Ayn Rand on Gun Control

[Selene]

Here in Vegas there is the "open carry" law. One can carry a loaded handgun on one's person so long as it is visible. Additionally, one can have a loaded handgun, visible or not, within his vehicle. It just can't be concealed on his person.

Getting a concealed handgun permit requires one to attend a firearms safety class (8 hrs.) and "qualify" with the weapon.

More info at:

http://www.shouselaw...led-weapon.html

How long has it been that way?

[Dennis Hardin]

Perhaps the best theoretical explanation of how a minimal state might arise with unanimous ‘consent of the governed’ was provided by the late Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia. Nozick’s argument rests heavily on the Lockean notion of “state of nature.” I read the book many years ago and found Nozick’s account quite fascinating. I’m not prepared to argue that Nozick was successful in this task, only that it was a brilliant and engaging effort.

Here is an excerpt from an Amazon review:

This is a work of genius, though it is frequently misunderstood, perhaps on purpose. Most readers, including important philosophers like Thomas Nagel, simply misunderstand the argumentative structure, with the result that many famous criticisms of the book are irrelevant.

Nozick's thesis is that a minimal state can be justified, but a more than minimal state cannot, except under unusual situations.

Part I of the book is addressed to other libertarians, specifically market anarchists (also called anarcho-capitalists). As such, Nozick assumes libertarian rights of self-ownership (or self-governance). Basically, Nozick wants to show market anarchists that a minimal state can arise without violating anybody's rights, where the rights in question are things that all parties to the debate agree that we have. To do so, he describes a scenario in which security companies come inevitably to have natural monopolies over geographic areas. After providing a highly original analysis of the nature of risk and its moral implications, plus a hugely important discussion of side constraints and moral prohibitions, Nozick establishes that such a monopoly would legitimately prohibit other security firms and independent enforcers from operating in its area, provided it compensates everyone involved. The most natural form of compensation is free security. Nozick then argues that an equilibrium will occur in which the security of all can be provided for with an analogue of coercive taxation.

At the end of this section, Nozick, provided the argument is successful (and there are good reasons to think it is not) has established that an agency provided court, military, and police services in a geographic area will arise without violating rights and without the explicit intention of creating a state.

[George H. Smith]

The role of being a philosophical Don Quixote has never appealed to me. We all recognize that the real world is going to fall significantly short of the ideal here. That happens sometimes. The difference is that minarchists remain focused on reality, and anarchists remain focused on their ideal. In an ideal world...

Then there was that crazy woman -- what was her name? -- who wrote book titled Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. An unknown ideal? What's the point of discussing that? Who cares? We all recognize that the real world is going to fall significantly short of our ideals.

The role of being a philosophical Don Quixote has never appealed to me. What a waste of time.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Perhaps the best theoretical explanation of how a minimal state might arise with unanimous 'consent of the governed' was provided by the late Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia. Nozick's argument rests heavily on the Lockean notion of "state of nature." I read the book many years ago and found Nozick's account quite fascinating. I'm not prepared to argue that Nozick was successful in this task, only that it was a brilliant and engaging effort.

Here is an excerpt from an Amazon review:

This is a work of genius, though it is frequently misunderstood, perhaps on purpose. Most readers, including important philosophers like Thomas Nagel, simply misunderstand the argumentative structure, with the result that many famous criticisms of the book are irrelevant.

Nozick's thesis is that a minimal state can be justified, but a more than minimal state cannot, except under unusual situations.

Part I of the book is addressed to other libertarians, specifically market anarchists (also called anarcho-capitalists). As such, Nozick assumes libertarian rights of self-ownership (or self-governance). Basically, Nozick wants to show market anarchists that a minimal state can arise without violating anybody's rights, where the rights in question are things that all parties to the debate agree that we have. To do so, he describes a scenario in which security companies come inevitably to have natural monopolies over geographic areas. After providing a highly original analysis of the nature of risk and its moral implications, plus a hugely important discussion of side constraints and moral prohibitions, Nozick establishes that such a monopoly would legitimately prohibit other security firms and independent enforcers from operating in its area, provided it compensates everyone involved. The most natural form of compensation is free security. Nozick then argues that an equilibrium will occur in which the security of all can be provided for with an analogue of coercive taxation.

At the end of this section, Nozick, provided the argument is successful (and there are good reasons to think it is not) has established that an agency provided court, military, and police services in a geographic area will arise without violating rights and without the explicit intention of creating a state.

Nozick's argument for his "ultraminimal state" doesn't rest on consent at all, much less on unanimous consent. Rather, as he puts it, the dominant agency will inevitably evolve into an ultraminimal state "by virtue of its power."

Nozick's argument revolves around the notions of "risk" and "compensation." For an excellent critique of Nozick, see The Invisible Hand Strikes Back, by Roy Childs.

Nozick's entire case is based on the premise that legal procedures cannot be objective. I dealt with this error, and presented an objective foundation for legal procedures, in Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market (1979).

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

Then there was that crazy woman -- what was her name? -- who wrote book titled Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

How dare you refer to Ayn Rand as a “crazy woman”! Oh I’m sure you’ll say it's only in jest, but that you could make any such jest is definitive proof of your ugly nihilistic premises. You slime!!

[caroljane]

Then there was that crazy woman -- what was her name? -- who wrote book titled Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

How dare you refer to Ayn Rand as a “crazy woman”! Oh I’m sure you’ll say it's only in jest, but that you could make any such jest is definitive proof of your ugly nihilistic premises. You slime!!

How dare you, you who rides around in a glorified telephone booth, refer to the pre-eminent scholar and leading world authority on Smithian Anartheism as a slime? Such disrespect can only be punished by the calling of a fatwa and the construction of a denunciatory website, and my two crazy friends and me are going to make you pay.

[George H. Smith]

It's true that Rand "never specified the process of consent by which individuals (Americans, in our case) have supposedly delegated certain rights (or the power to enforce certain rights) to their government." It may also be true to say that this has "never been done by any O'ist philosopher[Ghs]."

I suspect that's because it is fairly obvious that there is no way that any government would ever have the full consent of all the citizens in a given geographical area. It's equally clear that defenders of anarchy would not accept anything less than that.

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that consent is not necessary for a legitimate govement, that it is proper for a government to divest individuals of their natural rights without their consent, in at least some cases?

If so, who gets to decide when it is proper to violate the rights of some individuals? The majority?

Forget about the current U.S. government for now. Just tell me how consent would or should manifest itself in an ideal Randian limited government.

If consent is not really relevant here, then O'ists will need to scrap a good deal of what Rand wrote about political philosophy. For example:

Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.("Man's Rights")

...

The source of the government's authority is "the consent of the governed." This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose. ("The Nature of Government")

Nowhere can I find a footnote by Rand that reads "But I don't really mean this."

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Dennis,

I want to be very clear about why it is important for O'ists to have a coherent and consistent theory of consent. Again, this issue has nothing to do with the minarchist/anarchist controversy per se.

If you remain vague about which rights we have supposedly delegated to the U.S. government, and the process by which these rights were supposedly delegated, then you will have no viable defense against arguments like this: Military conscription is justifiable because it is part of the "social contract." We have delegated to government the right to compel military service when the government deems this necessary for national defense.

This is no hypothetical argument; on the contrary, it has been used many times. In addition, modern progressives frequently tell us how we have implicitly delegated many rights to government, such as our right to private property, through the "social contract."

Your cavalier treatment of consent is a classic kamikaze argument. You use it to kill the irritant of libertarian anarchism, but in the process you kill your own ability to rebut a host of other consent and social contract arguments that you yourself find repulsive.

As I have said before, I think I can provide a much stronger argument for Randian limited government that the vast majority of O'ists could. This task cannot be achieved by denigrating ideals and bypassing key theoretical problems.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

It's true that Rand "never specified the process of consent by which individuals (Americans, in our case) have supposedly delegated certain rights (or the power to enforce certain rights) to their government." It may also be true to say that this has "never been done by any O'ist philosopher[Ghs]."

I suspect that's because it is fairly obvious that there is no way that any government would ever have the full consent of all the citizens in a given geographical area. It's equally clear that defenders of anarchy would not accept anything less than that.

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that consent is not necessary for a legitimate govement, that it is proper for a government to divest individuals of their natural rights without their consent, in at least some cases?

If so, who gets to decide when it is proper to violate the rights of some individuals? The majority?

Forget about the current U.S. government for now. Just tell me how consent would or should manifest itself in an ideal Randian limited government.

If consent is not really relevant here, then O'ists will need to scrap a good deal of what Rand wrote about political philosophy. For example:

Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.("Man's Rights")

...

The source of the government's authority is "the consent of the governed." This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose. ("The Nature of Government")

Nowhere can I find a footnote by Rand that reads "But I don't really mean this."

Ghs

The only thing I can think of is if you consent to the government you participate in your government and if you don't consent you don't participate insofar as you can avoid being participated on or with by the government which is, simply, there doing its thing regardless. Your rights will be violated to some extent, the question is how badly? My arguments for government is you're gonna have government and the presence of government doing its thing upon your person pisses you off and makes you stronger and more resistant to tyranny. With a perfect government in a perfect world people turn into Elloi or the people who come along and harvest them. People stop thinking and being concerned with their rights. What's that? Everything degenerates to garbage and mush. Hence, things being the way they are--say not too bad--concerned citizens should fight for better and smaller government--for more and more freedom. Maybe, someday, that governance won't be so bad--the yoke of its existence more than tolerable, except to libertarian anarchists who hang out at university coffee shops skewering Rand on the issue of "consent" while the rest of us are having fun. Those guys will eventually save civilization--again.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

Here in Vegas there is the "open carry" law. One can carry a loaded handgun on one's person so long as it is visible. Additionally, one can have a loaded handgun, visible or not, within his vehicle. It just can't be concealed on his person.

Getting a concealed handgun permit requires one to attend a firearms safety class (8 hrs.) and "qualify" with the weapon.

More info at:

http://www.shouselaw...led-weapon.html

How long has it been that way?

Don't know.

[Xray]

It's true that Rand "never specified the process of consent by which individuals (Americans, in our case) have supposedly delegated certain rights (or the power to enforce certain rights) to their government." It may also be true to say that this has "never been done by any O'ist philosopher[Ghs]."

I suspect that's because it is fairly obvious that there is no way that any government would ever have the full consent of all the citizens in a given geographical area.

Dennis, ,

Your argumentation is based on an empirical fact (no government so far has ever had the full consent of all citizens), but I have the feeling that this is not the reason why Rand never went into specifying the process of consent.

Imo her argumentation was implicitly based on her ideal of a "rational" society, with minarchism as the "rational" solution, from which it follows that rational individuals would therefore naturally consent to this form of government; not to consent would be "irrational".

Imo the lack of practical advice how to get there, how to achieve the rational ideal is neglected in Objectivism because Rand thought that rational individuals just 'know' what to do, because they 'know' what is ''right''.

[caroljane]

From Ayn Rand Answers: the Best of Her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew © 2005 by The Estate of Ayn Rand.

Q: What is your opinion of gun control laws?

A: I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it is not of primary importance. Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, non-criminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It is not an important issue, unless you're ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn't very practical. [Ford Hall Forum, 1971]

Q: What's your attitude toward gun control?

A: It is a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. Handguns are instruments for killing people -- they are not carried for hunting animals -- and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don't know how the issue is going to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim.

[Ford Hall Forum, 1973]

Well, that was 30 years ago. Here we are in the future. Let's consider it.

in her famous scenario from "The Nature of Government" a man suspects his neighbor of stealing his wallet and each calls their private security force. Clearly, Rand intended that the victim call the police. If he suspects his neighbor, he can say why. The police will investigate. If, based on the evidence, they find reason to carry the case further to prosecution, they will do so. Otherwise, they will continue their investigation. Nothing gives the victim the right to act on his own to recover his property. Thus, apparently, we surrender our right to self-defense, except in the most immediate of circumstances.

Yes, here we are in the future, where Florida and other states have a "Stand Your Ground" law, promoted by the gun lobby to encourage sales of handguns.

The law did not protect Trayvon Martin's rights much. The silly boy should have got hisself a gun.

[Dglgmut]

Isn't paying taxes giving consent to your government?

It may be, "Give your consent or go to jail," but it's still a choice.

[Selene]

Yes, here we are in the future, where Florida and other states have a "Stand Your Ground" law, promoted by the gun lobby to encourage sales of handguns.

The law did not protect Trayvon Martin's rights much. The silly boy should have got hisself a gun.

Carol:

We do not know any facts yet. This is not the first, or last time that a Latino has shot a black person, and, it will not be the last time either.

Therefore, let's not rush to judgment. Leave the stupid actions to the attention whores like Al "not too" Sharpton.

Finally, that is a specious argument about any link between "stand your ground" laws and gun sales. Unless of course, you have some statistics, but you do not, because they do not exist.

Adam

carry on...carry nation...cash and carry...carry a gun!

[dennislmay]

Here in Vegas there is the "open carry" law. One can carry a loaded handgun on one's person so long as it is visible. Additionally, one can have a loaded handgun, visible or not, within his vehicle. It just can't be concealed on his person.

Getting a concealed handgun permit requires one to attend a firearms safety class (8 hrs.) and "qualify" with the weapon.

More info at:

http://www.shouselaw...led-weapon.html

How long has it been that way?

Don't know.

I would like open carry to be an option in Missouri. I have met a few old timers who did open carry at their privately owned businesses before concealed carry existed in Missouri. One guy did it in Omaha Nebraska at his junk yard in the early 80's. Open carry would help to re-normalize guns to younger generations who have be indoctrinated by the Marxists running our educational system and the media.

About the only time you see open carry now are a few pistols being carried during deer season.

I would open carry all the time if it were allowed. I didn't think anything of it when I worked security when I was 19-22 years old in Omaha and haven't been able to do it since. Open carry back then - while working security - saved the life of one of my friends when he was mugged outside a grocery store.

Dennis

[Brant Gaede]

Where did Frisco get his guns?

--Brant

[caroljane]

Here in Vegas there is the "open carry" law. One can carry a loaded handgun on one's person so long as it is visible. Additionally, one can have a loaded handgun, visible or not, within his vehicle. It just can't be concealed on his person.

Getting a concealed handgun permit requires one to attend a firearms safety class (8 hrs.) and "qualify" with the weapon.

More info at:

http://www.shouselaw...led-weapon.html

How long has it been that way?

Don't know.

I would like open carry to be an option in Missouri. Open carry would help to re-normalize guns to younger generations who have be indoctrinated by the Marxists running our educational system and the media.

I would open carry all the time if it were allowed. I didn't think anything of it when I worked security when I was 19-22 years old in Omaha and haven't been able to do it since. Open carry back then - while working security - saved the life of one of my friends when he was mugged outside a grocery store.

Dennis

Damn straight.

In this vein, I would like non-inoculation to be an option everywhere. It would re-normalize smallpox, and has saved many people I have heard about from the death-in-life of autism.

[Selene]

From Ragnar...

[Backlighting]

I'd rather conceal carry. Why let the bad guys know you're packin?

[Brant Gaede]

I'd rather conceal carry. Why let the bad guys know you're packin?

So they won't bad guy on you. If you want to take 'em down by surprise--go for it, but anyone can lose in any gunfight. Still, I'd like to conceal carry and shoot 'em down, only you can't conceal carry a .357 in Arizona; it's too big and too hot most of the year for the necessary clothes.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

The role of being a philosophical Don Quixote has never appealed to me. We all recognize that the real world is going to fall significantly short of the ideal here. That happens sometimes. The difference is that minarchists remain focused on reality, and anarchists remain focused on their ideal. In an ideal world...

Then there was that crazy woman -- what was her name? -- who wrote book titled Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. An unknown ideal? What's the point of discussing that? Who cares? We all recognize that the real world is going to fall significantly short of our ideals.

The role of being a philosophical Don Quixote has never appealed to me. What a waste of time.

Ghs

My reference to Don Quixote was intended to underscore the futility of doing philosophy by jousting at windmills which one imagines to be evil adversaries. Cervantes’ novel was about a pathetic, delusional hero whose valiant conquests take place inside his imagination.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is a book about ideals that are consonant with reality. Rational idealism requires that we remain focused on the facts of reality and choose our idealistic battles based on our perception of those facts.

Not all ideals embrace reality. In my opinion, anarchism is one of them.

[Dennis Hardin]

It's true that Rand "never specified the process of consent by which individuals (Americans, in our case) have supposedly delegated certain rights (or the power to enforce certain rights) to their government." It may also be true to say that this has "never been done by any O'ist philosopher[Ghs]."

I suspect that's because it is fairly obvious that there is no way that any government would ever have the full consent of all the citizens in a given geographical area. It's equally clear that defenders of anarchy would not accept anything less than that.

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that consent is not necessary for a legitimate govement, that it is proper for a government to divest individuals of their natural rights without their consent, in at least some cases?

If so, who gets to decide when it is proper to violate the rights of some individuals? The majority?

Ghs

George,

The point is that it is simply not realistic to think that we can design a society in which everyone explicitly consents to the jurisdiction of a limited government. This means that yes, to some minimal extent, individuals who want to provide for their own private self-defense in defiance of the government's monopoly on the legitimate use of force will be denied the "right" to do so--because allowing them to do so would undermine the effectiveness of objective law and lead to the destruction of freedom for everyone.

I'm saying that we must remain focused on reality as well our ideals. If we limit our focus to abstract idealism while ignoring the facts of empirical reality, we make it impossible to achieve realistic ideals.

The best analogy I can think of at the moment is the moral principle of honesty. It is vitally important that we be as honest as possible in our dealings with others--that we refuse to engage in conscious deception, no matter how tempting it may be to get what we want by faking reality. Unless we find ourselves on the business end of a magnum 44--or something comparable--we should always tell the truth. That's the principle we should live by, just as we should live by the principle of respecting the rights of others and not initiating force.

But I can think of any number of unusual situations where following that principle would lead to senseless suffering in the real world. Just for one example: suppose you know that, twenty years ago when a friend of yours--call him Bob--began a new job, he lied about his work experience on his resume. In the twenty years since, Bob has performed his work on a superior level, exceeding all expectations, and now he has been promoted to a managerial position. To celebrate his well-earned promotion, Bob's company throws a party for him, and you are invited.

At the party, you meet the president of Bob's company for the first time, and the two of you start talking about what a fantastic worker Bob is. He mentions to you that he might never have hired Bob if it were not for his prior work experience. The company president says: "Bob got that job because of his experience as a supervisor at American Widgets." You know that Bob never worked for American Widgets, because you have worked for American Widgets for 30 years. You also know that a colleague of Bob's was recently fired when it was discovered that he had lied on his resume.

The president says: "I know you and Bob are great friends. I'll bet you were really upset when he left your company."

Are you honest with the president of Bob's company?

I know I would not be. I know there are times when an abstract principle, no matter how vitally important it might be, should not be followed because of the destructive consequences in the real world. There is absolutely nothing positive to be gained by being honest in that situation. You would not be helping Bob or his company if you told the president the truth.

The only way to achieve freedom in the real world is to have a limited government which operates under objective law. Any realistic attempt to concretize what anarchy would mean in actual practice shows it is totally impracticable. To allow private competing defense agencies will destroy the ideal of freedom under objective law. If liberty requires violating the abstract principle of the non-initiation of force in that one situation, we have no choice but to deal with that reality.

To ritualistically adhere to an abstract principle while ignoring the actual consequences in the real world is, in my view, a form of rationalism--of worshipping an abstract ideal while being totally disconnected from reality.

[dennislmay]

This means that yes, to some minimal extent, individuals who want to provide for their own private self-defense in defiance of the government's monopoly on the legitimate use of force will be denied the "right" to do so--because allowing them to do so would undermine the effectiveness of objective law and lead to the destruction of freedom for everyone.

This sounds like the words of the Luddite Peikoff with no understanding of basic self defense. I would not be part of any government taking away my right of self defense and would feel the need to fight such central planners creating such an unstable arrangement of masters versus the masses. The American arrangement with the people carrying arms to keep a government and internal and external enemies in check is the real world stable arrangement. Everything else leads to tyranny.

Dennis May

[dennislmay]

I'd rather conceal carry. Why let the bad guys know you're packin?

So they won't bad guy on you. If you want to take 'em down by surprise--go for it, but anyone can lose in any gunfight. Still, I'd like to conceal carry and shoot 'em down, only you can't conceal carry a .357 in Arizona; it's too big and too hot most of the year for the necessary clothes.

--Brant

The best combination is open and concealed carry both as many policemen do. Your main larger gun being open carry, your backup gun being concealed carry. In that case it still keeps the bad guys wondering. When the bad guys know every potential victim could end their lives they find other things to do or get their lives ended.

Dennis May

[George H. Smith]

It's true that Rand "never specified the process of consent by which individuals (Americans, in our case) have supposedly delegated certain rights (or the power to enforce certain rights) to their government." It may also be true to say that this has "never been done by any O'ist philosopher[Ghs]."

I suspect that's because it is fairly obvious that there is no way that any government would ever have the full consent of all the citizens in a given geographical area. It's equally clear that defenders of anarchy would not accept anything less than that.

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that consent is not necessary for a legitimate govement, that it is proper for a government to divest individuals of their natural rights without their consent, in at least some cases?

If so, who gets to decide when it is proper to violate the rights of some individuals? The majority?

Ghs

George,

The point is that it is simply not realistic to think that we can design a society in which everyone explicitly consents to the jurisdiction of a limited government. This means that yes, to some minimal extent, individuals who want to provide for their own private self-defense in defiance of the government's monopoly on the legitimate use of force will be denied the "right" to do so--because allowing them to do so would undermine the effectiveness of objective law and lead to the destruction of freedom for everyone.

I'm saying that we must remain focused on reality as well our ideals. If we limit our focus to abstract idealism while ignoring the facts of empirical reality, we make it impossible to achieve realistic ideals.

The best analogy I can think of at the moment is the moral principle of honesty. It is vitally important that we be as honest as possible in our dealings with others--that we refuse to engage in conscious deception, no matter how tempting it may be to get what we want by faking reality. Unless we find ourselves on the business end of a magnum 44--or something comparable--we should always tell the truth. That's the principle we should live by, just as we should live by the principle of respecting the rights of others and not initiating force.

But I can think of any number of unusual situations where following that principle would lead to senseless suffering in the real world. Just for one example: suppose you know that, twenty years ago when a friend of yours--call him Bob--began a new job, he lied about his work experience on his resume. In the twenty years since, Bob has performed his work on a superior level, exceeding all expectations, and now he has been promoted to a managerial position. To celebrate his well-earned promotion, Bob's company throws a party for him, and you are invited.

At the party, you meet the president of Bob's company for the first time, and the two of you start talking about what a fantastic worker Bob is. He mentions to you that he might never have hired Bob if it were not for his prior work experience. The company president says: "Bob got that job because of his experience as a supervisor at American Widgets." You know that Bob never worked for American Widgets, because you have worked for American Widgets for 30 years. You also know that a colleague of Bob's was recently fired when it was discovered that he had lied on his resume.

The president says: "I know you and Bob are great friends. I'll bet you were really upset when he left your company."

Are you honest with the president of Bob's company?

I know I would not be. I know there are times when an abstract principle, no matter how vitally important it might be, should not be followed because of the destructive consequences in the real world. There is absolutely nothing positive to be gained by being honest in that situation. You would not be helping Bob or his company if you told the president the truth.

The only way to achieve freedom in the real world is to have a limited government which operates under objective law. Any realistic attempt to concretize what anarchy would mean in actual practice shows it is totally impracticable. To allow private competing defense agencies will destroy the ideal of freedom under objective law. If liberty requires violating the abstract principle of the non-initiation of force in that one situation, we have no choice but to deal with that reality.

To ritualistically adhere to an abstract principle while ignoring the actual consequences in the real world is, in my view, a form of rationalism--of worshipping an abstract ideal while being totally disconnected from reality.

It sounds to me like you are saying that the rights of individuals sometimes need to be sacrificed tor the sake of a greater good -- the "greater good" in this case being your conception of "objective law." Is this an accurate portrayal?

Contrary to your example, this topic has nothing to do with honesty. It is concerned with rights, especially the rights of people who may disagree with you. Moreover, in your example I get to decide whether or not to be honest; no one has the right to force me, one way or the other.

In the issue of government by consent, in contrast, you get to decide which rights others should and should not have, based on your belief that it is "not realistic to think that we can design a society in which everyone explicitly consents to the jurisdiction of a limited government." I daresay that that most people would say the same thing about a consistent system of laissez-faire, as advocated by Rand.

You seem to think that most rational people would voluntarily delegate certain rights to a truly limited government, so we would at least have a government that is largely, if not entirely, based on consent. So I ask once again: How would this consent manifest itself? How would we know if a given person has consented or not?

Ghs