
Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.
Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government
She regarded a proper government doing its strictly delimited task of eliminating force from human relationships as a precondition of civilization where men are free to make their own private ethical choices.
She regarded “a market in force” as a contradiction in terms. Her defense of limited government was as much epistemological as it was ethical.
-
This month's issue of PLAYBOY (April, 2012) has a letter from David Kelley defending Ayn Rand in the "Forum Reader Response" section. (p. 42)
. . .Rand was not a Nietzschean: She could not have made it clearer that her vision of individualism, including the pursuit of rational self-interest, had nothing to do Nietzsche's view of the superman seeking power over others...
Sorry, you'll have to visit your local newstand to read the rest of it.
(You might also find some of the pictures interesting.)
-
Still no word on the casting for Galt, Rearden, Francisco or Dagny.
By the time I--Hank--show her the door, she'll be a high mileage vehicle.
--Brant
theatrical improvisation
method acting
whatever
Correction: The role of Hank Rearden will be played by Brant Gaede.
He wasn't the producers' first choice, but when he said he would do the part pro bono, it was an offer they couldn't refuse.
And there is only one rational choice for his leading lady, Angela X, whose acting experience is limited but is outweighed by her deep individualistic interpretation of the Dagny character. Also, she could probably get along with her leading man Brant which not everybody could do.
I'm not sure Dagny and Hank will be getting along all that well when she finds out how much time he's spending in Lillian's trailer.
-
Still no word on the casting for Galt, Rearden, Francisco or Dagny.
By the time I--Hank--show her the door, she'll be a high mileage vehicle.
--Brant
theatrical improvisation
method acting
whatever
Correction: The role of Hank Rearden will be played by Brant Gaede.
He wasn't the producers' first choice, but when he said he would do the part pro bono, it was an offer they couldn't refuse.
-
An engaging analysis of the new book by Gary Weiss, Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle for America’s Soul, from The Columbia Journalism Review.
The author, Daniel Luzer, compliments Weiss as a movement historian but questions his assessment of Rand’s influence. He calls Ayn Rand “the GOP’s crotchety, misanthropic little immigrant grandmother.” (Yes, he calls the writer who devoted her career to the worship of man’s greatness misanthropic. For that bit of obtuse, dim-witted vitriol, I think we can reasonably tag him Daniel Loser.)
Weiss, an investigative journalist formerly with Business Week, has made a career exploring the underside of American finance. In this book he looks at the rise of Objectivism from its early days—when Rand’s small cadre of followers regularly gathered at the author’s midtown Manhattan apartment— through the rise of Rand acolyte Alan Greenspan, up to today, where John Galt signs predominate at Tea Party rallies, the Republican Party simply refuses to govern or increase taxes, and certain congressmen (e.g. Paul Ryan) propose austerity budgets influenced by the dead novelist.
Such an exploration, understandably, takes one fairly seriously down the rabbit hole of Objectivist ideas. It was a fascinating trip. I had no idea, for instance, about the weird, communist-style purges that took place in the movement when Rand was still alive. She had a loyal group of followers but she wasn’t terribly loyal to them. Objectivists denounced and then ignored members of the group who disagreed with her. Once people were removed from her inner circle (which they ironically nicknamed “the collective”) they simply ceased to exist; they were never to be mentioned again. Nathaniel Branden and his wife, who were initially very prominent Objectivists, were removed and vilified when Branden simply decided to stop sleeping with Rand. The purges continue; today there are different sects of Objectivists, including the Atlas Society, which is opposed by the main, de jure Objectivists, affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute. Objectivists and Libertarians also are bitter rivals.
. . .At times [Weiss] seems to argue that Rand is almost singlehandedly influencing most of the reactionary policy ideas we see today. Privatization of social security: Rand. Opposition to Obamacare: Rand. Hostility to consumer protections: Rand. Lack of sympathy for environmental safeguards: Rand. Support for weirdly low tax rates for the American superrich: that’s also Rand.
Despite his obviously miniscule understanding of Objectivism, Luzer demonstrates some level of insight by correcting Weiss’ with regard to any connection between Rand’s ideas and the policies of Alan Greenspan.
. . .[The] role of the chairman of the Federal Reserve is to supervise and regulate banking institutions, protect the credit rights of consumers, and manage the nation’s money supply in order to achieve maximum employment, stabilize prices, maintain the stability of the financial system, and contain risks in financial markets. Perhaps I’m missing something, but the very notion of the Federal Reserve therefore seems anathema to Rand’s doctrine.
Despite his antipathy to Rand, Weiss’ book (and reviews like this one) cannot help but stir increased interest in Rand’s books and ideas, and that has to be a good thing for Objectivism.
Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’
in Nathaniel Branden Corner
Posted
I would love to be able to post a white flag. Or maybe one of these:
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.