Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’

[George H. Smith]

Imo it is not bevolence that causes the harm; it is cowardice.

The main problem is a failure to respect the moral autonomy of others. A good example in American history is temperance reform. As the temperance movement got underway in early 19th century America, it was based on voluntary persuasion and was motivated (in many cases) by a sincere desire to help others. But as the do-gooders gained political power -- via the Whig party and later the Republican party -- most reformers had no problem with turning a voluntary crusade into a coercive one.

The same thing happened with the early Christian movement. On this see my article "Christianity and Liberty" at http://www.libertari...in/relin008.pdf This was originally written (c. 1989) for the Acton Institute, a Catholic outfit that was founded by an old friend of mine from my LA days during the 1970s.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I leave it to you to transform these hardened criminals into benevolent people first, and then I will teach them about rights.

George,

This is exactly my point.

Your teaching of rights won't be worth breaking wind in a feces factory otherwise to those fine gentlemen.

Benevolence, or a concern for the welfare of others, is fine so long as it does not employ force, whether by individuals or government.

I hold that benevolence is more than just an intellectual concern. It also involves an emotional attitude--traditionally expressed as "goodwill toward man."

People don't have that naturally. They have to learn it and maintain it. And I hold it is far more than an ornament. I put it right along with justice (or better, reason) as part of the foundation. Self-interest, too.

Once again, the two attitudes opposite benevolence are hostility and apathy toward others. I'm talking about a general attitude in society, not about specific contrary individuals within that environment. People who dislike or hate others, and people who are apathetic about others are not exactly motivated to get together with others to agree on things. But here's an observable fact:

Gangs flourish in environments of hostility and apathy. They do not flourish where people have general goodwill toward each other.

I sure don't see gangs promoting individual rights, justice or anything else but the welfare of their particular gang any time soon.

If you can look and not see that, I have no means of getting you to see it.

But if you erase or ignore these boundaries, then you get the likes of Barack Obama...

This is the trouble when you start barbecuing a sacred cow like NIOF qua dogma.

Where have I said anything about erasing or ignoring any of that? I haven't, but this will constantly come up (among other stuff) as if I did. And it will usually wobble for a bit, then go back to an outright accusation that I reject NIOF altogether (or whatever along those lines).

That has been my experience so far. And I have had several years of experience in these discussions with lots of NIOFers That's just what happens as it has happened on this thread and is starting to happen again.

You called Dennis dishonest for what you perceived as a similar distortion with Rand's words.

I don't hold this is dishonest (nor do I even entertain the thought that he is or you are dishonest), but I am aware of the blinding force of a deeply held belief on a person with a high degree of intelligence.

The rub is, I get tired of saying over and over I don't hold the views NIOF believers attribute to me. So maybe this is a good time for another break...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I know I said break, but I couldn't resist what just came up.

So let's see.

You guys are wound up about someone saying good things about Jesus on an Objectivist board?

Does it itch you?

Does it make your knee wanna jerk?

Humph.

Take this, put it in your pipe and smoke it.

From here: The Disciple, by one Diana Hsieh.

In the years that I’ve been studying the history and texts of early Christianity, I’ve grown to love and appreciate the Gospels as literature. They’re rich, complex, and philosophical. I’ve also developed some sympathy for Jesus — as much as I disagree with every bit of his preaching — because his message was so quickly and wildly distorted by his followers. To use Bart Ehrman’s language, there’s a gap between the religion proclaimed by Jesus and the religion about Jesus.

That's right, dudes.

The big H. Read it and weep.

OK... All right... That's not the real point behind that post. Breaking with Peikoff is. But who knows what lurks in the hearts of Objectivists and libertarians? The Shadow (of belief) knows...

(I just love it when these coincidences happen. )

Michael

[9thdoctor]

The hell with this. The editor went nuts. What's all this ";&amp" business, I didn't type that!

[Brant Gaede]

The hell with this. The editor went nuts. What's all this ";&amp" business, I didn't type that!

Another man who needs to be saved.

--Brant

[caroljane]

EDIT- btw - As a kid, where did you learn your morality from if not your family, church or regular social event you were made to participate in (like Boy Scouts or even school)? You dreamed it up all on your own?

I basically came up with it on my own. As a kid my so-called peers didn't treat me very well, nor each other, and I knew that was wrong. I had rights, as understood by libertarians, basically figured out by the age of 13, long before Rand hit my fan. I was very smart but not smart enough not to integrate my individual self with the state which I mixed up with being an American. The United States and America have gone their separate ways. Now one exists as an entity and the other only as an idea.

--Brant

But it has always been only an idea - a gleam in the eyes of the founding fathers.

Not quite. At one time calling this country "The United States of America" wasn't a lie. This is now The United States, period.

--Brant

When was this time?

March 27, 1944--the day before I was born.

--Brant

I ruined everything

Ah, that explains it. Canada's descent began on March 27, 1984, the day before my son Andy was born. He was supposed to arrive on April 1 but did not wish to appear foolish.

The decline of the West is all the fault of you damn Aries!

[caroljane]

Well, at least I am only getting double quotes now and not quadruples.

Meanwhile edit is still not working.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, at least I am only getting double quotes now and not quadruples.

Carol,

Gotcha covered on the doubles.

Michael

[Xray]

People need to get a grip on the differences between art and philosophy. I admit Ayn really mixed them up, especially in AS. One thing I hope I never see again is an Internet debate on Dagny shooting the guard.

--Brant

Internet debates on this scene will exist as long a as Objectivism is being discussed.

The reason being that Rand's "message" is in her novels, especially in her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged. It is not ITOE that is her magnum opus. ITA with your assessment about ITOE being mainly written to 'dress out' her philosophy.

The same is true for TVOS imo.

Her (both fictional and philosophical) magnum opus is Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead being its antecedent.

Rand herself made numerus references to Galt's speech, which she meant to be treated as a primary source containing the essentials of her philosophy. It was Ayn Rand who spoke there via Galt's voice

Imo attempts at downplaying certain problematic scenes in Rand's major novels (which are all essential, key scenes) creates a 'wanting to have one's cake and eat it too' dilemma:

For If it is argued that "AS is 'only' a novel", one thereby weakens the novel as the author's philosophical magnum opus.

If, one the other hand, AS is regarded as Rand's philosophical magnum opus, then its essential scenes belong to the philosophical message as well.

[anthony]

A harsh lesson in AS, no two ways about it.

I think Brant called it "cosmic justice" elsewhere.

Isn't it AR 'saying':

Live by your premises, or die by your premises.

There's no choice but to choose which ones.

Gravity does not exist? Fine, be consistent and step off your balcony.

(Hey, mine's only one floor up.)

I've only reread We the Living in recent time, so am a bit rough

in my recall of the other novels. Seeing as I was given a brand new

AS the other day, that will be next.

[9thdoctor]

The hell with this. The editor went nuts. What's all this ";&amp" business, I didn't type that!

Another man who needs to be saved.

--Brant

I did a post, then tried to edit it and it became a mess, with all kinds of codes showing up in the text. Here I'm reproducing the content, though it's date sensitive, meaning it relates to yesterday:

Take this, put it in your pipe and smoke it.

Is this supposed to be a “4-20” joke?

And I could swear I saw you quoting St. Francis earlier. Brother sun sister moon indeed. It doesn’t get much worse than that!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAvyrPa3s-g

Ok, yeah it does, actually. This being not only the what, national dope smoking day? Well it’s also Hitler’s birthday. So long as you’re not actually celebrating that there are still deeper depths to which you could sink.

[Brant Gaede]

People need to get a grip on the differences between art and philosophy. I admit Ayn really mixed them up, especially in AS. One thing I hope I never see again is an Internet debate on Dagny shooting the guard.

--Brant

Internet debates on this scene will exist as long a as Objectivism is being discussed.

The reason being that Rand's "message" is in her novels, especially in her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged. It is not ITOE that is her magnum opus. ITA with your assessment about ITOE being mainly written to 'dress out' her philosophy.

The same is true for TVOS imo.

Her (both fictional and philosophical) magnum opus is Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead being its antecedent.

Rand herself made numerus references to Galt's speech, which she meant to be treated as a primary source containing the essentials of her philosophy. It was Ayn Rand who spoke there via Galt's voice

Imo attempts at downplaying certain problematic scenes in Rand's major novels (which are all essential, key scenes) creates a 'wanting to have one's cake and eat it too' dilemma:

For If it is argued that "AS is 'only' a novel", one thereby weakens the novel as the author's philosophical magnum opus.

If, one the other hand, AS is regarded as Rand's philosophical magnum opus, then its essential scenes belong to the philosophical message as well.

Who said AS was "only a novel"? As for downplaying any thing in her novels, it ain't me, babe. Good luck with dressing me with that. Why are you coming here, of all places, to tell people like us about Galt's speech? That's for morons or people who've yet to read it. And that sentence of yours about AS and its "antecedent"--I'm glad you told me that. I just didn't have any idea.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Interesting to go back to a time when words like "storm trooper and "swastika" had positive connotations.

None of this craziness probably would have happened if not for the myth of German war guilt from WWI and the onerous measures imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. Note how the phrase "freedom and bread" is used in this bit of propaganda.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Interesting to go back to a time when words like "storm trooper and "swastika" had positive connotations.

None of this craziness probably would have happened if not for the myth of German war guilt from WWI and the onerous measures imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. Note how the phrase "freedom and bread" is used in this bit of propaganda.

Ghs

Ja, das bringt wieder ein paar schöne Erinnerungen. Das waren die guten alten Zeiten.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Now we have the Obama Youth. Blue Shirts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

People need to get a grip on the differences between art and philosophy. I admit Ayn really mixed them up, especially in AS. One thing I hope I never see again is an Internet debate on Dagny shooting the guard.

--Brant

Internet debates on this scene will exist as long a as Objectivism is being discussed.

The reason being that Rand's "message" is in her novels, especially in her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged. It is not ITOE that is her magnum opus. ITA with your assessment about ITOE being mainly written to 'dress out' her philosophy.

The same is true for TVOS imo.

Her (both fictional and philosophical) magnum opus is Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead being its antecedent.

Rand herself made numerus references to Galt's speech, which she meant to be treated as a primary source containing the essentials of her philosophy. It was Ayn Rand who spoke there via Galt's voice

Imo attempts at downplaying certain problematic scenes in Rand's major novels (which are all essential, key scenes) creates a 'wanting to have one's cake and eat it too' dilemma:

For If it is argued that "AS is 'only' a novel", one thereby weakens the novel as the author's philosophical magnum opus.

If, one the other hand, AS is regarded as Rand's philosophical magnum opus, then its essential scenes belong to the philosophical message as well.

Who said AS was "only a novel"? As for downplaying any thing in her novels, it ain't me, babe. Good luck with dressing me with that. Why are you coming here, of all places, to tell people like us about Galt's speech? That's for morons or people who've yet to read it. And that sentence of yours about AS and its "antecedent"--I'm glad you told me that. I just didn't have any idea.

--Brant

Why are you getting so worked up?

<...> "Both of her two great novels are surreal and unreal." <...>

Indeed they are. Nothing wrong with that from a "fiction" perspective.

But when you think about how the idea of establishing a Galt's Gulch-like society has played a role in various discussions, this irreality and surreality has to be taken into account.

Of course, it might be said that, in the passage I quoted from VOS, Rand speaks of a "society," whereas she denies that Galt's Gulch is a society. Rand sometimes used "society" in a peculiar manner; certainly a community of 1000 people who interact on a regular basis would qualify as a "society" by every standard I know of. Calling it a "private estate" is merely to call it a private -- i.e., a nongovernmental, or anarchistic -- society, if a relatively small one.

Rather than engage is a fruitless debate over the meaning of "society," I am willing to grant Rand's premises for the sake of argument. Say 1000 people are invited by the owner of an estate to live on his land, but that this land legally falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. government. May this "private estate" then secede from the United States, in effect, by ignoring laws they disapprove of and appointing their own arbiter to resolve disputes?

If the O'ist answer is Yes, then the O'ist already has one foot in the anarchistic grave and his other foot on a banana peel.

I think you are correct in your assessment that a Yes would get too close to anarchy.

What would you reply to an Objectivist who answered with No?

They can suceed to the extent neither they nor the U.S. initiates force. However, if A murders B the state of, say, Colorado sends in the law. You cannot stand at the gate and claim no admittance--that yours is a soverign state even if your soverign state hanged A yesterday, which would be another murder, BTW. Your own "law" must be conguent and ultimately subservient to the law of the state and country.

Which means that a real secession of such 'societies' from the US would not be possible.

Ghs's question to Dennis was whether such a secession would be justified from an Objectivist point of view.

I think the Objectivist answer would have to be "No" (for replying with "Yes", as Ghs has pointed out, would undermine the Objectivist rejection of anarchism) .

[9thdoctor]

None of this craziness probably would have happened if not for the myth of German war guilt from WWI and the onerous measures imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles.

OTOH, Austria was also saddled with a war debt, the difference was it didn’t devalue its currency. Apparently the influence of Mises had something to do with that. His bio made him seem like an important player.

Note how the phrase "freedom and bread" is used in this bit of propaganda.

Because Hitler was a vegetarian, teetotaler, and non-smoker. "The People" really wanted their schweinefleisch, bier, und zigaretten ahead of brot. It's a wonder they fell for this crap, no?

Now we have the Obama Youth. Blue Shirts.

Most fearsome were the Black Shorts. Good thing they never caught on, civilization could never have survived.

[Xray]

For example, as Rothbard and many others have suggested, rational self-interest would generate cooperation among different agencies. The result would probably be a type of confederation. Suppose that two different agencies reach different verdicts in a criminal case. Is it so difficult to imagine that these agencies would have agreed beforehand to submit such disputes to an impartial third-part arbitration agency?

This impartial third-part arbitration agency would have the power to decide on the issue then?

Something similar to an appeals court would also be needed.

As for deciding on which laws are to be establised in anarchistic society - how would the decision process take place?

[George H. Smith]

For example, as Rothbard and many others have suggested, rational self-interest would generate cooperation among different agencies. The result would probably be a type of confederation. Suppose that two different agencies reach different verdicts in a criminal case. Is it so difficult to imagine that these agencies would have agreed beforehand to submit such disputes to an impartial third-part arbitration agency?

This impartial third-part arbitration agency would have the power to decide on the issue then? Something similar to an appeals court would also be needed. As for deciding on which laws are to be establised in anarchistic society - how would the decision process take place?

Arbitration would be binding if the two agencies agreed beforehand.

There could be an appeals process, yes.

As for deciding on laws, I think procedures like rolling dice or playing rock, paper, and sissors would be used. After all, how could rational people possibly decide and agree on such matters without a government to dictate to them? I am lost and utterly confused about matters of justice and injustice until government sages tell me what to think.

Ghs

[Dglgmut]

As for deciding on laws, I think procedures like rolling dice or playing rock, paper, and scissors would be used.

Then these are the men who will lead our civilization:

[Xray]

As for deciding on laws, I think procedures like rolling dice or playing rock, paper, and sissors would be used. After all, how could rational people possibly decide and agree on such matters without a government to dictate to them? I am lost and utterly confused about matters of justice and injustice until government sages tell me what to think.

All very well, but is it really rational to assume that only rational people would want to live in an anarchistic society?

In other words: how would 'Anarchia' deal with its irrational members when it comes to making decisions?

[Bosco]

As for deciding on laws, I think procedures like rolling dice or playing rock, paper, and sissors would be used. After all, how could rational people possibly decide and agree on such matters without a government to dictate to them? I am lost and utterly confused about matters of justice and injustice until government sages tell me what to think.

All very well, but is it really rational to assume that only rational people would want to live in an anarchistic society?

In other words: how would 'Anarchia' deal with its irrational members when it comes to making decisions?

Is it really rational to assume that only rational people would be interested in controlling a limited government oringinally modeled on objective law? If we can count on a vigilant public to prevent a limited government from overstepping its bounds, why wouldn't this same vigilant public keep it's market institutions from doing the same thing?

[Brant Gaede]

As for deciding on laws, I think procedures like rolling dice or playing rock, paper, and sissors would be used. After all, how could rational people possibly decide and agree on such matters without a government to dictate to them? I am lost and utterly confused about matters of justice and injustice until government sages tell me what to think.

All very well, but is it really rational to assume that only rational people would want to live in an anarchistic society?

In other words: how would 'Anarchia' deal with its irrational members when it comes to making decisions?

Is it really rational to assume that only rational people would be interested in controlling a limited government oringinally modeled on objective law? If we can count on a vigilant public to prevent a limited government from overstepping its bounds, why wouldn't this same vigilant public keep it's market institutions from doing the same thing?

The problem here is this limited government--at least it used to be--is what is. It exists. Where is this other thing--this anarchist thing? How do we get there if there is a way to get to it? Which type of revolution are we going to have? French? American? Russian?

Down South on a rural road an elderly farmer leans on his gatepost and a car of travellers pulls up. "Sir!" says the driver, "Which way to Chicago?" The farmer slowly looks them up and down and spits out a chaw of tobacco. "You can't get there from here."

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

People need to get a grip on the differences between art and philosophy. I admit Ayn really mixed them up, especially in AS. One thing I hope I never see again is an Internet debate on Dagny shooting the guard.

--Brant

Internet debates on this scene will exist as long a as Objectivism is being discussed.

The reason being that Rand's "message" is in her novels, especially in her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged. It is not ITOE that is her magnum opus. ITA with your assessment about ITOE being mainly written to 'dress out' her philosophy.

The same is true for TVOS imo.

Her (both fictional and philosophical) magnum opus is Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead being its antecedent.

Rand herself made numerus references to Galt's speech, which she meant to be treated as a primary source containing the essentials of her philosophy. It was Ayn Rand who spoke there via Galt's voice

Imo attempts at downplaying certain problematic scenes in Rand's major novels (which are all essential, key scenes) creates a 'wanting to have one's cake and eat it too' dilemma:

For If it is argued that "AS is 'only' a novel", one thereby weakens the novel as the author's philosophical magnum opus.

If, one the other hand, AS is regarded as Rand's philosophical magnum opus, then its essential scenes belong to the philosophical message as well.

Who said AS was "only a novel"? As for downplaying any thing in her novels, it ain't me, babe. Good luck with dressing me with that. Why are you coming here, of all places, to tell people like us about Galt's speech? That's for morons or people who've yet to read it. And that sentence of yours about AS and its "antecedent"--I'm glad you told me that. I just didn't have any idea.

--Brant

Why are you getting so worked up?

I'm over 60 years out of pre-school.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Most people are in the dark to the workings of the bureaucracy. They feel they have no voice and no choice but to select a leader who seems promising.

I still think a president who offered the people more access to government control would be electable and people would learn their lesson about the consequences of government intervention.

However, if Ron Paul is as popular as some people say, then America is not that irrational after all.

[George H. Smith]

As for deciding on laws, I think procedures like rolling dice or playing rock, paper, and sissors would be used. After all, how could rational people possibly decide and agree on such matters without a government to dictate to them? I am lost and utterly confused about matters of justice and injustice until government sages tell me what to think.

All very well, but is it really rational to assume that only rational people would want to live in an anarchistic society? In other words: how would 'Anarchia' deal with its irrational members when it comes to making decisions?

Is it really rational to assume that only rational people would be interested in controlling a limited government oringinally modeled on objective law? If we can count on a vigilant public to prevent a limited government from overstepping its bounds, why wouldn't this same vigilant public keep it's market institutions from doing the same thing?

The problem here is this limited government--at least it used to be--is what is. It exists. Where is this other thing--this anarchist thing? How do we get there if there is a way to get to it? Which type of revolution are we going to have? French? American? Russian? Down South on a rural road an elderly farmer leans on his gatepost and a car of travellers pulls up. "Sir!" says the driver, "Which way to Chicago?" The farmer slowly looks them up and down and spits out a chaw of tobacco. "You can't get there from here." --Brant

Where and when has an ideal Randian government -- i.e., a government without the power to tax -- ever existed?

I have said time and again that neither a Randian government nor an anarchistic society will hever happen in the U.S., at least not while anyone reading this post is alive and able to have me repeat myself for the umpteenth time. We discuss these models as ideals, as Rand discussed Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Such discussions have philosophical value, but those who have no interest in philosophy should avoid them.

I have also said that if we could ever achieve an ideal Randian government, then the road to competing agencies would be relatively easy, since the Randian government could not compel anyone to support it financially. The road to each, if it exists, is essentially the same.

Ghs