Rational government

[Peter]

I am deleting my letter here and reposting it to Politics.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Edited January 8, 2010 by Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Guys:

Just some quick info:

Historical examples of societies successfully organized according to anarchist principles

http://en.wikipedia....ist_communities

Wiki ^^^^ lists seventeen (17) of which one is claimed to be currently active.

Christiania was founded in 1971, when a group of hippie squatters occupied an abandoned military barracks in Copenhagen, Denmark. One of the more influential people involved was Jacob Ludvigsen, who published an anarchist newspaper which widely proclaimed the establishment of the free town. The people of Christiania developed their own set of rules—independent of the Danish government—which include the prohibition of cars, stealing, guns, bulletproof vests and hard drugs. Cameras are not allowed, and locals will wave their hands and shout "No photo!" if they see a picture being taken. Famous for its main drag, known as "Pusher Street" as hash was sold openly from permanent stands until 2004. Such commerce is controversial, but cannot be removed without complete community consensus. For years the legal status of the region was in limbo, as the Danish government attempted, without success, to remove the squatters.

The neighborhood is accessible only through two main entrances, and cars are not allowed. Danish authorities have repeatedly removed the large stones blocking the entrance, which have been replaced each time by residents. The authorities claim that the area must be accessible for safety concerns, but the residents suspect that it will instead be used by the police. The town negotiated an arrangement with the Danish defense ministry, the legal owners of the location, in 1995, resulting in resident taxation. The future of the area remains in doubt, as Danish authorities continue to push for its removal.

The inhabitants fight back with humour and persistence—for instance, when authorities in 2002 demanded that the hash trade be made less visible, the stands were covered in military camouflage nets. On January 4, 2004, the stands were finally demolished by the owners themselves (without stopping the hash trade as such, which continued on a person-to-person basis) as a way of persuading the government to allow the Free Town to continue to exist. Before they were demolished, the National Museum of Denmark was able to get one of the more colourful stands, and includes them now part of an exhibit.

Adam

[Peter]

Russell wrote:

"Anarchism will not create or sustain a rational, viable society" - Why not? Could you back up your assertion with an argument? I would be most interested.

end quote (if I see a spelling error, I may fix it. Your message still counts as a quote)

Sure. Anarchism is an interim process. Anarchism has never had the longevity to be multi-generational. I point to agrarian Iceland at the time The Sagas were written and The Amish as the only two instances of ‘longer lived’ QUASI anarchism.

When you say, “Why not,” instead of “Look at this,” I have won my case.

Elsewhere, throughout the history of Mankind, and as with our Old West, the territories clamored to become States.

To me, it is not an argument from intimidation when I say, Are there even fifty Rational Anarchists in existence? It is very hard to explain, and to explain and to explain . . . there are so many loopholes in a system where everyone is free to do as they wish, until and unless another anarchist persuades or forces them to stop. Anarchism is imaginary.

Yes, it is equally moral for a government or an individual to recognize justice, but not practical, advisable or legal for an individual to act forcibly. The retaliatory use of force, except in an emergency, is reserved for the Government. Why? Reality and Rand 101. Because rational people can disagree. Yes, objective knowledge is knowable to all, but there are still legitimate disagreements.

What went wrong with the United States, Russell? Let me say something first. Rebellion, to be morally right is further down the slope. Civil disobedience, which you may be suggesting, only enforces the idea of “the consent of the governed.” Yes, we can change things, and keep the same Constitution. Anyone may ascertain the justice of an act, but not enforce justice. That’s what appeals courts, referendums, letters to the editor, and constitutional amendments are for.

The right to resist exists at any point, is what an Anarchist says. I disagree. It DOES exist at a certain point. But not at this time, I cannot give anyone my judgment as to when the teapot comes to a boil. Want to take the “way back” machine to 1970, Mr. Peabody? I’m in no rush for that street fight. Hang in there. Perhaps the tea parties are just the beginning.

Russell wrote:

Mr. Taylor, really, let me ask you; what do you think went wrong with the American experiment?

End quote

I plan on looking at the Anti-Federalists paper before giving a definitive answer, which may be months in the future but the flaws in the constitution are numerous. Taxation is NOT one of them.

The establishment of the United States of America is a fact. Our country exists, not as you might want it to be, but as it is. And that is what the theorists of Rational Anarchism and Limited Objectivist Government must deal with. Tea Party supporters must also deal with the Constitution AS IT IS.

When we do change the Constitution, we must keep one principle as an absolute. I reiterate: 'There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement. Or, to put it another way, he must accept ‘the separation of force and whim’ (any whim including his own). Such in essence is the proper purpose of a Government: to make social existence possible to men, by protecting the benefits and combating the evils which men can cause to one another.' Rand.

Until Russell can show me a working model of Anarchism, I choose not to discuss, taxation as a fundemental wrong, or allowing vigilantism.

How to change the US Constitution? Here are a few suggestions

Type in constitutional convention and look at their site. In spite of a religious bent, they have some good ideas.

Give all new legislation a shelf life. It must be re-voted on to stay in affect.

Re-work the enumerated powers.

Rotation in office, or term limits amendments.

Now everyone says this next idea is far too out, but give the power of the veto to “We The People.” An explanation of how to do that is for another time.

In the next response, Michael wrote:

The biggest problem I have with anarchy is that it ignores the fact that bullying and grouping around bullies to form gangs is part of human nature.

end quote

I agree. Rationally observe any group of school children, city or county councils, or even semi political groups like fraternal organizations. The desire for power and protection are universal.

Look at Columbia and Mexico where gangs rule. How would Anarchism deal with rich Anarchists? When “might makes right,” the powerful rule.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Adam I will respond in the Politics forum, later.

Peter

[syrakusos]

Substituting economic terms for the political phrases, the same argument could have been made in 5300 BCE about the impossibility of a "free" market and a "money" economy.

My friend, you say that there is no such thing as a free lunch, but you insist that there must be a free market. How can that be? Who is to provide the market? Here in Eridu as in the other cities of Sumer, the temple provides the market, sanctifies it an guard it. If, as you say, a market is an economic value, who will create a free market for everyone to use?

You claim, further, that in a "free" market, people would use a commonly agreed to universal commodity that you call "money." How is this universal agreement to come about? What commodity could meet all the needs of all the exchanges in all places and time? Now, don't start with gold and silver. They are pretty, but pretty useless as well. As least wheat has these qualities of divisibility and uniformity and identifiability and so on, but so does oil, and at some level, so do goats and certainly beer does as well. So, do you propose that gold is better than beer?

How would anyone know the "price" of a thing? I mean, we do exchange, fruit for grain, even silver for slaves, this for that, but the closest we have to your abstract "price" is the tokens of the temple that are then impressed on the clay balls into which the tokens are baked for storage. So, how would a complete inventory of all the clay token containers in the temple be transmitted to all the people in your (ahem) "free" market? Do you realize how long it would take for a crier to read out 2-2-1 sheep 2-2-2 beers 1 plow 1 cow 2-2-2-2-2-1 kids not born in a flock of 2-2-2-2-2-1 ewes... Who could remember all of that? Of course... you also posit the invention of something you call "writing." Let's not go there....

Personally, I advocate a free market in protection and adjudication. I point to it here and now. Private security guards in American outnumber police two to one. (Only one-third of patrol officers are on the public rolls.) Private security infrastructure eclipses public investment also two to one. (The public police only account for one-third of the investment in security.) In California, those numbers are three to one. This is a growing trend, going back at least to the early 1970s when it was first noticed and reported that the private sector was larger than the public according to data projected from the 1960s.

Similarly, the American Arbitration Agency is a multinational corporation, employing hundreds of jurists and settling cases by the thousands in which each point costs the litigants less than the price of a parking ticket. Moreover, if you check your own locale you will find adjudicators, arbitrators and negotiators of all kinds, depending on the conditions of time and place. There is no one system. The field is diverse.

You may have read or heard complaints by the police or prosecutors or others that white collar crime goes unreported. It does. But being unreported to the government does not mean unremediated in the corporation. It has long been known that within the company, those who cause losses find many alternatives open to them -- given that the threat of prosecution, a deadweight loss to all -- remains. Often, they are only re-assigned or their work is redefined and that can mean changing the procedures for a department or a division. This is known. I can cite a ton of sources. I have been writing about this for "objectivists" board for about five years, ever since I started studying criminal justice in college. This is not Iceland. This is the world we live in today.

By analogy to the Sumerians above... Today, most Americans suffer the ravages of inflation, even though millions of knowledgeable conservatives and libertarians and objectivists put their savings into gold and silver. While some rightwingers rant that "we need a gold-based currency" in point of fact, those are the very people who do. In other words, you do not need to change the world to live better yourself. You could not go back to 1809 and explain how the internet would work because you could not even explain how to wire "cities" twenty miles on a side with electricity. Villages used to be that far apart. They would not get it. But here we are.

That is not to say that we would not have law.

We might even have governments.

But governments are just one mechanism for instantiating law.

We have been acculturated to accept government as the source of law. The legislature meets; the executive administers; the courts apply the law. But in John Locke's Second Treatise, the branches of government are legislative, executive, and diplomatic. The courts are not a "branch of government" but an institution of the community ... which is why the king's men need a warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction before they are allowed to enforce legislation. ... they must bring the accused to the court, not to the legislature, crown or ambassador. Law supersedes government. And we have markets for justice under law.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Peter]

Adam says 17 Anarchist communities are listed in Wikipedia and details the Hash dealing squatters in Denmark.

Yup. That sounds like Anarchy to me.

I want Objectivist Living’s posters to understand that they may be put on an FBI watch list, by advocating Anarchy. If war is declared (and that is not farfetched if Israel attacks Iran,) limits on free speech will be enacted. Remember Ayn’s testimony before The House Un-American Activities Committee, HUAC.? That could happen again. Sedition is no joking matter.

Now let us put seriousness aside and have some fun with the topic.

My own thinking about The Legitimate Sovereignty of The United States of America.

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 did. But instead, the status of both documents was trumpeted as axiomatic (OK, I am taking some liberties with the concept.)

Was that Glorious Genius, or a mistake?

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.”

End of Axiom

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.”

End of Axiom

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 deceased. 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.

End of Pretend Axioms

My imagined, third axiom reflects our entire body of law since 1776. That is why Anarchy cannot be established except as a bunch of Squatters.

A strict, literally interpreting President will need to begin canceling ALL infringements upon individual rights, that are contradictory to MY Constitution, The government must regain traction on the road to solvency, or we may ironically hear what Anarchists, but not Objectivists, wish for:

Bulletin. This is the emergency broadcasting system. All the major networks are off the air. We are waiting expectantly for a rational explanation. Wait. Something is being broadcast.

“Good evening my fellow Americans. This is John Galt speaking.”

I will be away from my desk for a while. New glasses to fetch.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[syrakusos]

This began in the:Living Room where Selene has a post as do I.

I would rather leave mine there. I made my case.

"In responding to and resolving the criminal behavior of employees, organizations routinely choose options other than criminal prosecution, for example, suspension without pay, transfer, job reassignment, job redesign (eliminating some job duties), civil restitution, and dismissal...

While on the surface, it appears that organizations opt for less severe sanctions than would be imposed by the criminal justice system, in reality, the organizational sanctions may have greater impact... In addition, the private systems of criminal justice are not always subject to principles of exclusionary evidence, fairness, and defendant rights which characterize the public criminal justice systems. The level of position, the amount of power, and socio-economic standing of the employee in the company may greatly influence the formality and type of company sanctions. In general, private justice systems are characterized by informal negotiations and outcomes, and nonuniform standards and procedures among organizations and crime types."

(Hallcrest Report cited in Introduction to Private Security, Hess and Wrobleski, West Publishing, St.Paul, 1982, 1988.)

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0040.shtml

In that topic thread from Rebirth of Reason under the Dissent Forum, I placed many citations from the US Department of Justice and other nominally reliable sources showing that there are existing private markets in defense and adjudication.

As for the warring security agencies, they do exist: Hamas versus Hezbollah. Where they do not exist is in General Motors Corporation and Ford Motor Company which have been cheek by jowl for 100 years without firing a shot at each other. Culture is the basis for law. Cultures are enactments of ideas. Hamas and Hezbollah act on one set of ideas, maybe the same set accepted by most governments.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm going to merge this with the other one. I always screw up when I do this, so let's see what happens...

EDIT: There it is. It looks weird right now because the program puts the posts in chronological order. Maybe the respective posters want to alter their posts while there is still time (i.e., the 24 hours period)...

Michael

[Peter]

Michael E. Marotta wrote:

“. . . there are existing private markets in defense and adjudication . . . As for the warring security agencies, they do exist: Hamas versus Hezbollah. Where they do not exist is in General Motors Corporation and Ford Motor Company which have been cheek by jowl for 100 years without firing a shot at each other. Culture is the basis for law. Cultures are enactments of ideas. Hamas and Hezbollah act on one set of ideas, maybe the same set accepted by most governments.

End quote

Power groups like Hamas and Hezbollah do go to war, as would competing defense agencies in a hypothetical anarchist community.

Corporations do not go to war. Nor do city, county, or State governments go to war. They exist, competing for jurisdiction perhaps, but they all exist while obeying the laws in the Constitution.

A strictly interpreted, Constitutional Government, or a hypothetical Objectivist Government has a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force *conferred upon it by the consent of the governed.* It permits various jurisdictional agencies within its territory, as long as those agencies uphold the Constitution guaranteeing individual rights. It does not permit agencies within its territory that are at variance with any provisions of the Constitution.

For instance, Judge Wopner, or Judge Napolitano, interpreting State Government or the Constitution on TV is upholding the highest laws of the land, though Judge Wopner usually deals with miniscule or microcosmic sections of the law. He has his jurisdiction, and the Federal and State Courts have theirs.

However, what if an Anarchistic Judge Wopner said this?

“I am taking my court outside the legal and moral authority of the Constitution. I hereby declare this section of the country as Wopner’s Confederate States of America. We uphold much of the Constitution of the United States, except we deem it right that landowners can keep other human beings as property. And we think coercive taxation is immoral. Nobody is required to pay taxes.”

This is the point where the anarchistic idea of “competing legal agencies” fails. If a Government legally constituted on individual rights, within a geographical area, for all time, sees the establishment of a “competing set of rules,” that infringe upon rights, then it has an obligation to protect its citizens within that area.

And furthermore, if any individual, or group (like Anarchists) simply declares, they are no longer bound by the laws of the constitution in some subsection of the larger area, even if this group declares it DUPLICATES the laws of the original government, it is an infringement upon the rights of all the citizens and the Government should use “retaliatory force,” to dissuade the secessionists.

This is true, because the final authority to make laws must be in the hands of the Federal Government. If allowed continued existence, the competing governments may then create laws that are contrary to the constitution of the land. So, it is a principle of self defense to squelch the law writers who could become lawbreakers.

I think our own history parallels this course. What if the South had won the war? That is always an interesting game of, “what if.”

I want to make a distinction between anarchy, which is an interim period, as in America’s old west, and Rational Anarchism which posits, a just society without government, but Rational Anarchism is still based on individual rights and the non-initiation of force principle, as is our Constitutional Government.

An interim anarchy can exist as it does in Somalia, but for how long? Culture, as Michael suggests, is the glue that holds the war-lords together in a loose confederation. Now, if Rational Anarchism is a workable and logically superior system, why does it not spontaneously spring into being in Somalia? When the Soviet Union collapsed why didn’t Rational Anarchist Non-States spring into being?

The answer as to why is so simple even a caveman could think it: people live there and people know people.

The Rational Anarchist Non-Governmental, Non-State, can only exist on paper or in someone’s imagination. It is a REIFIED feeling of personal sovereignty. If I am wrong, it is up to you to show me the beef.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

If you are going to engage in argumentation, start by proper attributions.

You made a statement about actual anarchist communities. I ran a quick search to see what was out there.

I posted a Wiki page which listed 17 Anarchist communities.

Therefore, your statement attributing the communities "factoid" to me is untrue ...yes

Adam says 17 Anarchist communities are listed in Wikipedia and details the Hash dealing squatters in Denmark.

Yup. That sounds like Anarchy to me.

Adam

[Peter]

You wrote:

You made a statement about actual anarchist communities. I ran a quick search to see what was out there. I posted a Wiki page which listed 17 Anarchist communities. Therefore, your statement attributing the communities "factoid" to me is untrue ...yes

end quote

I am bewildered. Are you saying you did not post the letter, quoting the factoid?

I appreciate what you did. Sorry I did not mention that. Anyone who takes the time to do research is always welcome. Thank you. Did I infer you supported the Dutch squatters? Sorry, if you think I did, and you resent that.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

You wrote:

You made a statement about actual anarchist communities. I ran a quick search to see what was out there. I posted a Wiki page which listed 17 Anarchist communities. Therefore, your statement attributing the communities "factoid" to me is untrue ...yes

end quote

I am bewildered. Are you saying you did not post the letter, quoting the factoid?

I appreciate what you did. Sorry I did not mention that. Anyone who takes the time to do research is always welcome. Thank you. Did I infer you supported the Dutch squatters? Sorry, if you think I did, and you resent that.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Peter:

No problem just wanted to make it clear as at times it has been an issue when someone posts something, it may only be FYI kinda thing.

Adam

[Peter]

Got it Adam.

You may be too young to remember Fractured Fairy Tales, but here is my version. No offense meant.

Bed time stories.

Let me first state, my parody is not meant in any threatening way. It is meant to be educational and humorous. It occurs in a land with no Constitution, and no police with any governmental authority, etc.

Who is one of the most rational people we know? Ayn Rand. And being hypothetically fair while I stack the deck, I will also say a Rational Anarchist.

Let’s imagine a pocket of anarchistic territory called California. Ayn Rand lives there. So does RA (Rational Anarchist,) right next door.

When either Ayn or RA drive down the road, walk into any establishment, or simply walk into a room with other people, both think the same thing to themselves, I don’t care what you think or say, I will do what is best for me.

How long would it be before Ayn and RA have a dispute?

If RA opened his mouth to say hello to Ayn in her later years, I say one minute.

Rational Anarchist that he is, Ayn calls RA an evader for calling himself ‘no referent in reality,’ and RA calls Ayn a failure for not taking her philosophy to its (well his) logical conclusion!

Ayn, RA pleads with conviction: I love ya but you are a cultist.

!~@$%^&* says Ayn in her native Russian.

Animosities grow, tempers boil. Rational Ayn and Rational Anarchist both sign up for different defense agencies.

It’s a fuming standoff! Why did I ever move here wonders Ayn. Oh, right. No taxes.

Now if you see any validity to my scenario using the best and brightest amongst us . . . well I leave it to you, dear reader.

If anarchy is not going to work in my house of cards with the two smartest, most rational people in the Universe, how will it work for any one else?

How about one more preposterous hippopotamus of a bedtime story? I need to start talking that way. After a late start, my first grandchild is two months old.

Let’s go back to my anarchistic territory called California, and a slightly different scenario, on RA’s ‘property,’ grandly called his property because he was the first to claim it, and for no other ‘legal’ reason.

Velcome to Californeeah. I am your Governator.

Ayn and RA are still my examples of the Epitome of Reason . . .

Ayn Rand lives there. So does RA, right next door. They glare at each other over the fence.

Every day that goes by, Ayn is thinking: He is using my philosophy to reach irrational conclusions. This must stop. He will never step foot onto my Objectivist yard.

And every day that goes by, RA is thinking: Take your philosophy to its logical conclusion. If you won’t, I will. You don’t own my mind.

So, RA plants a tree of Anarchy, you know, the one with those big, red leaves, on his property. After five years of glaring at, or ignoring each other, RA’s tree, planted on his own property, has grown to partially cover Ayn’s yard. It is dropping leaves into her pool of knowledge and Philosophy.

Cut that thing down, she screams!

Heck no, it’s my tree, he yells back.

Now, if RA were here to defend himself he might say, it is ridiculous to think he and Ayn could not rationally resolve their disputes under an Anarchistic System. But this is what could happen, even with the best and the brightest.

RA plans on a little get together of his fifty or so Anarchist friends and supporters, for a backyard barbeque, and show of solidarity, on Saturday.

Ayn calls Leonard (uh, Nimoy), and tells him of the potential situation. Leonard calls two people, who call two people who call two people. . . Friday night, a two hundred thousand strong mob pulls the infamous Quisling RA out of his bed, yelling, rights violator, thief, destroyer of the good!

You get the picture. In Rational Anarchistic California, might makes right. RA is forced into exile or he would be hung from his own Tree of Anarchy, unrepentant to the end.

End of Tall Tales

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

Cute story.

We are a year apart.

What is your point?

Rational human beings will innately behave irrationally when they are neighbors in a frontier society with no laws?

Rational individuals will innately resort, by their nature to violent battles when they are in a frontier society with no laws?

Rational individuals will innately resort, by their nature to violent destructive battles which will destroy one half of their frontier communities population?

Adam

I am confused now because I thought your belief in basic human nature was different.

[syrakusos]

Power groups like Hamas and Hezbollah do go to war, as would competing defense agencies in a hypothetical anarchist community.

Corporations do not go to war. Nor do city, county, or State governments go to war. They exist, competing for jurisdiction perhaps, but they all exist while obeying the laws in the Constitution.

Among the facts are that corporations did go to war as when the British East India Company and Dutch East India Company fought for the control of ports in the East Indies. BIE minted its own coins in silver, paid its own army in India. The Sepoy Rebellion cost them that prerogative when the Crown stepped in. So, there is that.

Back then, corporations saw themselves as citizens of their home nations. Here in America, in the 19th century, the clerks at British-owned banks would come to America, work their tour and then leave. That might seem normal to someone who grew up in a world of powerful nation-states. Today, multinational and transnational corporations are more powerful than most states. Private security firms such as G4S and Securitas employ tens of thousands of guard in dozens of places, contracts to hundred of firms, many of them also multinational corporations. Still, here and now, they do not shoot it out.

Granted that Ford and GM might "recognize" the primacy of the USA Constitutional Government in Washington. Then, the only way to explain the Mafia Family Wars (between businesses) is that those companies do not recognize that primacy. That overarching power is also not recognized by various patriotic militias, who, oddly enough, perhaps, shoot it out with the local police and then FBI, rather, than, say, the Mafia Families, who are actually in their league, you might say.

The point is that in order for people to live rationally with a minimum of conflict, all that is required is a commitment to do so. Failing that, no Axiomatic Constitutionalism will explain away the fact that the globalist society of the 21st century is no longer completely explained by 18th century political theory.

[syrakusos]

For instance, Judge Wopner, or Judge Napolitano, interpreting State Government or the Constitution on TV is upholding the highest laws of the land, though Judge Wopner usually deals with miniscule or microcosmic sections of the law. He has his jurisdiction, and the Federal and State Courts have theirs.

However, what if an Anarchistic Judge Wopner said this?

“I am taking my court outside the legal and moral authority of the Constitution. I hereby declare this section of the country as Wopner’s Confederate States of America. We uphold much of the Constitution of the United States, except we deem it right that landowners can keep other human beings as property. And we think coercive taxation is immoral. Nobody is required to pay taxes.”

This is the point where the anarchistic idea of “competing legal agencies” fails.

We no longer live in a world of sailing ships and 3-mile limits where law was a matter of geography. Absolute and universal principles exist. Application of them to time and place requires recognizing context. We live in a globalist society in which many competing justice systems act across territorial lines. Just ask Pinochet and Eichmann, who were early albeit unwilling exemplars, just as Petrarch and Dante prefigured the Renaissance.

More than one hundred years ago, in 1899, the Hague Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes established the Permanent Court of Arbitration: the first standing institution intended to settle disputes between sovereign States through binding decisions based on international law. Since then the international rule of law has advanced significantly. There now are more than 20 international courts and tribunals that is to say permanent institutions, composed of independent judges, that adjudicate disputes between two or more entities (at least one of which is either a State or an International Organization); operate on the basis of predetermined rules of procedure; and render decisions that are binding on the parties. Beside these international courts and tribunals, there are at least 70 other international institutions, which exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

[...]

• Do 20 courts and tribunals with differing jurisdictions, sources of financing and membership amount to a judicial system?

• What is the relationship between the various fora?

[..]

The African continent leads the way in innovations in international courts and tribunals, with the first hybrid court and the first referrals to the International Criminal Court. Africa is also unique in the sheer number of regional courts and tribunals applying not only regional but, in some cases, international law. These experiments in regional and other international courts ...

(Created by New York University and the University of London THE PROJECT ON INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS here http://www.pict-pcti.org/)

In point of fact, the Roman Catholic Church has long existed as an extra-territorial government that keeps to itself the power to empower, control (and punish) its own members. Just as the anti-Catholics feared that President Kennedy would take orders from the Pope, so, too, do anti-communists claim that they are (or were?) fighting a transnational organization that empowered and controlled its members according to laws of their own. Again, these are precursors, early stages of actors and agents, institutions and organizations, that show some of the directions in which civilization is developing.

[syrakusos]

The Rational Anarchist Non-Governmental, Non-State, can only exist on paper or in someone’s imagination. It is a REIFIED feeling of personal sovereignty. If I am wrong, it is up to you to show me the beef.

Just so! And for the same reasons that it is a good idea to put some of your savings into hard money. There are conservatives and patriots who advocate for a gold-based currency of the USA Constitutional Government in Washington DC. Like you, the common sense person asks, "If gold is so good, why did the whole world go off the gold standard? Even Switzerland abandoned it. If gold is so good, then any nation with a gold-based currency would be most successful, even if everyone else did not copy them in order to get in on a good thing." The answer is that the whole world does not need to change for you to do better. If you think that gold is a better medium for savings, then, you save with gold.

Similarly, multinational corporations hire multinational guard companies to provide multinational security.

Capitalism is a specific social arrangement, based on and defined by identified attributes. Somalia is not a capitalist society, even though they do have trade and commerce there, as every human habitation, even prisons, must. But a prison is not a model for capitalism. On the micro level, while the former USSR remains a dangerous place for deep cultural reasons, it is my personal experience as a security guard that the employees of competing companies cooperate as the companies themselves cooperate. That is the culture of capitalism.

Shun force

Come to voluntary agreements

Be honest

Collaborate easily with strangers

Compete

Respect contracts

Use initiative and enterprise

Be open to inventiveness and novelty

Be efficient

Promote comfort and convenience

Dissent for the sake of the task

Invest for productive purposes

Be industrious

Be thrifty

Be optimistic

Edited January 9, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Selene]

The Rational Anarchist Non-Governmental, Non-State, can only exist on paper or in someone’s imagination. It is a REIFIED feeling of personal sovereignty. If I am wrong, it is up to you to show me the beef.

Just so! And for the same reasons that it is a good idea to put some of your savings into hard money. There are conservatives and patriots who advocate for a gold-based currency of the USA Constitutional Government in Washington DC. Like you, the common sense person asks, "If gold is so good, why did the whole world go off the gold standard? Even Switzerland abandoned it. If gold is so good, then any nation with a gold-based currency would be most successful, even if everyone else did not copy them in order to get in on a good thing." The answer is that the whole world does not need to change for you to do better. If you think that gold is a better medium for savings, then, you save with gold.

Similarly, multinational corporations hire multinational guard companies to provide multinational security.

Capitalism is a specific social arrangement, based on and defined by identified attributes. Somalia is not a capitalist society, even though they do have trade and commerce there, as every human habitation, even prisons, must. But a prison is not a model for capitalism. On the micro level, while the former USSR remains a dangerous place for deep cultural reasons, it is my personal experience as a security guard that the employees of competing companies cooperate as the companies themselves cooperate. That is the culture of capitalism.

Shun force

Come to voluntary agreements

Be honest

Collaborate easily with strangers

Compete

Respect contracts

Use initiative and enterprise

Be open to inventiveness and novelty

Be efficient

Promote comfort and convenience

Dissent for the sake of the task

Invest for productive purposes

Be industrious

Be thrifty

Be optimistic

Michael:

BRAVO!

Really well put!

And even if we fall short, we will at least have techno Rollerball as entertainment by the Corporate State! lol.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

The point is that in order for people to live rationally with a minimum of conflict, all that is required is a commitment to do so. Failing that, no Axiomatic Constitutionalism will explain away the fact that the globalist society of the 21st century is no longer completely explained by 18th century political theory.

And when other people (most people?) refuse to live rationally with a minimum of conflict, or decide that a rational pursuit of their own interests makes conflict necessary or advisable? What then?

[Selene]

The point is that in order for people to live rationally with a minimum of conflict, all that is required is a commitment to do so. Failing that, no Axiomatic Constitutionalism will explain away the fact that the globalist society of the 21st century is no longer completely explained by 18th century political theory.

And when other people (most people?) refuse to live rationally with a minimum of conflict, or decide that a rational pursuit of their own interests makes conflict necessary or advisable? What then?

Then...

Adam

[Russell]

Note from MSK: Proven plagiarist (see here). Content removed and poster banned.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Peter]

Whoa. I see about a dozen letters in my in-box. I will look at the first one, only, and then answer.

Done. Just as I figured. I want to see something positive. Not the tearing down of “The State” once again. Show me something.

I am going to throw some quotes at you, not as proof of my dogmatism, or lack of eloquence, but simply to speed things up. I have been in this debate, about the reification of the Zero, before. These quotes, quite frankly, say what I am thinking better than I can express it.

From the Virtue of Selfishness:

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.

The principal of “Rand’s Razor.”

A razor is a principle that slashes off a whole category of false and/or useless ideas. Rand’s Razor is addressed to anyone who enters the field of philosophy. It states: “name your primaries.” Identify your starting points, including the concepts you take to be irreducible, and then establish that these ‘are’ objective axioms. Put negatively: do not begin to philosophize in midstream. Do not begin with some derivative concept or issue, while ignoring its roots, however much such issue interests you. Philosophical knowledge, too, is hierarchical. OPAR pages 138-139.

Doctor Leonard Peikoff also writes:

"Proof" is the process of establishing truth by reducing a proposition to axioms, i.e., ultimately, to sensory evidence. Such reduction is the only means man has of discovering the relationship between nonaxiomatic propositions and the facts of reality.

(little star emphases mine)

*********************************************************

Many people regard logic not as a cognitive function, but as a social one; they regard it as a means of forcing other men to accept *their* arbitrary ideas. For oneself, according to this viewpoint, a farrago of unproved assertions would be satisfactory; logic, however, is necessary for polemics; it is necessary as a means of trapping opponents in internal inconsistencies and thereby of battering down one's enemy.

Objectivism rejects this approach. Proof is not a social ritual, nor is it an unworldly pursuit, a means of constructing rationalistic castles in the air. It is a personal, practical, selfish necessity of earthly cognition. Just as man would need concepts (including language) on a desert island, so he would need logic there, too. Otherwise, by the nature of human consciousness, he would be directionless and cognitively helpless . . . .

*********************************************************

The modern definition of "absolute" represents the rejection of a rational metaphysics and epistemology. It is the inversion of a crucial truth: *relationships are not the enemy of absolutism; they are what makes it possible.* We prove a conclusion on the basis of facts logically related to it and then integrate it into the sum of our knowledge. That process is what enables us to say: "Everything points to this conclusion; the total context demands it; within these conditions, it is unshakeable." About an isolated revelation, by contrast, we would never be secure. Since we would know nothing that *makes* it so, we could count on nothing to keep it so, either.

Contextualism does not mean relativism. It means the opposite. The fact of context does not weaken human conclusions or make them vulnerable to overthrow. On the contrary, context is precisely what makes a (properly specified) conclusion invulnerable."

OPAR by Leonard Peikoff on pages 120 and 175.

End of quote

OPAR page 360

“An individual can be hurt in countless ways by other men’s irrationality, dishonesty, (and) injustice. Above all, he can be disappointed, perhaps grievously, by the vices of a person he had once trusted or loved. But as long as his property is not expropriated and he remains unmolested physically, the damage he sustains is essentially spiritual, not physical; in such a case, the victim alone has the power and the responsibility of healing his wounds. He remains free: free to think, to learn from his experiences, to look elsewhere for human relationships; he remains free to start afresh and to pursue his happiness. Only the crime of force is able to render its victim helpless. The moral responsibility of organized society, therefore, lies in a single obligation: to banish this crime, i.e., to protect individual rights.”

End quote

Now, read this last letter from one of the wise men at TOC. My only disagreement with it is, its use of the word anarcho-capitalism, for I maintain there is no Capitalism in Anarchism. (And pro-life with no explanation. See the writings of Roger Bissell for my position.)

From: Eyal Mozes <eyal@cloud9.net>

To: "" <objectivism@wetheliving.com>

Subject: OWL: cultural requirements for a free political system

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:24:17 -0500

James Donald's latest message brings up an issue on which I've never seen any extensive discussion in debates about anarcho-capitalism: what are the cultural requirements for a free political system - anarcho-capitalism or a minimal monopoly government - to function and to protect individual rights? Advocates of anarcho-capitalism often beg the question on this issue, when they argue by comparing how anarcho-capitalism would function in a society in which individual rights are universally recognized and respected to how a monopoly government functions today.

James Donald states that anarcho-capitalism would function well in a culture in which "natural law crimes" are "totally uncontroversial", and in which "for ordinary routine crimes there would be no disagreement". To which my question is: in such a culture, why would you need anarcho- capitalism? Why would you need any institutions *at all* for protecting individual rights, whether competitive or monopoly? If there is no disagreement on crime, i.e. everyone with no exception understands individual rights and respects them, then no one would want to commit any crimes, and so protection from crime is not needed; and while there might still be disputes about contracts, so contract arbitration may still be needed, everyone would voluntarily comply with the decisions of any arbitrator that they have agreed to accept, so the use of retaliatory force for contract enforcement would also not be needed. The *only* function that might still be needed for the retaliatory use of force would be national defense.

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.

A more reasonable cultural requirement for anarcho-capitalism may be a society in which individual rights are not *totally* uncontroversial, but nearly so; in which a rational philosophy of individual rights is so dominant that there may be an individual here and there who does not respect individual rights, or who believes in Marxism or in "pro-life" or in some other anti-individual-rights philosophy, but such people are so rare that there's not enough of them to organize into a group of any consequence. In such a society individual criminals may exist, but an organized crime organization on any scale could never form, and neither could a Marxist or a "pro-life" organization. I would concede that in such a culture, an anarcho-capitalist system could function effectively (with the caveat that it will have to find some way to handle national defense); but then so would a monopoly government. If individual rights are so universally understood that a "defense agency" that attacks individual rights could never form, then a monopoly government could never be taken over by politicians who try to increase its power, either.

If we consider instead a culture like today, in which the dominant philosophy does not understand or respect individual rights, then *no* truly free form of government can exist. The best that we can hope for politically, without improvements in the culture, is today's US, as the best approximation possible for a monopoly limited government, or today's Somalia, as the best approximation possible for anarcho-capitalism. Of the two, I definitely prefer the US.

But consider a more realistic cultural goal than getting individual rights universally understood and recognized; consider a culture in which a rational philosophy is dominant, and most people do explicitly or implicitly accept and respect individual rights, but there is still a significant minority that do not, that accept some form of religious extremism or other irrational ideology and consequently do not respect individual rights.

This is the sort of culture in which a monopoly limited government could function, and preserve people's freedom in the long term; a population that understands individual rights will quickly remove - by vote if possible, by arms if necessary - any politician who tries to increase the government's powers beyond its proper limits. But an anarcho-capitalist system could *not* function in such a culture. Since there would still be significant minorities that accept anti-individual-rights ideologies, they would be able to form their own defense agencies, arbitration agencies, etc.. So far I have seen anarcho-capitalists, when asked how their system would deal with such anti-individual-rights agencies, give one of three possible answers:

a. Deny that such agencies could possibly be formed, on the grounds that people would be too rational to want to form them; i.e. assume nearly universal agreement on individual rights. This answer concedes my point that near-universal agreement on individual rights is a cultural requirement for anarcho-capitalism.

b. Point out that defense agencies would have a strong economic incentives to compromise rather than get into violent fights. I.e. when these irrational minorities create their own defense agencies, the more rational agencies would have an incentive to compromise with them and allow them to violate their clients' rights rather than get into a fight. This answer amounts to an admission that, as long as individual rights are not almost universally accepted and respected, an anarcho-capitalist system cannot defend them.

c. (a direct contradiction to B) Claim that the more rational defense agencies would attack the irrational ones and force them to cease operations. The problem with this answer is that a "competing defense agency" that can forcibly stop its "competitors"' operations is a monopoly government; so this answer is not a defense of anarcho- capitalism, it is a repudiation of anarcho-capitalism. (This contradiction is present in its most obvious and blatant form in Randy Barnett's "The Structure of Liberty", as I pointed out in my 1998 review; http://

www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/emozes_review-structure-of-liberty.asp;

others are less obvious about it because they write less clearly than Barnett, but this contradiction is inherent in any attempt to defend anarcho-capitalism while claiming that agencies that violate individual rights will be stopped from operating.)

In sum, when we look at the cultural requirements for a free political system, the difference between anarcho-capitalism and a limited monopoly government becomes clear. Both have a strong cultural requirement, both would require great improvements in today's culture before they could function to fully protect individual rights. But the requirements for anarcho-capitalism are much stronger, and therefore much less realistic; a limited monopoly government requires that a rational philosophy supporting individual rights be dominant in the culture, but can function even if some significant minority continues to accept an irrational philosophy; whereas anarcho-capitalism requires that a rational philosophy be nearly universally accepted.

End of letter from Eyal.

Out of context, Eyal wrote in the above letter:

The only institution needed to protect individual rights is Galt's screen hiding the gulch from the outside, a form of national defense.

End quote

What would happen after one generation? Everyone there would no longer be cherry picked!

Out of context, Eyal wrote:

. . . consider a culture in which a rational philosophy is dominant, and most people do explicitly or implicitly accept and respect individual rights, but there is still a significant minority . . .

end of quote

I think of that significant minority as “Prudent Predators.”

Congratulations for getting this far! You just might be an Intellectual. There are no more quotes.

To all of you who want to start by tearing down Constitutional Government: I don’t accept that as a positive argument for Rational Anarchism. We agree that less government and a Constitutional fix is needed.

To all of you who have a disagreement with my parody. There was no specific point other than to illustrate dogmatism.

One) I want you to keep thinking of my fractured fairy tale as located in Anarchy, and not relocate it into YOUR civilized mind. In Anarchy I may do anything I want until another anarchist convinces or forces me to stop.

Two) I want you to think of my AR character as illustrating ARI, or at least those dogmatic aspects of that institution. It is dogmatic if you say “What did Rand think,” rather than what is real?

When you were a kid and you went out into that chaotic playground, you knew the initiation of force was a part of our nature. ‘Authority’ kept it in check. As an adult, if you have ever been in an accident, or in litigation, or simply had unruly neighbors, you know the safety, comfort, and justice to be found in placing the retaliatory use of force in the hands of the government. I won’t accept as proof, an Anarchist, pointing at himself and proclaiming, I am rational enough to never do a bad thing. Yeah, right. In the context of today’s knowledge Anarchism is a zero.

To all Anarchists: Show me something! A true model of a working, sustainable, anarchic, CIVILIZATION, complete with guaranteed individual rights, the non-initiation of force, Laissez Faire Capitalism, and a model not dependent, in every day life, on the whim or power of anyone.

I can show you the Constitution.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Michael Marotta wrote:

The point is that in order for people to live rationally with a minimum of conflict, all that is required is a commitment to do so. Failing that, no Axiomatic Constitutionalism will explain away the fact that the globalist society of the 21st century is no longer completely explained by 18th century political theory.

End quote

I gather you are saying global commerce is Anarcho-capitalism? Again, we may not be talking about the same thing. You are discussing an interim market where what is done, is done, freely. The participants agree on some form of arbitration if there are disagreements. The activity is outside of any ‘State’s Jurisdiction.’ As it may be in space when it takes thirty years to get somewhere, there may be no government to back your rights up.

Michael also wrote:

“All that is required is a commitment to do so.”

Michael you cannot speak for everyone. We are still in the 1st, 5th, 12th, 18th, and 21st centuries. Pirates! Jihad! Mass Murder! Totalitarianism! We humans have not evolved very far. I do agree that it is best for a government to leave the markets alone.

Jeff Smith wrote:

And when other people (most people?) refuse to live rationally with a minimum of conflict, or decide that a rational pursuit of their own interests makes conflict necessary or advisable? What then?

Adam contributed the Marx Brothers, “Freedonia” video, with the song. “We’re Gong to War!”

Now, that was funny.

If I could only figure out a way to do the stationary bike and type at the same time.

I like this place, Objectivist Living.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

Michael you cannot speak for everyone. We are still in the 1st, 5th, 12th, 18th, and 21st centuries. Pirates! Jihad! Mass Murder! Totalitarianism! We humans have not evolved very far. I do agree that it is best for a government to leave the markets alone.

So, essentially, one of the basic premises of your arguments is that:

individual human beings cannot act responsibly, but those same individual human beings somehow become inured with the genetics of Plato's philosopher king and will protect us poor, immoral and violent human animals.

Got it.

How do the government people become so morally perfect to administer the global good?

Is there like one of them thar certificate programs where us immoral hicks can get edacated?

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Is rational government anything like military intelligence or corporate ethics?

Ba'al Chatzaf