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

[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

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

Never, as far as I know.

--Brant

you can't get there from here, close but short--it's all about wrastlin' with evil, and that's what we do--no?

[Xray]

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.

Imo a government which has no power to tax would collapse fast.

[Brant Gaede]

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.

Imo a government which has no power to tax would collapse fast.

Being a libertarian anarchist is part of George's DNA and being an advocate of delimited government is part of mine. Conflicts of clashing DNA cannot be resolved threough ratiocination, but the fur can easily fly. But the essential difference between him and I is he embraces a theorectical construct while I embrace the impossibility of both his and the Randian idealizations. That's why it isn't my fur that flies with George's--it's Dennis's.

--Brant

another reason: male-pattern baldness

[Peter]

Wow! Brant wrote:

Being a libertarian anarchist is part of George's DNA and being an advocate of delimited government is part of mine.

end quote

Very interesting Brant. Did you take a smart pill? Give me one. Your responses are very thought provoking!

George H. Smith wrote:

Such discussions (about ideals) have philosophical value, but those who have no interest in philosophy should avoid them.

end quote

Philosophically compare two political ideals: Limited, Objectivist Government, and Rational Anarchism’s “no government.” Can a quest for both philosophical ideals have intermediate steps leading to the ideal? Could the intermediate steps be the same for both ideals?

Historically human social units have evolved from families, to clans, and then millions of times into empires, monarchies, or governments. Many times over the millennia these existing governments have dissolved leaving a state of free-range anarchism. However, that state of nature has never turned into Rational Anarchism. To the contrary, naturally occurring anarchism has always evolved from lawlessness to too much law, not to universal *natural rights.*

Philosophically and historically, The United States Constitution is a major step on the road to an Objectivist Government. I suggest a new strategy for Rational Anarchism because, constitutional government is also the intermediate step towards Rational Anarchism. Without an intermediate step, the Rational Anarchist’s theoretical premise and promise of universal *natural rights* is but a prayer. If the Philosophical Rational Anarchist cannot articulate one intermediate state, then his promise is shallow.

Adopt the Objectivist intermediate step of working with the facts that exist. The steps are not controversial. Educate the populous about Objectivism and a strict interpretation of the existing Constitution. Elect a new President and Congress. Amend the Constitution. Get rid of laws that infringe on individual rights. Get rid of regulations that infringe on individual rights. Lessen taxation, and over time, keep lessening taxation, until government earns its keep through payment for services from its citizens (as well as our allies paying for NATO), and perhaps a national lottery.

If Rational Anarchism demands its existence NOW, it will always be viewed as “not serious.” The final step of Objectivist Government, which I will call Atlantis, would encompass all those who now call themselves Objectivists and Rational Anarchists. On the surface, and deep down, there would be no difference.

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

But the essential difference between him and I is he embraces a theoretical construct while I embrace the impossibility of both his and the Randian idealization.

end quote

Obviously because both Objectivism and Rational Anarchism are ideals (for now) I DISAGREE with Brant as I noted in my previous letter. It all depends on what the definition of “embrace” is. If embrace means taking an idea as one’s own then I think both Objectivism and Rational Anarchism are useful tools. And it depends on what the definition of “impossible” is. If impossible is defined as not possible now, that does not stop it from becoming possible after some intermediate steps. Otherwise philosophy is a study in futility, and with that I do not agree.

A Randian citizen and a Rational Anarchist citizen would both accept the protection that a Randian government would give. Why? The Rational Anarchist could have a private defense agency but if the “pay for services rendered” government gave the same protection, why pay for private police? If the pay for services, though not quite free judiciary gave equal justice during disputes why pay for the same service twice? Costs could be managed much better by a government because of the larger pool of citizens who pay into it like insurance. The final arbiter between a government judiciary and a private judiciary would be an agreed upon third party. In other words a supreme court. The Anarchist could be represented by his private, not ABA judiciary lawyer, and the Randian would be represented by the ABA lawyer his voluntary taxation pays for. What if the Anarchist did not agree to arbitration? Now that has me stumped, but as long as the non initiation of force principle and individual rights are being upheld, the differences would be minor. If it is using the law and precedent a third party, supreme court verdict could be agreed upon by both parties. If a sovereign citizen declines negotiation would that be the initiation of force or coercion? Sorry, I am still thinking this out, though George’s and Dennis’s thoughts are intriguing on the same subjects.

[Brant Gaede]

You cannot have government without using force and violating rights to some extent. George would say you can have governance, however, without that, I suppose inevitable mistakes excepted. Rand says the same thing as George, basically, but was too smart to go into too many details. She kinda did a drive by.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

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.

I don't think I ever said "cosmic justice," though it's possible out of someone else's context. I do use "natural justice."

--Brant

[anthony]

I don't think I ever said "cosmic justice," though it's possible out of someone else's context. I do use "natural justice." --Brant

Yes, quite true, I remember now.

I liked "natural justice", and mentally made my own embellishment of the idea.

[BaalChatzaf]

--Brant

The only "cosmic justice" I am aware of are the well know physical conservation laws.

Moral rectitude and its absence are man-made notions. They do not derive from natural physical laws.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

--Brant

The only "cosmic justice" I am aware of are the well know physical conservation laws.

Moral rectitude and its absence are man-made notions. They do not derive from natural physical laws.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, I know; people are unnatural.

--Brant

[Peter]

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote:

Moral rectitude and its absence are man-made notions. They do not derive from natural physical laws.

end quote

That is correct, though there is a link between natural rights and our ability to live prosperously and as well as humans are meant to do, without interference from others, especially government. We have certain enumerated rights but we retain all of our natural rights even if they are not named in The Constitution. I have always wondered about the open ended concept of *natural rights*, and the idea of “on your property you can do whatever you want to do”. Why? Because you cannot do on your property whatever it is that you want to do. Just try doing whatever you want to do and your county government will be at your throat. I will quote George below as an intro since he is busy, (and may not care 8-)

Peter

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

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" smikro@earthlink.net

To: "*Atlantis" atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Natural rights???

Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:34:57 -0600

Joe Maurone wrote (to Morganis):

"Maybe my problem is that when I hear the term "natural rights", I take it to mean that some entity named Nature enforces this right to life. But if nature is red and tooth and claw. . . I think immediately to the term" natural causes". . ."

The term "natural rights" became especially popular during the 18th Century Enlightenment. And when philosophers of this period used phrases like "natural rights," "natural religion," "natural morality," and even "natural revelation," they often meant "natural" in contradistinction to "supernatural."

"Natural," in this context, pertained to man's natural faculties, especially reason -- so a "natural right" was a kind of moral claim that could be justified solely with the use of reason, without recourse to divine inspiration or supernatural decree. Similar, "natural religion" (i.e., deism) consisted only of claims that could be justified by reason alone, without recourse to faith or "special revelation," such as found in the Bible. The same idea applies to "natural laws," which referred to general principles, including those of science (then called "natural philosophy"), that can be known without recourse to anything except our natural faculty of reason.

Later, with the widespread eclipse of religious justifications, "natural rights" were often contrasted with legal -- or so-called "positive" -- rights." Natural rights theory stood opposed to the legal positivism of Jeremy Bentham and his utilitarian disciplines, according to which all legitimate rights originate in the decrees of a sovereign authority, or State.

A natural right, in contrast to a positive right, was seen as an enforceable moral claim that was possessed by all human beings in virtue of their common nature as moral agents, regardless of what a government may or may not authorize. And "moral agency" -- i.e., the interaction of reason and volition -- was regarded as the essential characteristic in question.

Thus neither usage of "natural rights" had anything to do with "nature" enforcing, or even issuing, some kind of decree. "Natural" in one case simply denoted a moral claim justified solely by the natural faculty of reason, without recourse to supernatural authorities or decrees. In the other case it meant "pertaining to the nature, or essential characteristics of man" -- and when this idea was incorporated within a theory of "natural justice," it signified a moral claim that could override the unjust decrees of government.

The result was a immensely radical and influential theory that spawned pro-freedom revolutions in England, America, France, and elsewhere.

Ghs

[Xray]

NB neglects to mention that Rand's ideal government would lack the power to tax, so it could not compel anyone to support it. So what if enough people become so annoyed with its inefficiency that they refuse to contribute any longer to its support, and thereby make it impossible for that government to function?

Will these dissenters then become outlaws? That is to say, will they no longer have any recourse to courts of justice or access to police protection ?

I suppose an Objectivist legislation would lay down in its constitution what the only legitimate form of government is.

I have debated various O'ists over the years, and quite a few have argued precisely this. In fact, during the late 1990s one prominent O'ist (then an associate of David Kelley) went even further and claimed that anyone who doesn't agree to the ideal Randian government and/or refuses to contribute to its support would literally have no rights at all. He could be murdered by anyone at any time, and the government would make no effort to stop the murder or punish the murderer. He justified this position by maintaining that, according to Rand, we have no natural rights, in effect -- that rights go into effect only after a government has been established.

Such are the lengths to which some O'ists will go to escape the bogeyman of anarchism.

Where does this "prominent Objectivist" get the idea that a government can declare non-consenters as "rightless"??

Even perpetrators of crimes have rights in civlized societies, like e .g the right to a fair trial.

So even if one goes by the O'ist premise that "that rights go into effect only after a government has been established", this would not authorize an O'ist government to suddenly deny those rights to citizens who happen to dissent.

[Xray]

When a person says he wants to exercise his right to use private retaliatory force, he is saying he wants to have the right to impose his own views of what constitutes retaliatory force on others—with all the underlying philosophical, ethical, and judicial premises he prefers.

Like for example Howard Roark?

Binswanger:

Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision.

The government has to regard such private force as a threat—i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat.

How can one "retaliate" against a threat?

[BaalChatzaf]

How can one "retaliate" against a threat?

Threatening bodily harm is a felony. One retaliates by invoking the legal process to deal with the alleged felony.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

How can one "retaliate" against a threat?

Threatening bodily harm is a felony. One retaliates by invoking the legal process to deal with the alleged felony.

I think Binswanger's comment was more an attempt to justify a political action by calling it "retaliatory" (since an Objectivist government would be permitted to use retaliatory force).

[Xray]

A Randian citizen and a Rational Anarchist citizen would both accept the protection that a Randian government would give. Why? The Rational Anarchist could have a private defense agency but if the “pay for services rendered” government gave the same protection, why pay for private police? If the pay for services, though not quite free judiciary gave equal justice during disputes why pay for the same service twice? Costs could be managed much better by a government because of the larger pool of citizens who pay into it like insurance. The final arbiter between a government judiciary and a private judiciary would be an agreed upon third party. In other words a supreme court. The Anarchist could be represented by his private, not ABA judiciary lawyer, and the Randian would be represented by the ABA lawyer his voluntary taxation pays for. What if the Anarchist did not agree to arbitration? Now that has me stumped, but as long as the non initiation of force principle and individual rights are being upheld, the differences would be minor. If it is using the law and precedent a third party, supreme court verdict could be agreed upon by both parties. If a sovereign citizen declines negotiation would that be the initiation of force or coercion? Sorry, I am still thinking this out, though George’s and Dennis’s thoughts are intriguing on the same subjects.

This addresses an important point: the cost of it all.

Imo living in an anarcho-capitalist system would be very expensive for a private citizen. I don't think I could afford it if I had to pay privately for everything I currently am entitled to use via my tax contributions (like e. g. public highways),

And what about those who happen to be so poor in 'Anarchia' (or in an Objectivist 'voluntary taxation' society) that they could not pay for anything?

If these people are too poor to pay for a private law enforcement agency in Anarchia, how are their rights going to be protected?

And in an Objectivist 'Voltax' society, is the state going to protect also those who too who don't pay any taxes (either because they can't or because they won't)?

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

And in an Objectivist 'Voltax' society, is the state going to protect also those who too who don't pay any taxes (either because they can't or because they won't)?

end quote

“Voltax” is great shorthand. Unpaid for usage would be a drain on Voltax Government. If a citizen refused to pay for services rendered the Government or Private Services would still be “wanting to” fight crime, put out fires, protect the wee ones from predators, stop a sadist from beating his puppy to death, etc., just out of a sense of decency. Wouldn’t you have to? A Government would be required to stop injustice. It is a dilemma for the Anarchist because anything goes. The anarchist argument that societal pressure or economics would lead to rational behavior has never worked before. There are bad people out there. Anarchy would be expensive and it sucks. People living in accidental anarchy want to see the cavalry riding in to save the day. Nobody wants a lack of government. Nobody. Whereas a majority want less government. Majority rules.

Peter

[Selene]

Unpaid for usage would be a drain on Voltax Government. If a citizen refused to pay for services rendered the Government or Private Services would still be “wanting to” fight crime, put out fires, protect the wee ones from predators, stop a sadist from beating his puppy to death, etc., just out of a sense of decency. Wouldn’t you have to?

Remember, we do have that Tennessee [?] example of the town fire department letting the persons house burn to the ground because he did not pay the annual fee.

[Dglgmut]

It is a dilemma for the Anarchist because anything goes. The anarchist argument that societal pressure or economics would lead to rational behavior has never worked before. There are bad people out there. Anarchy would be expensive and it sucks. People living in accidental anarchy want to see the cavalry riding in to save the day. Nobody wants a lack of government. Nobody. Whereas a majority want less government. Majority rules.

Peter

But moral people are ideally producers, which means the moral men would likely have the means to pay for their own protection, where as the immoral men wouldn't. Immoral men can steal, but they can't pay someone else to steal for them.

Those people that wait for the cavalry to ride in should all get together and organize a defense against their violators. Why when envisioning a potential form of governance must we see producers as helpless unless a benevolent government protects them?

I don't think it's possible to remove the responsibility from the individual to protect their own rights, whether it be by shopping around for the right defense agency or taking things into their own hands.

[Xray]

Immoral men can steal, but they can't pay someone else to steal for them.

But they can pay other immoral men to steal for them.

[Dglgmut]

Immoral men can steal, but they can't pay someone else to steal for them.

But they can pay other immoral men to steal for them.

No, what I mean is... what will they pay with? If they produce for themselves, they are moral... and they have no need to steal. And who would accept payment to steal for someone else, unless is being stolen has no value to the thief.

Immoral by Rand's standard, men who are not even willing to work for their own lives, cannot create a corrupt political system on their own... they need the help of misguided moral men.

[Xray]

And who would accept payment to steal for someone else, unless is being stolen has no value to the thief.

The criminal world functions by that principle. Not only for stealing, but for worse. Just think of contract killings.

Immoral by Rand's standard, men who are not even willing to work for their own lives, cannot create a corrupt political system on their own... they need the help of misguided moral men.

If you apply "immoral" merely to those who are just too lazy to work, how do you categorize those who put a lot of 'work' into to achieving immoral goals?

[Xray]

Remember, we do have that Tennessee [?] example of the town fire department letting the persons house burn to the ground because he did not pay the annual fee.

But isn't it firefighters' first and foremost professional duty to put out fires? What if the fire had killed people in the house?

[Brant Gaede]

Remember, we do have that Tennessee [?] example of the town fire department letting the persons house burn to the ground because he did not pay the annual fee.

But isn't it firefighters' first and foremost professional duty to put out fires? What if the fire had killed people in the house?

You've been here long enough to know how to think in principles and how they are hierarchical. How's this? Freedom and individual responsibility trump "duty."

--Brant

apply

[Dglgmut]

If you apply "immoral" merely to those who are just too lazy to work, how do you categorize those who put a lot of 'work' into to achieving immoral goals?

Well the laziness comes from their unappreciation of life... that's the immorality. They don't really want to live.

It depends what you mean by "immoral goals." Most people use justice as their guide even if you'd classify them as immoral. Their error may be a skewed version of justice, or a misunderstanding of the facts.

I don't think someone would be inclined to steal if they are willing and able to work for their livelihood..