Against Anarchism

[Xray]

That grafitti was idiotic, Shayne.

Imo the graffito is far from idiotic. For it points to a conflict regarding the anarchist premise itself: How an-arch-ic can anarchism be at all?

For the hypothetical situation of anarchists 'coming into power' would already contradict the anarchist premise of rulerlessness. So strictly speaking, anarchists who come into power, if they are to be consistent, would have to abolish that power again.

The paradoxical term "anarch" reflects this conflict:

Anarch (n.) "leader of leaderlessness," a deliciously paradoxical word, was used by Milton, Pope, Byron.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=anarchy

Personally, I'd really appreciate it if I could get a couple quick references to try to understand the basic tenets of anarcho-capitalism and related variations.

I'm really stuck getting off the ground with this. I can't seem to agree with the basics, but I'd like to learn more.

For me I'm stuck, more or less, with this view:

Life and society are very complex, sure, but in the macro-view is essentially a rational and of course sometimes emotional struggle for scarce resources (money, love, time, accomplishments, assets etc.). In at least a somewhat realistic sense, a game metaphor is appropriate. Any game needs rules, and in most cases, needs referees with the authority to punish including physical removal from the game. Sure, we can play friendly games of street hockey without referees, but certainly couldn't have the Stanley Cup final without them. Very quickly the game would degrade into a cheating frenzy no?

But the referees, like democratic political leaders do not have a monopoly though do they? If they were really bad, then they'd get replaced (maybe with votes from the players). Isn't this essentially our democracy (perhaps with smaller government)? Is it the voluntary agreement with the rules that makes the difference?

Bob

Your post addresses important points.

Re "anarcho-capitalism", while its advocates would obviously like the state to be abolished, when one looks at the structure of capitalist enterprises, one can find hierarchies in them as well. How is a capitalist enterprise to function without a hierarchy?

Who makes the rules in a Capitalo-Anarchia? Who handles infractions of the rules? What if there is no consent as to what rules to establish? Who decides?

And how is to be dealt with dissenters who want no part of this system?

Edited March 27, 2011 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

Who makes the rules in a Capitalo-Anarchia? Who handles infractions of the rules? What if there is no consent as to what rules to establish? Who decides?

How is to be dealt with dissenters who want no part of this system?

Who has never investigated the literature of anarcho-capitalism in an effort to answer her own questions? Who asks even more rhetorical questions than I do?

Ghs

[Xray]

Who makes the rules in a Capitalo-Anarchia? Who handles infractions of the rules? What if there is no consent as to what rules to establish? Who decides?

How is to be dealt with dissenters who want no part of this system?

Who has never investigated the literature of anarcho-capitalism in an effort to answer her own questions? Who asks even more rhetorical questions than I do?

Ghs

They're not rhetorical questions because I do not know the answer.

As to the rest of your reply: Suppose you asked e. g. Ba'al some questions about a mathematical topic and got the reply: "Who has never investigated the mathematical literature on topic X in an effort to answer his own questions?" What would you think?

Bob_ Mac asked:

Personally, I'd really appreciate it if I could get a couple quick references to try to understand the basic tenets of anarcho-capitalism and related variations.

I'd appreciate the same.

In addition, I'm (as always) interested in concrete examples and have the feeling that these examples may be neglected in the probably mostly theoretical treatises on anarchism. I'll stand corrected of course should such examples exist in abundance.

Frankly, I would like to play through here a scenario called "A Day in Capitalo-Anarchia" and see how far it gets without substantial contradictions showing up soon.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

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

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as annoyed with you. Although I disagree with the label "practical anarchist", the only difference between that and me calling you a semantic anarchist is whether I'm right or you're right. Also, I do not deny the legitimacy of every real government, I do so for sake of argument. It is far easier to say that this or that thing they've done is illegitimate than to call them illegitimate as such. Just as it's easier to know that someone stole than to know that they are a thief.

What really pisses me off are these people who claim to be for individual rights, but throw the right of consent into the garbage can, and then have the audacity to feel patriotic about their treason to what they themselves claim the purpose of government to be.

Shayne

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

I'm always interested in concrete examples . . . on anarchism.

end quote

The rare example they give is Iceland, but if you read into it, it was a tribal culture. There is not now and never has been a planned anarchistic community.

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

Was Ayn wrong? Objectivism is contextual. Have the facts changed since she wrote the above quote? What is the stated mission of a Rational Anarchist? I would guess after being around George H. Smith I would say their mission is to be as free as he or she can be, so that they may be all that they can be. To not be hampered by a harmful government. To live a peaceful life recognizing the individual rights of others, whenever they come into contact with them. And to protect their lives and property, through consensually selected defense forces and arbiters, while engaging in Capitalism and prospering.

A Rational Anarchist would say that all the institutions run by The State can be run by private organizations so that there would always be personal consent involved. No one would be born into a land and have to *obey.*

Eyal Mozes wondered about Anarchy and Objectivism. He wrote:

This is the society Rand described in Galt's Gulch. In Galt's Gulch there is no police, no enforcement of contracts, no protection from crime, because none is needed. The only institution needed to protect individual rights is Galt's screen hiding the gulch from the outside, a form of national defense. The only way to achieve such a society is the way it is done in Atlas Shrugged: hand-pick the people allowed to enter the area, make sure (among other requirements) that all of them understand and respect individual rights before they are allowed to come in, and find some way to make sure outsiders cannot come in without permission. The result, as Rand recognized, is far from an ideal society; its inhabitants are eager to leave it and "go back to the world" as soon as they can; the reason is that any such society would necessarily be very small-scale, with a small number of people and therefore with limited opportunities for productive achievement.

end quote

I wish I could ask Ayn Rand, why do some intelligent people read your books, and then claim Anarchism is the logical evolution of your philosophy? How can they be tearing down your philosophy while claiming to fulfill it? Would she answer? Did she ever wonder about that? I know from the Jennifer Burn’s biographer, she came to loath Murray Rothbard who tried to convince her that her philosophy *had* to lead to Rational Anarchy.

I sometimes think anarchists have a screw loose. They face derision for advocating what only occurs during accidental breakdowns in institutions or through migrations into unsettled areas.

I have always maintained that implied consent is freely given if the Anarchist does not move out of the country.

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

Who makes the rules in a Capitalo-Anarchia? Who handles infractions of the rules? What if there is no consent as to what rules to establish? Who decides?

How is to be dealt with dissenters who want no part of this system?

Who has never investigated the literature of anarcho-capitalism in an effort to answer her own questions? Who asks even more rhetorical questions than I do?

Ghs

They're not rhetorical questions because I do not know the answer.

Whether or not you know the answers is irrelevant. A rhetorical question, generally considered, is a question asked for the purpose of making a point rather than soliciting information.

When questions that would require lengthy answers are strung together in a context in which it would be impossible for even an expert to answer them satisfactorily, it is reasonable to suspect that the questioner wishes to make a point, namely, that such questions cannot be answered satisfactorily.

This suspicion becomes even more reasonable when such questions have been addressed in detail by various writers whom the questioner seems to have no interest in reading.

You may wish to read some posts on another thread that pertain to this subject. Written by a German lady whose sig I cannot recall offhand, these posts explain how communication involves more than what we say. How we say something can also be significant, because it may enable others to infer the purpose of the speaker from her "speech acts."

A grumpy guy with a beard expressed some skepticism about the reliability of such inferences, even though there is a science that studies them. I don't think the grumpy guy with a beard meant to deny that such inferences can reasonably be made, depending on the circumstances, so long as we keep in mind that they yield probable judgments at best, not certain knowledge. Rather, I think he got even grumpier when the German lady suggested that a science known "linguistic pragmatics" has taught us something in this area that most thoughtful people didn't already know.

In any case, the grumpy guy with a beard might have a point. I might have made a faulty inference when I concluded that you were asking rhetorical questions.

Ghs

[sjw]

I have always maintained that implied consent is freely given if the Anarchist does not move out of the country.

Peter Taylor

You have a screw loose, because on the one hand, you claim that might makes right, and on the other, you pretend to be following a philosophy that embraces A is A and moral principle. We should have another thread here for "Against Minarchism" to deal with your issues, this thread is about anarchist errors, which as far as I have been able to discern, are far less morally egregious than yours are.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

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

Better question: When the conflict is your liberty vs someone else's life, what gives?

Edited March 27, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[Peter]

Shane wrote, “You have a screw loose,” because I have always maintained that implied consent is freely given if the Anarchist does not move out of the country, and that the Legitimate Sovereignty of The United States of America is a fact. What is my proof of that? First we must look to the beginning.

The Declaration of Independence, and The Preamble could have contained a logical, justification for the rights of men and women, of all colors and historically I wish it had. But instead, the status of both documents was trumpeted as axiomatic and what Glorious Genius that was!

The Declaration of Independence Axiom:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The Preamble to the Constitution Axiom:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Therefore, I can rationally carry on the tradition by stating –

The United States of America Axiom:

The United States of America already exists. It is a fact. All those who might have originally consented or declined to be part of The United States of America are dead. Ever since freedom from England was confirmed, we must now start at the mid-point of a legitimate, working, “State.” A “State,” like an axiom, is not so easily discarded.

Article One: America exists, covering a certain geographical location. The right of consent to be governed is automatically given by anyone who continues to live here.

Article Two: America may at some point, disband as did older Empires or more recently The Soviet Union. Occasionally, a new state may be created, with the consent of the governed, extending the geographical boundaries of America. A territory may decline the invitation, as has Puerto Rico.

Article Three: An individual, within the geographical boundaries of The United States of America MAY NOT secede from The Union. While you live here, you give your consent to be governed and you will abide by the laws of the land. Forever.

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

In addition, I'm (as always) interested in concrete examples and have the feeling that these examples may be neglected in the probably mostly theoretical treatises on anarchism. I'll stand corrected of course should such examples exist in abundance.

The nature of the examples you seek will depend on what you mean by "government."

It has been a long time -- at least 25 years -- since I studied some of the literature on "stateless" societies, and this field has probably expanded considerably since then. Given my interest in classical liberalism, I am more interested in older treatments, such as Jefferson's observations (mainly in Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781) about American Indians.

A serious student of Native American culture, Jefferson attributed the highly decentralized nature of Indian tribes to "the circumstances of their having never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government" (Koch and Peden, Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 221). Since Jefferson believed that freedom is best preserved in decentralized societies, he was naturally sympathetic to societies without government, as he indicated in a letter he wrote to Edward Carrington in 1787 (p. 412):

I am convinced that those societies, as the Indians, which live without government, enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, and restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere.

In a letter to Madison (p. 413) written around the same time, Jefferson divides societies into three basic "forms," one of which is society "without government, as among our Indians." Although a bit uncertain about the matter, Jefferson suggests that this may be the best form for a free society, better even than a society with a limited government, but he also believes that societies without government are "inconsistent with any great degree of population."

In other words, anarchistic societies rely on public opinion instead of coercive laws, and the effectiveness of public opinion as a social sanction decreases as a population increases.

(I have to stop here and go do something. I will continue this later, possibly tomorrow....)

Ghs

[Peter]

Bob asked:

Better question. When the conflict is your liberty vs someone else's life, what gives? Simple question.

End quote

It is not that simple. Does the Captain on a ship or plane have the right to throw a stowaway overboard?

Does a mother who aborts a baby have a right to a dead baby, even if the baby is viable, after extraction from her body?

Suppose a robber walks into a bank and grabs a person standing by the door and uses him as a human shield. The robber holds the hostage in front of himself and starts shooting at the guard, trying to kill him. There is no exit for the guard. The robber just keeps shooting. The only way the guard can survive is to shoot through the hostage. Self-defense in this case requires that you shoot through an innocent noncombatant to stop the aggression, but it is a dilemma.

What if you are a felon who just committed a murder. Your liberty is at stake. Does the felon have a moral right to shoot the policeman who comes to arrest him?

Does the citizen of a country have a right to fight tyranny? At what point is it moral to rebel?

Now if you are painting a simple black and white scenario, Bob, such as I am a righteous man and someone tries to kidnap me, may I use retaliatory force to stop them? Of course!

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

Shane wrote, “You have a screw loose,” because I have always maintained that implied consent is freely given if the Anarchist does not move out of the country, and that the Legitimate Sovereignty of The United States of America is a fact. What is my proof of that? First we must look to the beginning.

The Declaration of Independence, and The Preamble could have contained a logical, justification for the rights of men and women, of all colors and historically I wish it had. But instead, the status of both documents was trumpeted as axiomatic and what Glorious Genius that was!

The Declaration of Independence Axiom:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The Preamble to the Constitution Axiom:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Therefore, I can rationally carry on the tradition by stating –

The United States of America Axiom:

The United States of America already exists. It is a fact. All those who might have originally consented or declined to be part of The United States of America are dead. Ever since freedom from England was confirmed, we must now start at the mid-point of a legitimate, working, “State.” A “State,” like an axiom, is not so easily discarded.

Article One: America exists, covering a certain geographical location. The right of consent to be governed is automatically given by anyone who continues to live here.

Article Two: America may at some point, disband as did older Empires or more recently The Soviet Union. Occasionally, a new state may be created, with the consent of the governed, extending the geographical boundaries of America. A territory may decline the invitation, as has Puerto Rico.

Article Three: An individual, within the geographical boundaries of The United States of America MAY NOT secede from The Union. While you live here, you give your consent to be governed and you will abide by the laws of the land. Forever.

Peter Taylor

Pure totalitarian nonsense. You and people like you are the reason anarchists exist.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

Bob asked:

Better question. When the conflict is your liberty vs someone else's life, what gives? Simple question.

End quote

It is not that simple. Does the Captain on a ship or plane have the right to throw a stowaway overboard?

Does a mother who aborts a baby have a right to a dead baby, even if the baby is viable, after extraction from her body?

Suppose a robber walks into a bank and grabs a person standing by the door and uses him as a human shield. The robber holds the hostage in front of himself and starts shooting at the guard, trying to kill him. There is no exit for the guard. The robber just keeps shooting. The only way the guard can survive is to shoot through the hostage. Self-defense in this case requires that you shoot through an innocent noncombatant to stop the aggression, but it is a dilemma.

What if you are a felon who just committed a murder. Your liberty is at stake. Does the felon have a moral right to shoot the policeman who comes to arrest him?

Does the citizen of a country have a right to fight tyranny? At what point is it moral to rebel?

Now if you are painting a simple black and white scenario, Bob, such as I am a righteous man and someone tries to kidnap me, may I use retaliatory force to stop them? Of course!

Peter Taylor

If the answer to these questions are not clear, then the ethical rules that govern them are either incomprehensibly complex, or contradictory. Either way, not good.

"Does the Captain on a ship or plane have the right to throw a stowaway overboard?"

No.

"Does a mother..."

Don't understand the question.

"Suppose a robber walks..."

Great question! Short answer is no, can't shoot. Longer answer provided if you're interested.

"What if you are a felon..."

No.

"Does the citizen..."

Vague, need specifics what does "rebel" entail.

I think these questions are good, but are quite easily and quickly answered with a morality that is consistent. Again, I think the 'dilemma' only arises if one's ethics are broken. FWIW, I think Rand's emergencies are a perfect example of a fatally flawed moral system.

Bob

[Peter]

Bob_Mac wrote:

If the answer to these questions are not clear, then the ethical rules that govern them are either incomprehensibly complex, or contradictory. Either way, not good.

End quote

You don’t like Rand’s emergency ethics? I thought they were quite reasonable Bob.

I found it interesting to imagine a sliding scale of values for non emergency situations and it goes like this:

POINTS

100 to 1,000,000 family and other people you would die for

90 a toddler you see wandering around in traffic and other entities that cause an immediate, explosive

"Call to Action."

85 Favorite people you don’t know personally, like BB.

84 Ayn Rand, though deceased

83 All Objectivists, Students of Objectivism, Fans of Rand, Libertarians (except the Crazies)

75 Human rights to all adult humans, who recognize human rights, as defined by Ayn Rand

50 children, one nano-second after the cord has been cut

45 (26 week to near full-term fetuses as described in Roger E. Bissell's 1981 article in "Reason Magazine,"- A Calm Look at Abortion Arguments: My personal turning point away from Orthodox Objectivism.)

44 retarded humans

22 previously violent criminals, if no longer a threat to anyone but they still can't vote or own a fire arm

20 pets (I have a feeling this category will be moved higher in points)

15 food animals

10 other animals

1 single-celled organisms

0 Above this point, Thou Shalt Not Kill anything, except with

due cause (to be defined by someone else. Below this point,

kill as needed. Let your conscience be your guide.)

-10 germs that cause minor illnesses

-15 animals that attack, kill or eat people: mad dogs, grizzlies, leopards

-25 major germs that cause death or diarrhea

-45 The murdurous, criminally insane.

-50 murderers and tyrants. They have reason, but are evil, so must be lower than animals

-75 mass murderers. Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc.

-100 the lowest rung of Hell

Would anyone else care to give it a stab?

Peter Taylor

[bmacwilliam]

Bob_Mac wrote:

If the answer to these questions are not clear, then the ethical rules that govern them are either incomprehensibly complex, or contradictory. Either way, not good.

End quote

You don’t like Rand’s emergency ethics? I thought they were quite reasonable Bob.

She may have had a point that it is perhaps not a great idea to define one's ethical principles based on emergencies, but what I'm saying is that if your ethical principles don't apply in emergencies, then they're no good.

I think she was struggling with the fact that her ethics broke down under such circumstances.

Bob

Edited March 27, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[Selene]

Bob_Mac wrote:

If the answer to these questions are not clear, then the ethical rules that govern them are either incomprehensibly complex, or contradictory. Either way, not good.

End quote

You don't like Rand's emergency ethics? I thought they were quite reasonable Bob.

I found it interesting to imagine a sliding scale of values for non emergency situations and it goes like this:

POINTS

100 to 1,000,000 family and other people you would die for

90 a toddler you see wandering around in traffic and other entities that cause an immediate, explosive

"Call to Action."

85 Favorite people you don't know personally, like BB.

84 Ayn Rand, though deceased

83 All Objectivists, Students of Objectivism, Fans of Rand, Libertarians (except the Crazies)

75 Human rights to all adult humans, who recognize human rights, as defined by Ayn Rand

50 children, one nano-second after the cord has been cut

45 (26 week to near full-term fetuses as described in Roger E. Bissell's 1981 article in "Reason Magazine,"- A Calm Look at Abortion Arguments: My personal turning point away from Orthodox Objectivism.)

44 retarded humans

22 previously violent criminals, if no longer a threat to anyone but they still can't vote or own a fire arm

20 pets (I have a feeling this category will be moved higher in points)

15 food animals

10 other animals

1 single-celled organisms

0 Above this point, Thou Shalt Not Kill anything, except with

due cause (to be defined by someone else. Below this point,

kill as needed. Let your conscience be your guide.)

-10 germs that cause minor illnesses

-15 animals that attack, kill or eat people: mad dogs, grizzlies, leopards

-25 major germs that cause death or diarrhea

-45 The murdurous, criminally insane.

-50 murderers and tyrants. They have reason, but are evil, so must be lower than animals

-75 mass murderers. Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc.

-100 the lowest rung of Hell

Would anyone else care to give it a stab?

Peter Taylor

Posters who refuse to use the quote function...-11,000,000

Edited March 27, 2011 by Selene

[Xray]

In any case, the grumpy guy with a beard might have a point. I might have made a faulty inference when I concluded that you were asking rhetorical questions.

Faulty inferences are of course always possbible. As long as you say "I infer from your post that you intended X", the grumpy guy with the beard needn't get upset.

Only if you claimed "I know you intended X", he would disapprove I suppose.

In a letter to Madison (p. 413) written around the same time, Jefferson divides societies into three basic "forms," one of which is society "without government, as among our Indians." Although a bit uncertain about the matter, Jefferson suggests that this may be the best form for a free society, better even than a society with a limited government, but he also believes that societies without government are "inconsistent with any great degree of population."

I suppose all these Indian tribes also had chiefs, i. e. each tribe was organized in a hierarchical structure.

But as for anarchists, aren't they opposed to hierarchical structures as such? (I'm a layperson, but this always been an association I've had with anarchism).

Edited March 28, 2011 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... on the one hand, you claim that might makes right, and on the other, you pretend to be following a philosophy that embraces A is A and moral principle.

Shayne,

Here's something to think about in terms of human nature.

Instead of considering the reality of human beings as frozen points in time of adults, what happens if we step back and see human beings from the perspective of each having a beginning, a middle and an end? This is the model of human nature I propose to examine right now.

So let's start at the beginning and see what exists. Since the idea of freedom is predicated on volition and force as fundamental components of the concept, let's start there.

No child chooses the family he is born into.

How's that for volition? In other words, there is is no volition at that stage. The child just plops out where he plops out.

Now about force. The child has very little conscious control of his situation within that family until he gets older. After a certain age, he can start influencing the decisions of those who have "ruled" him up to that point--yes, by force. An infant is ruled by force. But as he grows up, volition and force gradually invert in setting the conditions of his situation. If he stays in constant conflict with the family while maturing, he can even escape their force and use his volition, i.e., move on, abandon that family and make a new one, this time with himself in charge, if he desires, or even live without a family.

Does ruling babies by force constitute initiation of force? It often does. Sometimes, you have to force babies to do things they don't want to do. And you have to confine them. Otherwise, their chances at survival are not good.

Now let's move from the family to the government. Nobody choose the country he is born into nor the government at the time he is born. He just plops out where he plops out. So how on earth can he choose to "delegate" his use of force to the government as Rand proposed? He can't. Not while he is young. He can do that as an adult, but not as an infant.

How can he defend himself against bullies? By relying on the market and using competing forms of security organizations (as ancaps propose)? He can't do that when he is young. He can only do that when he is an adult.

Both Rand's position and the ancap position rely on the model of human nature as a mature adult. They consider the first decade and a half or so of a human being's life irrelevant to their concept of government or lack thereof.

I see the institution of government itself as a reflection of family taken to a broader scope (i.e., to include more individuals and groups of individuals). The idea of having a leader is ingrained in us by our very nature from growing up. We're built that way. And to reinforce it, we learn it by not having anything different around us for a decade and a half or so. Our only conceptual referents are having authority figures around us (our parents) telling us what we can and cannot do.

How can that go away once a person becomes an adult? It can't. The neural pathways are formed from a very early age and reinforced through learning and experience over years.

So I think it is only natural that the default form of organizing a group of people is a government--i.e., an organization with leaders in charge who make the rules and wield the power over the group. (At this stage, I'm not discussing which form of government is better than which, merely that a natural form of organization for groups of human beings exists.)

That is the "genus" of my concept of government. It is the background of the abstraction and it stems from human nature--but the view of human nature as the human being from start to finish, not just the mature adult. This last (the adult) is where the "differentia" comes in with its emphasis on freedom and individual rights. If you want to derive government from human nature, this is the form I have arrived at. This "differentia" stems from the adult part of human nature (conceptual volition).

There is a form of government that has been devised to reflect this. It is called a constitutional republic. I don't claim that this is the only form that can be devised based on human nature (the "whole" version), but it does reflect the different parts of fundamental human existence.

So when you say that others claim that "might makes right," well it actually does make right for the infant. That's his reality and he has no other. Left to his conception of right at that stage of development, he would perish. This "might makes right" condition changes as he matures and volition starts kicking in, but it never goes away entirely. It's there in the genus of the concept (in my formulation) and it manifests itself, when a "proper government" under this concept is pushed to the limit by the government fighting to preserve itself from destruction against enemies.

Under this concept, I believe it is entirely possible to discuss the confines and powers of government without contradiction. However, I do not believe it is possible to use only the adult human being as the model of human nature and be free of contradictions. That stems from the premise. If the premise is incomplete (like an incomplete view of human nature), and you try to build a complete solution on top of it (like, say, the proper form for government of human beings in general), you can't help but get contradictions.

Anyway, this is food for thought.

Michael

[Peter]

Bob wrote:

I think she (Rand was) struggling with the fact that her ethics broke down under such circumstances.

end quote

I disagree.

The easiest example constantly used, with a dash of humor:

You are traveling through the wilds of Malibu, California after a small plane crash. You are starving and dying of thirst. You come upon a beach house. The sign out front says, “Charlie Sheen’s Residence.” You knock. No on comes to the door.

It is an emergency so you break in, head for the water faucet, but hear the refrigerator running so you settle for a cold beer. You leave a note and money to pay for the damage, then call a property protection agency to guard the broken door until Charlie comes home from getting laid. You will plead nolo contendre if Charlie presses charges, or demands a night with your sister as compensation.

O’ism 101. Now what’s wrong with that?

Peter

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

Posters who refuse to use the quote function...11,000,000

I had to look twice. That is plus 11,000,000! Thanks, Adam.

Peter

[Peter]

Michael Stuart Kelly wrote:

Under this concept, I believe it is entirely possible to discuss the confines and powers of government without contradiction. However, I do not believe it is possible to use only the adult human being as the model of human nature and be free of contradictions. That stems from the premise. If the premise is incomplete (like an incomplete view of human nature), and you try to build a complete solution on top of it (like, say, the proper form for government of human beings in general), you can't help but get contradictions.

end quote

I agree. Golleeee, you are smart.

Shayne called me a totalitarian.

Definition of TOTALITARIANISM from Merriam Webster Online:

1: centralized control by an autocratic authority

2: the political concept that the citizen should be “totally” subject to an absolute state authority

Examples of TOTALITARIANISM

<in times of crisis, when a nation's people are frightened, there are often calls for totalitarianism> First Known Use of TOTALITARIANISM 1926. Synonyms: absolutism, autarchy, authoritarianism

end quotes

If a person is a patriot who extols limited government to protect individual rights, as was Ayn Rand, that in no way makes them a totalitarian.

The sensible idea that coercive taxation is a necessary evil AT THIS TIME to fund government is not totalitarianism. To work towards the goal of lessening taxation through:

a) paying for services, as with a citizen buying *legal paper* which provides them the right to use the civil courts. Private arbitration would still be available as it is now.

B) tolls on highways built with federal funds. An individual still has a right to build a road and a state can still be vested with the power to build a road by the people of that state. States may band together to build connecting roads.

c) establishing a national lottery

d) allowing other JUST countries the protection of our armed forces if it is paid for.

e) placing the retaliatory use of force under governments domain while allowing other state or private companies the right to the retaliatory use of force to protect individual liberty or corporate property, as long as their actions do not conflict with the National Constitution.

f) working to decriminalize all victimless crimes.

None of these or other modes of voluntarily paying taxes is a form of totalitarianism, especially when the last, stated goal is to make taxation voluntary.

A person is free to leave a country. A person is free to change the laws, even the National Constitution through amendments.

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

Since this thread is supposed to be about arguments against anarchism and not arguments against totalitarian minarchism (which Peter is most definitely in favor of), I'm going to refrain from going further down that path, except to point out a simple fact: The US government has every right to try to defend natural rights within its borders; it has zero right to create a totalitarian system where we have the War on Drugs, Social Security that you can't opt out of, fiat currency that you can't opt out of, etc. etc. etc. etc., and the answer "if you don't like it then leave" is utter totalitarian barbarianism -- nothing gave them the right to do these things in the first place, nothing gives them prerogative to come in to the totality of this "geographic region" and ram these things down the throats of all the inhabitants.

Shayne

[Peter]

Shayne angorrillaly thumped his chest and wrote:

" . . . nothing gives them prerogative to come in to the totality of this "geographic region" and ram these things down the throats of all the inhabitants.

end quote

History is not rammed down your throat. Reality is not rammed down your senses. People are what they are, not some idealized folk, you imagine. America is a fact. Western civilization is a fact. Work with the facts.

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Think about this: The literature of anarcho-capitalism is a lot of supposition but proof of successful theory lies in practice. Proof of successful theory lies in *History.*

Advocates of Randian Government have heard your dismissing voice saying that there has never been a successful Objectivist Government therefore the lack of a successful Anarchist Non-Governmental Territory has as valid a claim for actuality as Rand’s system of *just and proper* government.

You are fond of the word “history” so ponder historical actions, not theory. There has been The Enlightenment and Western Civilization and simultaneously Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union. What a mess even the best of humanity can produce, when it is viewed from the lofty perch of historical hindsight. And you are correct Shayne and George that there has never been an ideally proper government. But, there is NO history of Anarchism beyond literature.

13 percent of all American homes are vacant, which is horrible, but 87 percent are occupied. Rhetorically, the occupied houses, as Michael Stuart Kelly mentions, are human children raised by human nature in human families - the occupied houses are humans as they are, not as they are idealized. The occupied houses are “things as they historically are” and America as it was conceived and America where she is today – drifting towards socialism up until the ascendancy of the Tea Parties.

Little children have a strong sense of personal sovereignty as do adult Anarchists and Objectivists. Little children run away (as you run to Anarchism) but the little runaway’s stories usually end disastrously. The Rational Anarchist who truly wants no fetters on his actions while living in relatively free America, will end his life in futility. Objectivists will not.

George wrote 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 . . . . “ and I agree.

America IS what Rand’s theory of Government is based upon, and America does exist. It will continue to exist. Anarchist literature will continue to exist but accept for Accidental Anarchy it has never existed . . . doesn’t now exist . . . and won’t exist later: planned Anarchy will never exist.

Let me bring your parody to Shayne out of the clouds, George. Anarchists (your Angels) are to undertake a full-scale investigation. After their investigation is completed, they will submit a report with a list of recommendations to your make-believe Deity or perhaps a reasoning electorate, or Tea Party. Using this evidence and reason, George H. Smith will present a plan for the best way to fix America. (A member of your Fraternal Order of Governments or FOG)

You write that “Some of FOG’s members might have protected some rights here and there, but this has been a hit and miss thing.”

You asked “Are any of the current” or past governments, proper governments, and your answer was, “No.” Then, “Why, in short, should we look to government as our model institution?”

George proposes an elegant solution to the lack of proper government. We find some kind of ideal institution that can guarantee individual rights without power creep; a proper government-like entity that won’t devour its citizen’s rights.

Then, no matter what animal this proper government may be, we simply call it, not government, and not anarchy, but something else. But what? Ayn Rand had an incomplete answer. Finish the job that Locke, Paine, Jefferson, Madison, George H. Smith and Ayn Rand started.

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

Shayne angorrillaly thumped his chest and wrote:

" . . . nothing gives them prerogative to come in to the totality of this "geographic region" and ram these things down the throats of all the inhabitants.

end quote

History is not rammed down your throat. Reality is not rammed down your senses. People are what they are, not some idealized folk, you imagine. America is a fact. Western civilization is a fact. Work with the facts.

Peter Taylor

I accept the facts, including the fact that you would have made a good SS man.

Shayne