Against Anarchism

[George H. Smith]

Very amusing George, however, sarcasm is not an argument. Also, as I have already basically pointed out, the funny story you gave there could be altered by substituting "morality" for "government" and would be about you making fun of someone for not embracing amorality.

Morality is the philosophic system that identifies what human actions are good or bad. Just because all previous moral systems were actually immoral systems, doesn't mean we start calling our new, better system amoralism.

Likewise, government is the institution that enforces the laws of the land. Just because it chose to enforce bad laws rather than Natural Law doesn't mean we call our Natural Law institution anarchism.

Shayne

My dialogue doesn't give an argument. It formulates a question -- the same question I asked yesterday but which you did not understand. Would you care to answer this question now? If not, all you need do is say that you don't wish to deal with it, and I won't bug you any more.

Ghs

Just because you claim that I didn't understand your question doesn't mean that I didn't squarely answer it. If anyone else here thinks I didn't answer your question, let them reframe it and I'll answer it.

Shayne

Please quote the post in which you answered my question. I want to see something about which you can specifically say: This is my answer. Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you seriously expect me to reformulate my question a third time? What do you expect to accomplish by running everyone around in circles like this? Either deal with the problem explicitly or say you don't want to deal with the problem -- please.

[bmacwilliam]

Elections provide us with competing governments no?

Curious, I don't get it. Is this an American thing maybe? Very little choice? Is that what you mean?

My government has just called an election, we will choose from the tree-hugging freaks, socialists, separatists, liberals, and conservatives. Lots of choice at the very least.

Bob

Edited March 26, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

Objectivist government is clearly based on the United States Constitution.

But, if 'life' comes before 'liberty', how could charity be optional? I don't get it.

Bob

[sjw]

Please quote the post in which you answered my question. I want to see something about which you can specifically say: This is my answer. Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you seriously expect me to reformulate my question a third time? What do you expect to accomplish by running everyone around in circles like this? Either deal with the problem explicitly or say you don't want to deal with the problem -- please.

So, you win the debate by default, merely by claiming over and over that I didn't answer (I could point to where I did answer, but you already claimed it wasn't an answer).

Good Job, I'm sure we can get Selene to find a fancy star for your forehead. George claims George wins! Yay for George!

Shayne

[sjw]

Elections provide us with competing governments no?

Curious, I don't get it.

Yes, very curious.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Please quote the post in which you answered my question. I want to see something about which you can specifically say: This is my answer. Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you seriously expect me to reformulate my question a third time? What do you expect to accomplish by running everyone around in circles like this? Either deal with the problem explicitly or say you don't want to deal with the problem -- please.

So, you win the debate by default, merely by claiming over and over that I didn't answer (I could point to where I did answer, but you already claimed it wasn't an answer).

Good Job, I'm sure we can get Selene to find a fancy star for your forehead. George claims George wins! Yay for George!

Shayne

I'm not interested in winning a debate. I would merely like you to post or repost your answer. Please do that and I will then comment on your answer.

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

Yes, very curious.

Shayne

Well then explain please. I can see quite clearly that elections - perhaps particularly American ones - do not bring about substantive change, but that's not a problem with elections themselves.

I've brought my car to a mechanic and it wasn't fixed, but that's because the mechanic was a poor choice, not that I had the wrong process, I tried again with another mechanic and all was well.....

[sjw]

Yes, very curious.

Shayne

Well then explain please.

Your frame of reference is quite at odds with individualism. It's not possible to really explain this frame of reference in a post, or a dozen posts. Read some books.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

Yes, very curious.

Shayne

Well then explain please.

Your frame of reference is quite at odds with individualism.

Shayne

Clearly.

Shayne, what I'm really trying to do is to understand the fundamental basic tenets here, then I'm happy to read some more books. The problem is that the fundamentals seem to be at odds with reality. But I'll stop posting here.

[sjw]

I'm not interested in winning a debate. I would merely like you to post or repost your answer. Please do that and I will then comment on your answer.

Ghs

I don't see that anything I said was unclear at all. I said we should tack the word "government" onto the right solution, and I said the reason we should do that is because that is the word that refers to the entity that enforces the law of the land. "The law of the land" is an abstraction referring to an unlimited number of different legal systems, for which I say we should substitute Natural Law in place of what has formerly been there. In different times this "law of the land" has been many things: rule by tribal chief, rule by dictator, rule by monarch, rule by religion, rule by democracy, rule by representative, etc. At no point did any of these people say when they were changing out one "law of the land" for another did they consider throwing the word "government" into the trash bin. I say it should be rule by Natural Law.

Shayne

[sjw]

Clearly.

Shayne, what I'm really trying to do is to understand the fundamental basic tenets here, then I'm happy to read some more books. The problem is that the fundamentals seem to be at odds with reality. But I'll stop posting here.

If you want the fundamentals, read my book. If you do decide to read it I would be interested in your feedback, in particular, if it made any difference at all in your understanding the individualism stance.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

I say it should be rule by Natural Law.

Shayne

I really do think I'm in agreement with this. At least if you mean Natural Law as more or less "the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior."

I don't see see how strict individualism can logically come from this.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Clearly.

Shayne, what I'm really trying to do is to understand the fundamental basic tenets here, then I'm happy to read some more books. The problem is that the fundamentals seem to be at odds with reality. But I'll stop posting here.

If you want the fundamentals, read my book. If you do decide to read it I would be interested in your feedback, in particular, if it made any difference at all in your understanding the individualism stance.

Shayne

Ok then I will do that.

[Xray]

Btw, roughly how many real governments in history have been proper governments, in your judgment? More than ten? More than fifty?

Let's just say for sake of argument that 0% have been proper, that the best that's ever happened is that people imagined

their government to be trying to fulfill a proper role (however incompetently), but in fact it never really was trying, ergo the 0%.

The "best" thing that's ever happened is that "people imagined their government to be trying to fulfill a proper role (however incompetently)"? That's the best thing that's ever happened? That people became delusional about the State? What was the worst thing?

JR

Everyone here knows that Shayne's "the best that's ever happened" refers to the context of George's question only, and is not a general comment on everything that ever happened (just in case your comment implied a critique of imprecise language on Shayne's part; if not, please disregard my remark on that).

What was the worst thing?

In the context of this discussion, I assume: to realize that a government fulfills a 100% "improper" role.

I say it should be rule by Natural Law.

"Natural" Law? Bringing in the word "natural" can offer ammunition to Social Darwinists proclaiming the superiority of the "fittest".

Edited March 26, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

I say it should be rule by Natural Law.

Shayne

I really do think I'm in agreement with this. At least if you mean Natural Law as more or less "the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior."

I don't see see how strict individualism can logically come from this.

Bob

In fact, strict individualism doesn't logically follow. People are in their rights to form a wide variety of systems even including altruistic communes -- but only if they respect the rights of individualist to form individualistic systems as well. But at the root of either choice is the natural right to follow either choice. This natural right is essentially individualistic. Again, see my book.

Shayne

[Selene]

Please quote the post in which you answered my question. I want to see something about which you can specifically say: This is my answer. Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you seriously expect me to reformulate my question a third time? What do you expect to accomplish by running everyone around in circles like this? Either deal with the problem explicitly or say you don't want to deal with the problem -- please.

So, you win the debate by default, merely by claiming over and over that I didn't answer (I could point to where I did answer, but you already claimed it wasn't an answer).

Good Job, I'm sure we can get Selene to find a fancy star for your forehead. George claims George wins! Yay for George!

Shayne

You rang?

This was the best I could find on short notice, will this do?

Edited March 26, 2011 by Selene

[George H. Smith]

Nice parody, George. Oz wrote:

No, sir. That is the estimate of Mr. Shayne Wissler, one of our greatest defenders. Mr. Wissler has also pointed out that few if any governments in history have even been interested in protecting rights.

You may have missed the broader implications of my dialogue. It was not intended to be a parody of Shayne per se. Rather, it is a parody of those minarchists who have no interest in the relationship between real governments and their ideal of "proper" government. This group includes many O'ist types.

If anything, Shayne should have less of a problem here than conventional minarchists. This is because Shayne is what I call a "a practical anarchist." By this I mean that Shayne, while defending government in theory, denies the moral legitimacy (for the most part) of every historical (i.e., real) government in practice. Here is how I described practical anarchism years ago.

Suppose I am asked what could conceivably change my mind and cause me to endorse government, and suppose I give the following reply: "If I believed in the God of Christianity, and if I believed that God had dispatched a squad of angels to communicate with me personally, and if these angels told me that the State is a divine institution, ordained by God for the protection of human rights, and if these angels further informed me that anarchism would lead to widespread death and destruction - then, under these circumstances, I would abandon my anarchism in favor of minarchism."

But consider an important feature that would be missing from my newfound justification of the State. While believing that the State is justified, qua institution, I would not possess specific standards by which to judge whether a self-professed "government" is in fact a legitimate State at all, or whether it is merely a gang of usurpers and oppressors who claim to act on behalf of that divine institution.

As a remedy for this problem, suppose the angels provide me with a clear and unmistakable standard, to wit: "You will know legitimate rulers by the visible halos over their heads. This sign, and this sign alone, will mark the agents who are authorized by God to act on behalf of the State." Well, after looking around at the functionaries of existing governments, and after seeing no such halos, I would conclude that no one who presently claims to represent the State is morally authorized to do so. On the contrary, I would surmise that America is currently in a state of anarchy, since it contains no legitimate government - so, devoted minarchist that I am, I would dedicate my life to abolishing our wicked "government" and to exposing those Satanic politicians who fraudulently pose as functionaries of that divine institution, the State.

This is a species of the "practical anarchism" that Objectivists must logically endorse. For halos, they have substituted consent as the discernible sign of a legitimate government - and, like halos, consent is nowhere to be found in real-life governments. Hence, while defending the State in theory, these consent-minarchists should oppose all existing governments in practice. And this, I dare say, is a kind of minarchism that I can live with quite well - for we are more likely to be visited by angels than to find a government based on consent. (From "In Defense of Rational Anarchism.)"

Shayne takes the need for consent seriously, and he knows that not even the U.S. government was based on universal consent. This leads him to the kind of practical anarchism that I described above (though he may not like the label), and for this he is to be commended. O'ist minarchists typically do not take consent seriously.

Given this, Shayne was quite right to give the answer he did to my question about what percentage of governments have been seriously concerned about protecting rights. Given Shayne's insistence that only governments based on universal consent can be legitimate, he logically concluded that any government that shows little or no interest in consent is not seriously concerned with protecting rights. I could not agree with him more. Of course, he framed his response in the form of "suppose, for the sake of argument" rather than as a definitive claim, but this was probably wise, because it assumed a worst case scenario.

Then we come to the problem posed in my dialogue. It's clear than Shayne is attempting to bypass the basic problem I posed, but there is no reason for this. The question I posed admits of a pretty good minarchist reply -- in fact, I wrote one out myself before posting my dialogue -- and it was never my intention to trip Shayne up at this level. The major problem for the minarchist occurs after my question has been addressed and we move to an even more fundamental level.

Unfortunately, if Shayne continues with his diversionary tactics -- e.g., by posing counter questions based on inapplicable analogies (a moral code is not the same thing as an institution) -- this discussion will drown in a sea of irrelevancies. I suspect this may be what Shayne wants, but, as I said, it is unnecessary, given that a credible response is available to the minarchist.

I have said many times that, for me, the value of the anarchist/minarchist debate lies in the fact that it compels us to confront some basic issues in political philosophy. I was attempting to reach some of those problems with my dialogue, and I frankly don't care who "wins." Shayne, in contrast, obviously sees this as a war between two sides, and with only one winner, so he tends to get defensive whenever he thinks I am attempting to back him into a corner.

The problem I posed is fairly complicated, and it is probably new to Shayne. (I say this because I am the first to raise it in this form.) Judging by how quickly Shayne responded to my dialogue, he didn't take much time to reflect on the issues raised there. Rather, he took it as just another battle tactic by me and then looked for a strategic retreat. It is understandable if Shayne didn't quite understand the implications of my dialogue, but he would have been much better off saying something like "I'm not sure how to deal with this; I will need some time to think it over."

Shayne would be much better off if he put aside the notion of crushing anarchism and focused on these issues for their own sake, whatever their implications may be. When one gets locked into a philosophical position that one thinks needs to be defended at all costs, much of the pleasure derived from philosophical exploration is lost.

The only reason I changed my mind and decided to participate in the debate on this thread is because I thought it might be a good testing ground for the ideas expressed in my dialogue. I'm not entirely sure myself where they will ultimately lead, and at this point I don't care. Shayne is wrong if he thinks that he needs to keep his guard up when dealing with me on this issue, for fear that I am waiting for the opportunity to deliver a knock out punch. I said early on that I have no interest in this sort of thing, and I was telling the truth.

Ghs

[sjw]

The problem I posed is fairly complicated, and it is probably new to Shayne. (I say this because I am the first to raise it in this form.) Judging by how quickly Shayne responded to my dialogue, he didn't take much time to reflect on the issues raised there. Rather, he took it as just another battle tactic by me and then looked for a strategic retreat. It is understandable if Shayne didn't quite understand the implications of my dialogue, but he would have been much better off saying something like "I'm not sure how to deal with this; I will need some time to think it over."

Not so. You raised a number of issues that I did not address, that is true. But I did not address them because I reflected on them and considered them unimportant to the central issue here. Now it may be that I failed to understand something you expected me to be able to, or that I ranked something as unimportant that you think is important, but I am not trying to evade anything.

Please continue, these posts of yours are interesting and entertaining.

Shayne

[Peter]

Bob wrote:

But, if 'life' comes before 'liberty', how could charity be optional? I don't get it.

end quote

That is interesting, Bob. Crikee, that’s brilliant.

You do realize that would take a page to answer? I am watching “Dancing with The Stars” right now.

Life.

Liberty.

The Pursuit of Happiness: The pursuit of happiness. Economic freedom. Free to be all I can be. No guarantees.

Charity? Does it make me happy to help others? Benevolence? Sure, but it is secondary, after the fact of producing.

Ah. Ralph Machio, the Karate Kid is performing, on DWTS. Bye

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

[Peter]

George wrote:

If anything, Shayne should have less of a problem here than conventional minarchists. This is because Shayne is what I call a "a practical anarchist."

end quote

Thank you, Magnificent Oz, for I could not figure him out. The pieces are falling into place. I bequeath you ten points in IQ.

That grafitti was idiotic, Shayne.

I will read all tomorrow but my wife is calling me to watch amateur dancers, and I know upon which side my bread is buttered.

Thanks, George. I did to expect that.

Peace be upon you.

Peter

[sjw]

George wrote:

If anything, Shayne should have less of a problem here than conventional minarchists. This is because Shayne is what I call a "a practical anarchist."

end quote

Thank you, Magnificent Oz, for I could not figure him out. The pieces are falling into place. I bequeath you ten points in IQ.

Well this is poetic. The anarchist "unmasks" me as someone who actually believes in consent of the governed (as if I were hiding that and as if it were a guilty secret), and the nationalistic, consent-violating minarchist cheers. Evidently I am not permitted to claim to be pro-government if I favor consent of the governed -- by either anarchists or minarchists. So much for "the moral is the practical" eh Peter?

I've said this before: anarchism only further entrenches a rights-violating government. Here it is in microcosm -- the "minarchist" prefers anarchism to a government of consent.

Shayne

[Peter]

“Invasive Per Se”

George wrote:

Rather, it is a parody of those minarchists who have no interest in the relationship between real governments and their ideal of "proper" government. This group includes many O'ist types.

end quote

I remember a squad of angels mentioned in “In Defense Of Rational Anarchism.” Robert Heinlein’s character Prof de la Paz in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” was a Rational Anarchist – he recognized government authority but felt there were practical but not moral reasons to obey the authorities, as nearly everyone does when they go over the posted speed limit.

Roy Childs wrote: “[T]here are only two possible kinds of monopolies: a coercive monopoly, which initiates force to keep its monopoly, and a non-coercive monopoly, which is always open to competition. In an Objectivist society, the government is not open to competition, and hence is a coercive monopoly." [Roy Childs, "Objectivism and the State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand." In _Liberty Against Power: Essays by Roy A. Childs, Jr._, (San Francisco, CA, Fox and Wilkes, 1994, p. 147)]

Bill Dwyer responded:

Childs' argument can be restated as follows:

Either a monopoly is competitive or it is coercive; no third alternative exists. Limited government is not a competitive monopoly. Therefore, limited government is a coercive monopoly.

Is this a good argument? No, and the reason lies in its major premise, which commits what may be termed the "fallacy of the false alternative," by assuming that a monopoly must be _either_ competitive _or_ coercive.

Allowing competition in the enforcement of a single body of laws may be considered a version of anarchism by some (insofar as there exist competing agencies of enforcement) and a version of government by others (insofar as there exists a single body of laws that these agencies are enforcing). It all depends on how one defines "government" – whether as an institution having a monopoly on the *use* of force, or an institution having a monopoly on the *laws* of force.

end quote

I don’t think allowing competition in the enforcement of a single body of laws is a version of anarchism at all. It is our system. Jurisdiction is usually cut and dry here in America, so I would NOT call our system a monopoly or competitive.

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@bomis.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:33:00 -0800

Tim Starr wrote:

>OK, fair enough, but I don't think you have successfully demonstrated the existence of a third alternative, a monopoly that is non-coercive in the sense of one that doesn't suppress competitors via initiation of force.

How about a "proprietary community"? How about an agency which grows by acquiring jurisdictional rights over land (from the owner of those rights)?

We may imagine Galt's Gulch growing in just this fashion. The land is fully privately owned at the start, and newcomers have to agree to follow the rules. They can own land, but the jurisdictional rights are not for sale. (This is similar to buying land but not owning the mineral rights beneath the land, or buying land through which a stream runs, but owning only partial water rights to the water that comes in.)

Bill wrote:

>As another counter-example to his premise, I cited a proprietary community in which the owner allows only one protection agency to operate on his property. The protection agency has a non-competitive monopoly that is also non-coercive (i.e., that does not involve the initiation of force), because it is maintained via the legitimate exercise of the owner's property rights.

Victor Levis wrote:

Bill, you are perhaps assuming your conclusion here. I do NOT think that the owner's prerogatives are absolute.

The owner's prerogatives need not be absolute in order for the owner to maintain a monopoly government on his own land.

It is of course true that the monopoly government (or "defense agency" if you prefer) of a proprietary community is not _necessarily_ valid. But that's not what we need to prove. We need only show that it is _possible_ for a monopoly government of a proprietary community to be valid.

--Jimbo

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: RE: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:10:49 -0600

Jimmy Wales wrote:

"It is of course true that the monopoly government (or "defense agency" if you prefer) of a proprietary community is not _necessarily_ valid. But that's not what we need to prove. We need only show that it is _possible_ for a monopoly government of a proprietary community to be valid."

This has nothing to do with Roy's argument. He was not opposed to proprietary communities, which have long been proposed by anarchists such as Francis Tandy and Spencer MacCallum.

Roy was specifically addressing Ayn Rand's theory of government, and she did not defend proprietary communities of the sort described by Jimmy Wales. If she had, no Rothbardian would have objected to her position. As Roy put it, "a limited government must either initiate force or cease being a government."

Jimmy's "Galt's Gult" example (from an earlier post) raises the issue of restrictive covenants on land. If I own a piece of land, can I sell it to someone else with the condition that they shall attend church every Sunday and are forbidden to resell the land without this restrictive covenant being attached? Can I similarly exclude blacks from this land forever? Can I similarly specify that, for all of eternity, all residents of this land must do business only with Jake's Plumbing Company? Can I similarly specify that all residents and future owners must do business only with the Ajax Protection Agency?

These are interesting questions, but they have nothing to do with Roy's argument against Ayn Rand's theory of government. In fact, they have nothing to do with a sovereign "government" at all. Such issues are concerned with the nature and possible limits of contractual agreements.

As for the issue of "monopolies," Roy conceded the possibility of market monopolies. These are voluntary agreements and transactions that result in a single provider of a good or service. He calls these "non-coercive" monopolies because they flow from the exercise of legitimate property rights. Roy did not believe that this was the kind of "monopoly" that we find in Ayn Rand's theory of government, in which an agency (the "government") claims to exercise legitimate rights and powers, while denying those selfsame rights and powers to others, including landowners. Again, I see nothing in Rand's theory of government that would suggest that she was proposing some kind of propriety community. This is precisely the sort of scheme that has classically been defended by anarchists.

If Jimmy or others wish to discuss Roy's article, then they should pay some attention to the broader context in which he presented his arguments.

Bill Dwyer wrote:

"... I was responding to CHILDS' argument that if a monopoly on a particular product is not coercive (based on the initiation of force), then it is competitive (based on out-competing other producers of the same product).

"My point was simply that a producer could have a monopoly ON HIS OWN PRODUCT that does NOT depend on out-competing other producers of that same product, since they would not have a RIGHT to produce that product if the original producer did not give them permission to do so.

"For example, no one would have a right to produce and sell Rand's novel _Atlas Shrugged_ without her permission. Her monopoly on the production and sale of _Atlas Shrugged_ could be maintained simply by the exercise of her property rights. It would not depend on out-competing other producers of the same product."

Roy did not disagree with this, so I don't see the problem.

As I understand his position, Bill is arguing that property rights per se constitute a kind of monopoly, but one which does not involve the initiation of force. If Bill wishes to use to term "monopoly" in this idiosyncratic way, then that is his business, but it doesn't affect Roy's argument.

Like all Rothbardians, Roy used the expression "non-coercive" to denote a state of affairs in which property rights are fully respected. Competition, in this sense, *presupposes* a respect for property rights. To say that Ayn Rand had a non-competitive monopoly on *Atlas Shrugged* (one which did not involve the initiation of force) is merely to redefine terms in a very peculiar manner. Ayn Rand had the right to *dispose* of her own property as she saw fit. This is the essence of what libertarians means by "competition."

Roy's basic objection to government was that it coercively prohibits the legitimate exercise of property rights. Government is a "coercive monopoly" because it prohibits others from exercising the same rights which it arrogates to itself, and it can maintain this monopoly only by threatening to initiate force against competitors.

Ghs

From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@bomis.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:25:22 -0800

George H. Smith wrote:

>Roy's basic objection to government was that it coercively prohibits the legitimate exercise of property rights. Government is a "coercive monopoly" because it prohibits others from exercising the same rights which it arrogates to itself, and it can maintain this monopoly only by threatening to initiate force against competitors.

But none of this applies to Ayn Rand's theory of government, in which government is _not_ a coercive monopoly. In Ayn Rand's theory, property rights are fully respected, and the government does not

_arrogate_ any rights to itself. To the contrary "the government as such has no rights except the rights _delegated_ to it by the citizens for a specific purpose." ("The Nature of Government", VOS, 149)

I think it's worth adding, for emphasis, that the Objectivist refutation of the Childs critique only begins to resolve the issue of minarchy versus anarchy by showing that at least one argument against the Objectivist theory is not persuasive.

--Jimbo

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: RE: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:54:08 -0600

I wrote:

"This has nothing to do with Roy's argument. He was not opposed to proprietary communities, which have long been proposed by anarchists such as Francis Tandy and Spencer MacCallum."

Jimmy Wales replied:

"His argument, at least as originally presented, does not make this distinction. The term "proprietary communities" does not appear in his "open letter", nor does any similar term."

Roy did not make this distinction because Ayn Rand did not make this distinction, and he was replying to Ayn Rand's theory of government, not yours. You should note that the subtitle of Roy's article is "An Open Letter to Ayn Rand," not "An Open Letter to Jimbo Wales."

I wrote:

"Roy was specifically addressing Ayn Rand's theory of government, and she did not defend proprietary communities of the sort described by Jimmy Wales. If she had, no Rothbardian would have objected to her position. As Roy put it, "a limited government must either initiate force or cease being a government."

Jimmy replied:

"And that's precisely what a proprietary community – no matter how large and no matter how monopolistic --

disproves."

You are begging the question. You are assuming that the private agency hired by landowners would constitute a "government" in Roy's sense. It does not. It is a market monopoly -- a single provider resulting from the exercise of legitimate property rights -- *not* a coercive monopoly. When a single provider emerges as the *result* of competition and voluntary contracts, then no libertarian anarchist would object (in principle) to this arrangement.

Jimmy wrote:

"Ayn Rand's theory of government is immune to Roy Childs' critique precisely because she advocated a non-rights-violating monopoly government. The only proper task that a government could conduct, on her theory, would be the retaliatory use of physical force. A proper government, says Rand, "may resort to force _only_ against those who _start_ the use of force."

This is why Roy argued that Rand could not consistently defend an institution (i.e., a government) which exercised a coercive monopoly on law within a given geographical area. If you wish to defend a protection agency which exercises a market monopoly in virtue of the voluntary decisions and contractual relationships of property owners, then Roy would have had not objected to this in the least. This is *precisely* what Rothbardian anarchists have advocated for many decades.

Jimmy wrote:

"Childs' critique purports to show that this is an impossibility; I have shown how he was mistaken."

LOL. Roy never argued that voluntary anarchism is an impossibility, and this is precisely what proprietary communities amount to. This was the point of his article.

Roy's entire article was predicated on a standard interpretation of Ayn Rand's theory of government. Now, you may wish to argue that he misunderstood Rand's theory (though I don't think he did), but this is a different issue..

Ghs

From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@bomis.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: RE: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:55:28 -0800

George H. Smith wrote:

>You are begging the question. You are assuming that the private agency hired by landowners would constitute a "government" in Roy's sense.

Not "in Roy's sense" -- in Ayn Rand's sense. So I'm not begging the question at all.

> It does not. It is a market monopoly -- a single provider resulting from the exercise of legitimate property rights -- *not* a coercive monopoly.

Precisely. This is why Ayn Rand's theory of government is immune to his critique.

>This is why Roy argued that Rand could not consistently defend an institution (i.e., a government) which exercised a coercive monopoly on law within a given geographical area.

And Rand could have legitimately responded: "So what?" She never defended a government which exercised a _coercive_ (i.e. maintained by initiation of force) monopoly. Quite the opposite, she insisted that a legitimate government could not exercise the initiation of force under any circumstances.

>Now, you may wish to argue that he misunderstood Rand's theory (though I don't think he did), but this is a different issue..

It isn't a different issue, it is _the_ issue.

--Jimbo

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:07:36 -0600

I wrote:

"Roy's basic objection to government was that it coercively prohibits the legitimate exercise of property rights.

Government is a "coercive monopoly" because it prohibits others from exercising the same rights which it arrogates to itself, and it can maintain this monopoly only by threatening to initiate force against competitors."

Jimmy Wales replied:

"But none of this applies to Ayn Rand's theory of government, in which government is _not_ a coercive monopoly. In Ayn Rand's theory, property rights are fully respected, and the government does not _arrogate_ any rights to itself. To the contrary "the government as such has no rights except the rights _delegated_ to it by the citizens for a specific purpose." ("The Nature of Government", VOS, 149)>"

This is why Roy argued that Rand's premises are inconsistent with her defense of government. You seem to be arguing that Rand must have believed in a contractual, proprietary community (of some sort), because this is the only scheme that is consistent with her premises. But this does not appear to be the case, and *very* few Objectivists that I have encountered have understood Rand' theory in this manner.

The essence of Roy's argument is that, given Rand's views about the non-initiation of force, the delegation of rights, etc., she should logically have defended proprietary communities of the sort defended by anarchists, rather than defending a more traditional limited government. You and Roy agree about this, except you have somehow convinced yourself that your agreement with Roy constitutes a refutation of his argument. This is very strange.

Remember that Ayn Rand emphatically repudiated the Rothbardian model of "competing governments." Yet you are now saying that she agreed with Rothbard. Again, this is very strange. Are you saying that Rand totally misunderstood Rothbard's position?

Ghs

From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@bomis.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:11:58 -0800

> Remember that Ayn Rand emphatically repudiated the Rothbardian model of "competing governments." Yet you are now saying that she agreed with Rothbard.

No, I am very much NOT saying that she agreed with a Rothbardian model of "competing governments". I am most emphatically denying it.

Ayn Rand advocated monopoly government, not competing governments. "A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to _enforce_ certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area."

She also advocated that a proper government should not initiate force. "...a government that _initiates_ the employment of force... is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality."

Childs' argument purports to show that these two are inconsistent, that only by initiating force could the government remain a monopoly.

Where he went wrong was in not recognizing that a government could remain a monopoly without initiating force, in precisely the way that I have outlined, i.e. through respecting property rights.

--Jimbo

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: RE: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:35:20 -0600

I wrote:

"This is why Roy argued that Rand could not consistently defend an institution (i.e., a government) which exercised a coercive monopoly on law within a given geographical area."

Jimmy Wales replied:

"And Rand could have legitimately responded: "So what?" She never defended a government which exercised a _coercive_ (i.e. maintained by initiation of force) monopoly. Quite the opposite, she insisted that a legitimate government could not exercise the initiation of force under any circumstances."

You know very well that Roy did not maintain that Rand *explicitly* advocated a government that would initiate force Rather, Roy maintained that this was *implicit* in her defense of a monopolistic government.

You are assuming that Rand was consistent in this matter, whereas Roy disagreed. Thus, at the very least, you will have to explain why Ayn Rand vehemently opposed the Rothbardian scheme of proprietary communities, if in fact she was defending proprietary communities all along.

If you wish to say that Rand, despite her protestations, really agreed with Rothbard in this matter, then that is fine with me. I have said many times that Rand's theory has a strong anarchistic undercurrent, and I'm glad we agree about this.

The only remaining issue is whether the contractual justice agencies in a proprietary community should be called "governments" or not. You may call them what you will. I am interested primarily in ideas, not labels, and it is an encouraging sign that you agree with Roy that Rand's premises logically compel us to defend proprietary communities instead of "governments" in the conventional sense.

As far as I am concerned, an anarchistic society by any other name would smell as sweet. 8-)

Ghs

From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@bomis.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: RE: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:22:13 -0800

George H. Smith wrote:

>You know very well that Roy did not maintain that Rand *explicitly* advocated a government that would initiate force Rather, Roy maintained that this was *implicit* in her defense of a monopolistic government.

Yes, of course. And that's his error.

> You are assuming that Rand was consistent in this matter, whereas Roy disagreed.

I'm not assuming it, I'm arguing for it. Rand was consistent because there's no necessary tension between a monopoly institution of government and that same institution not initiating force.

> If you wish to say that Rand, despite her protestations, really agreed with Rothbard in this matter, then that is fine with me.

No, she disagreed strongly with Rothbard.

--Jimbo

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:34:22 -0600

Jimmy Wales wrote:

"Where [Roy Childs] went wrong was in not recognizing that a government could remain a monopoly without initiating force, in precisely the way that I have outlined, i.e. through respecting property rights."

You have thoroughly misunderstood Roy's argument, so you should read his article again. I discussed this issue with Roy many times when we lived in the same Hollywood apartment during the early 1970s. I had many similar discussions with Murray Rothbard as well.

Again, what you are doing is conceding Roy's basic point -- i.e., that Rand's theory logically leads to proprietary communities or some other anarchistic arrangement – while retaining the label "government" for the agencies that are contractually engaged by individuals for the enforcement of law on their own land.

No Rothbardian, much less Roy Childs, has ever objected (in principle) to a single provider of justice in a given territory, so long as this market monopoly emerges as a result of voluntary contracts between landowners and a given justice agency. Even the original landowners in your hypothetical Galt's Gulch have the choice to form their own agency or hire an outside agency of their own choosing. This is what Rothbardians have always meant by "competition."

Ghs

From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@bomis.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:19:31 -0800

>Again, what you are doing is conceding Roy's basic point -- i.e., that Rand's theory logically leads to proprietary > communities or some other anarchistic arrangement

No, I am not saying anything like that, I'm denying it completely and entirely. Rand's theory logically leads to a single monopoly non coercive government in a geographic area.

--Jimbo

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:02:34 -0600

I wrote:

"If you wish to say that Rand, despite her protestations, really agreed with Rothbard in this matter, then that is

fine with me."

Jimmy Wales replied:

"No, she disagreed strongly with Rothbard."

Given your interpretation -- namely, that Ayn Rand advocated voluntary, proprietary communities rather than coercive governments in the conventional sense, that she believed that individual landowners have the right to hire justice agencies of their own choosing (provided this is not prohibited by a restrictive covenant, which is a separate issue that Rand did not discuss at all) -- please explain how Rand's views differed in the least from those defended by Murray Rothbard, Roy Childs, Randy Barnett, David Friedman, myself, or any other libertarian anarchist..

I wrote:

"Again, what you are doing is conceding Roy's basic point -- i.e., that Rand's theory logically leads to proprietary communities or some other anarchistic arrangement...."

Jimmy Wales replied:

"No, I am not saying anything like that, I'm denying it completely and entirely. Rand's theory logically leads to a single monopoly non coercive government in a geographic area."

The difference is nominal only, not one of substance. You choose to call the justice agency that is contractually engaged by landowners a "government," whereas Rothbardians choose to call it a "protection agency," since it lacks the characteristic of political sovereignty.

You can use whatever label you like, but anarchists are far more attuned to the history of political theory, in which territorial sovereignty (i.e., a coercive monopoly) has traditionally been viewed as the essential and defining characteristic of a "government." The agency in your Galt's Gulch scenario -- which is hired by landowners to provide a specific service, just as they might hire garbage collectors and other service providers -- do not claim political sovereignty. This is key point of Roy's argument, if expressed in somewhat different terms.

You have dragged in the prospect of restrictive covenants on land, as if this somehow constitutes a refutation of Roy's argument. But it doesn't have anything to do with his argument; this is an altogether different issue that must be decided on different grounds. *If* our theory of contract and land ownership permits restrictive covenants, such as forever barring blacks from a parcel of land or demanding that all future owners and tenants must employ Jake's Plumbing Company, then your scenario of a land mass that will forever fall within the jurisdiction of a single agency might is feasible theoretically (however improbable it is from a practical point of view). But you have even an iota of evidence that this is what Rand had in mind when she

defended a limited, monopolistic government, then I would very much like to see it.

Even here there are problems, however, such as what happens when the agency that enjoys a market monopoly (say, the Ajax Justice Company) violates the agreement by overstepping its proper limits, as specified in the original contract. (And that's all this is, btw -- a contract enforced in perpetuity via restrictive covenants. It is *not* a "constitution" of some sort, unless you once again insist, like Humpty Dumpty, on making words mean whatever you want them to mean, while ignoring conventional usage.)

Welcome, Jimbo, to the wonderful world of anarchism. But I don't think Ayn Rand would have been pleased with being dragged along to this destination. .

Ghs

From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@bomis.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Re:: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:02:13 -0800

George H. Smith wrote:

>The difference is nominal only, not one of substance. You choose to call the justice agency that is contractually engaged by landowners a "government," whereas Rothbardians choose to call it a "protection agency," since it lacks the characteristic of political sovereignty.

Can you explain this further? The Objectivist government is the owner of the jurisdictional rights in its territory, so it is sovereign in that sense. It is not merely a hireling of various individual landowners who might dismiss it at any time.

The key here is that it acquired this form of sovereignty legitimately.

> You have dragged in the prospect of restrictive covenants on land,

No, you've called it that, but it's really quite different.

Restrictive covenants raise the issue of "dead hand control", among other things, but ownership of property does not.

--Jimbo

From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@bomis.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: RE: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:09:05 -0800

Jeff Olson wrote:

>Now Jimbo et al refuse to acknowledge the equally evident fact that their voluntarily conceived monopoly is, properly classified, an anarchist institution. I even coined a term for it: Anarcho-Monopolism.

That's a very interesting term, but I'm sure you'll agree that it's a rather _odd_ interesting term.

The Objectivist government has a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force, i.e. the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct, in a geographical area. It has this power as a matter of right, and is not subject to dismissal by any particular landowner or other person within the territory. It does not permit competing agencies within its territory. It has a constitution, it has courts, judges, legislators, an executive, police, a military, etc. (It may subcontract out some of those functions, but the key point is that it has final say over those things.)

If that's an anarchist institution, to be called "Anarcho-Monopolism", well, o.k.

>Free market territory-based and subscription-based defense agencies are simply possible variations of voluntarily organized institutions, for Christ's fucking sake.

Right, and the Objectivist argument is that the latter (i.e., subscription based defense agencies) would be a rights-violating disaster.

George H. Smith wrote:

>Rand's basic argument is that justice is not a commodity that can be bought and sold like market goods and services. Why? Because justice -- as exemplified in the rule of law -- is an essential *precondition* for a free society in which property rights are respected and enforced. In short, Rand rejected the market model altogether in matters pertaining to law. This constitutes a *radical* rejection of market anarchism, not a variant of the sort proposed by Jimmy Wales.

Except for the last, i.e. the supposition that I'm proposing a variant of market anarchism, I agree with this completely. That is, I agree that this is Rand's basic argument. And I think Rand was right about this.

The key is -- does Rand's rejection of the notion that justice is not a commodity mean that she is committed, as Childs would suggest, to an institution which must initiate force? I think not.

Suppose Ayn Rand thought all of the following things: a proper government must be a monopoly, a proper government must not initiate force, a proper government must govern with the (specific) consent of the governed, justice is not a commodity, market mechanisms can not be applied to justice services.

Suppose she thought all of those things to be true. Then, everything that I have been saying falls into place quite easily.

>a grave disservice. Her differences with Rothbard were quite profound; they didn't hinge on some technicality about the possibility of restrictive covenants..

Absolutely, that's 100% correct. "Restrictive covenants" is a complete red herring.

--Jimbo

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re:: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS)

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:13:58 -0600

I wrote:

"The difference is nominal only, not one of substance. You choose to call the justice agency that is contractually engaged by landowners a "government," whereas Rothbardians choose to call it a "protection agency," since it lacks the characteristic of political sovereignty."

Jimmy Wales replied:

"Can you explain this further? The Objectivist government is the owner of the jurisdictional rights in its territory, so it is sovereign in that sense. It is not merely a hireling of various individual landowners who might dismiss it at any time."

A discussion of sovereignty is appended below. It is excerpted from a post on SIL, 3/11/03.

Victor wrote:

"The key here is that it acquired this form of sovereignty legitimately."

What you have described is not political "sovereignty," as this term has been used for over four centuries. It is

simply a contractual agreement between the consumer and supplier of a particular service. If I hire a protection

agency to police my property and adjudicate disputes, it does not thereby become a political sovereign.

I wrote:

"You have dragged in the prospect of restrictive covenants on land...."

Jimmy replied:

"No, you've called it that, but it's really quite different. Restrictive covenants raise the issue of "dead hand

control", among other things, but ownership of property does not."

I called it a restrictive covenant because this is my understanding of what you have proposed in your Galt's Gulch example. We discussed this before on another list. As I recall, you are saying that the original proprietors of Galt's Gulch could get together and agree to use the same monopolistic justice agency. They also agree that no one can sell their land without the proviso that future owners will agree to use the same agency, and this proviso is passed down in perpetuity to other owners.

This is a restrictive covenant. It is precisely the kind of "dead hand control" that you now claim to reject. As I

pointed out, the same scenario could be used to show how blacks could never be permitted on certain land, or how Jake's plumbing company could enjoy a perpetual monopoly on that land. If these cases differ from your hypothetical, then please explain how.

[Excerpt on sovereignty]

Political sovereignty -- which has been the key concept in philosophical discussions about the nature of government since at least the late 16th century -- is the claim of an ultimate and exclusive right (1) to determine what should constitute just and/or legal conduct in a given geographical area; (2) to enact and coercively enforce these rules of conduct known as "laws"; (3) to adjudicate and render final decisions (with *moral* authority) in the event of disputes about the interpretation and/or application of these laws.

By a "collective right," I mean any right (enforceable moral claim) that is attributed to a group, organization or

institution, but which cannot be traced to, or logically derived from, the natural rights of individual moral agents.

Political sovereignty (as opposed to self-sovereignty) is a collective right in this sense. For various reasons, such as the universality and compossibility of natural rights, no individual can legitimately claim the right of political sovereignty over other individuals. And if no individual can possess the right of political sovereignty, then this moral power cannot legitimately be delegated or otherwise transferred to the institution known as "government," or the "state."

Of course, some attempts have been made to do precisely this, as we find in variants of social contract theory. But none of these attempts has succeeded -- and none can possibly succeed, for reasons that I don't have time to explain here. Suffice it to say that critics of social contract theory, such as Sir Robert Filmer (Locke's dead

adversary), David Hume, and Jeremy Bentham were precisely right when they cautioned that to pursue social contract theory would eventually vindicate and promote defenses of anarchism. This is *exactly* what happened historically. As the 18th-century philosopher Josiah Tucker put it, the Lockean theory (which is similar to Rand's in this respect) is "a universal demolisher of all governments, but not the builder of any."

If the institution that Rand calls a "limited government" does not claim the moral right of political sovereignty, then it is not a "government' in any historically recognizable sense of the term.

The only way out of this impasse is to distinguish, as did A.J. Nock, between a "government" and a "state." Nock, a self-professed "anarchist," defended the legitimacy of "government" while repudiating on moral grounds the legitimacy of any sovereign "state." I find such distinctions singularly unconvincing.

Rand's theory of "government" is an unstable mixture of political sovereignty and self-sovereignty. This latter (the anarchistic element of the inalienable right of self-ownership) is most evident in Rand's advocacy of voluntary financing, and it helps to explain why so many Objectivists have so easily crossed the line into anarchism.

Unfortunately, Rand never addressed the problem of political sovereignty in a straightforward or systematic way, so we are left with a troublesome ambiguity that crops up time and again in discussions like this.

I am not especially interested in exploring eccentric definitions of "government," such as those proposed by some Objectivists in an effort to avoid the negative connotations of that loathsome label "anarchist." These eccentric definitions have contributed nothing to our understanding of the essential nature of government, as this institution has existed throughout history, and especially since the rise of the modern territorial state, or nation-state, since the 16th century.

The primary effect of these eccentric definitions has been to isolate Objectivists and neo-Objectivists from the

mainstream of political philosophy, and they have imparted to Objectivism yet another cultish quality that it most certainly doesn't need.

If it should turn out, as I and many others believe, that Rand's theory of individual rights is *ultimately* inconsistent with a theory of political sovereignty, then I think those sympathetic to Objectivism should face this fact squarely and be willing to explore the anarchistic implications of Objectivism.

Jimmy Wales wrote:

"The Objectivist government has a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force, i.e. the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct, in a geographical area. It has this power as a matter of right, and is not subject to dismissal by any particular landowner or other person within the territory. It does not permit competing agencies within its territory. It has a constitution, it has courts, judges, legislators, an executive, police, a military, etc. (It may subcontract out some of those functions, but the key point is that it has final say over those things.)"

So how does the Objectivist government acquire this exclusive right to use retaliatory force, which is ultimately an individual right, unless EVERY person within its sovereign jurisdiction has DELEGATED his or her right to the government?

If you can answer this question, you will have solved a problem that some of the best political minds in history, such as John Locke, have been unable to solve. The standard solution has been to reject express consent in favor of "implied" or "tacit" consent. (These are not the same thing, btw.) This is one of my favorite subjects in political theory, so I hope this is your solution as well. Lysander Spooner thoroughly demolished this approach in his "No Treason" series, as have other political theorists. A fairly recent example is John Simmons in his book, *Consent and Political Obligation.*

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George wrote:

If anything, Shayne should have less of a problem here than conventional minarchists. This is because Shayne is what I call a "a practical anarchist."

end quote

Thank you, Magnificent Oz, for I could not figure him out. The pieces are falling into place. I bequeath you ten points in IQ.

Well this is poetic. The anarchist "unmasks" me as someone who actually believes in consent of the governed (as if I were hiding that and as if it were a guilty secret), and the nationalistic, consent-violating minarchist cheers. Evidently I am not permitted to claim to be pro-government if I favor consent of the governed -- by either anarchists or minarchists. So much for "the moral is the practical" eh Peter?

I've said this before: anarchism only further entrenches a rights-violating government. Here it is in microcosm -- the "minarchist" prefers anarchism to a government of consent.

Shayne

You might consider cutting me some slack from time to time. I didn't unmask you as anything. I accurately described your position -- I even praised your position on universal consent -- and I applied a good descriptive label that I have used for decades. I specifically noted that this is "what I call" a minarchist who, while defending government in theory, denies the legitimacy of every real government that has ever existed.

Ghs