Rational government

[Peter]

You sent:

http://en.wikipedia....rcho-capitalism <<<<this is the Wiki link to anarcho-capitalism

Is this a definition that we can agree on...yes or no, but I can't accept a maybe.

end quote

I will look it up. so I am talking to "Adam" now. How do I talk to Selene? You're not kidding are you? You are a multiple personality inhabiting one body? And thank you Selene for the info on how to get a thread. I will try it.

You wrote:

Agreed. An anarchist could obviously not take any oath to the US Constitution.

end quote

You are consistent and honest. Thank you both.

You wrote:

That is not the argument. In terms of a political system, that functions within a geographical area, clearly I, at least, am not advocating that be done tonight because that would be a purely sophistic argument.

end quote

That is the idea that makes my blood run cold. How will an anarchist overthrow the government?

You wrote:

One of the questions being posed here in this thread is whether an anarchistic society can exist at all.

There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.

^{I will look this up:}

^{[http://en.wikipedia....rcho-capitalism <<<<this is the Wiki link to anarcho-capitalism}

^{Is this a definition that we can agree on...yes or no, but I can't accept a maybe.}

^{These last comments of yours I do not get. Maybe I should look it up first, but isn't anarchism a non-system where you can do anything you please unless and until another anarchist pursuades, or forces you to stop? That is chaos. You may decide X today, but Y tomorrow, and in the mean time another anarchist may be planning Z. Wouldn't you still be scared of each other? What kind of freedom is that?}

^{I was thinking how Anarchism is shown in the media, and found an article. My paricular favorite was just playing on our TV: Lord of the Flies.}

^{I had trouble cutting this, there may be breaks, it had a lot of photos I needed to delete.The site said feel free to share, as if an anarchist has any respect for the law. 8 -)}

^{Semper cogitans fidele,}

^{Peter Taylor}

^{Anarchy at the Movies (Part II)}

^{Submitted by Kenneth R. Morefield on July 10, 2009 – 11:26 pm}

^{In Part I of this essay I opined that post-Romantic ideology in American and British literature had led to a general tendency to locate goodness in the individual and evil in institutions (that alternately tyrannize or render complacent those individuals) has tended to render fuzzy our understanding of anarchy as a political philosophy. One way that fuzziness is manifested is in the way that anarchy gets conflated with revolutionary violence in our popular media. Whereas Matthew Arnold posited anarchy and tyranny as equally destructive poles to be striven against, twentieth century anti-(or is it Romantic?) heroes use violence to raze the foundations of a rotting and corrupting society to either allow a new world order to emerge or remove the constraints against violence placed against vigilantes or independent forces of power who are alone able to stand against the purely evil.}

^{The typical example of such a hero would be Mad Max, who doesn’t usher in the apocalyptic era but who nevertheless finds his true calling operating outside a civil and legal structure. (Max was a policeman, initially, and it is no coincidence that when he is a representative of law and order, he is impotent to prevent thugs from killing his family; once he embraces the free-for-all, his uber self is able to protect the innocent.) Batman is another example of how an anarchic force is often viewed as necessary to operate outside the law.}

^{Violence operating outside an institutional structure...}

^{Films like My Bodyguard or The Magnificent Seven, for all their differing intended audiences are held together by belief in the ability, nay the necessity, or harnessing mercenary violence. Violence is viewed as bad on an institutional level because institutions are evil, but individuals who are good are thought capable of wielding power, even violence, to good ends. Anarchy becomes a positive force, a secular, non-socialist version of the Marxist myth of the upheaval that precedes the implementation of a just society (rather than spiralling into mob rule and the guillotine).}

^{The passionate belief in anarchic violence–as a means of reform or revolt, as an instrument to leverage change, as the only real way of opposing tyranny–is so ubiquitous, that when one sees or hears it questioned one is simultaneously stunned (how can that be?) and refreshed (of course!)}

^{...is the idol which modern man alone believes can save him from tyranny.}

^{I had such a response the first time I read “What is Anarchy?” The first section of the first chapter of Jacques Ellul’s Anarchy and Christianity, “What is Anarchy” is filled with the sorts of statements that typify Ellul’s keen penetration and sociological insight: “By anarchy I mean first an absolute rejection of violence. Hence I cannot accept either nihilists or anarchists who choose violence as a means of action” (11).}

^{Ellul claims to understand the violent impulse, but says, somewhat wryly: “I recall passing the Paris Bourse some twenty years ago and saying to myself that a bomb ought to be placed under that building. It would not destroy capitalism but it would serve as a symbol and a warning. Not knowing anyone who could make a bomb, I took no action!” (11). That line reminds me of V telling Evie Hammond that a building is a symbol and that by blowing up a building he hopes to give the people hope. “Violence can be used for good,” he insists.}

^{But it also reminds me of Brad Dourif as the Younger Brother in Ragtime saying “I can make bombs” to a group of angry Negroes. In that moment Coalhouse Walker, Jr. thinks it may be possible to weild violence, or the potential of violence, to opposed and overcome oppression, racism, and tyranny that manifests itself in unjust violence. It ends, though, with a sickened and repentant Coalhouse trapped in the recognition the anarchic strain of violence can only be used to strike out not to build up.}

^{Jacques Ellul}

^{Ellul divides the violent strain of anarchy into three categories, each of which he rejects. The first he associates with “the Russian nihilists” and is described as systematic and sustained violence aginst those who wield power in the hope that eventually the public sees what happens to those in power and refuse (through fear or self preservation) to take up the mantle of power once it is vacated. Ellul says this is the strain of violence closest to the strategy of modern terrorists but that “this line of thinking greatly underestimates the ability of powerful organisms, as well as society, to resist and react” (12).}

^{I think Ellul is right here so far as he goes, but I would also suggest that this form of anti-authoritarian violence also underestimates the desire of the selfish human heart for the potential rewards offered by power buttressed by institutional weight.}

^{The pop cultural examples we have of the futility of this means of trying to make power unpalatable are usually inverted–one thinks of chaotic anarchy that is created in the wake of a failed assassination attempt against mob boss Vito Corleone in Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather. Strong hierarchical power is the most stable form of conflict and hence the violence is not eliminated but minimalized. The chaos that ensues in the vacuum created by the absense of Don Corleone causes more and greater violence as the opportunity to assume the trappings of power previously thought to be inaccessible rise to the surface.}

^{Omar Little of HBO's THE WIRE}

^{Or, if you prefer a more recent example, the successful prosecution of Avon Barksdale in HBO’s The Wire, far from acting as a deterring sign to those who would wield power only serves to create a temporary anarchy in which those who rise to power are not those most opposed to tyranny but those most willing to be tyrannical. If one thinks about anarchy in connection with The Wire though, it is hard not to think of Omar, who is both the agent/creator and symbol of anarchy. Omar is the post-modern Mad Max (even the photos look similar, don’t they?) the sort of anti-anti-hero. Like the conventional anti-hero, he operates outside any institution or structure, but unlike the vigilante anti-hero, he has no ulterior or greater goal or even sense of value. He thrives in chaos, but (ironically) he needs some forms of structure from which to leech. A true anarchic society would mean there were no stashes but individual stashes and he could not depend on the clashes between greater collected forces to provide cover (in various forms) for his own exploits.}

^{Omar–or at least Omar’s popularity amongst middle and upper class white viewers who make him a kind of cult hero–is more closely aligned to the second type of anarchic violence that Ellul describes: “Then there is despair when the solidity of the system is seen, when impotence is felt face-to-face with an increasingly conformist society, or an increasingly powerful administration, or an invincible economic system (who can arrest multinationals?), and violence is a kind of cry of despair, an ultimate act by which an effort is made to give public expression to one’s disagreement and hatred of oppression” (12). This sense of despair at the “solidity” of the system is expressed most perfectly in the rightly famous chess scene in Season 1 in which the younger Barksdale explains chess to his henchmen, using the drug trade as a metaphor to explain the pieces. Bodie may insist that a pawn can become the king, but the reality is that the rules–the way the game is structured–prevents that from ever happening regardless of how much skill or cunning he exercises.}

^{The anger that arises from one’s impotence in the face of systems too large and too enmeshed is certainly shared by viewers–even those who know they are complicit to some degree in creating and maintaining the solidity of such systems, and hence Omar’s violent rejection not of his place within society but of society itself (to what chess piece is he an analog) is both refreshing and–oddly–encouraging to the audience. Perhaps environment is not all. Perhaps by rejecting all, one can be a law unto oneself and live only for oneself.}

^{I think the despair of the audience is what fuels the romantic idolatry of Omar, though I don’t necessarily think his violence is an expression of his own despair. It is mostly tactical, a word which Ellul uses to describe his first objection to violence and aggression. Nonviolence as a movement has been more successful at effecting real and useful change and opposing tyranny than has violent opposition, whether in terrorist/anarchist form or in organized revolutionary form. (I’m reminded of Farah Pahlavi asking Nahid Persson in The Queen and I why so few of the revolutionaries who were socialist or Marxist in philosophy fled to communist states such as Cuba, China, or the Soviet Union when their overthrow of a [what they thought] tyrannical emperor simply created a power vacuum for a more oppressive, violent, and tyranical state.)}

^{Finally, there is the offering of a symbol and a sign...}

^{The film that got me starting about Ellul and anarchy, however, was V for Vendetta, and while I’ve said in Part I that I think the political philosophy of that film is ultimately self-contradictory and incoherent, a case might be made that V represent the third strain of anarchic violence that Ellul describes: “Finally, there is the offering of a symbol and a sign, to which I have alluded already. A warning is given that society is more fragile than is supposed and that secret forces are at work to undermine it” (12). V’s violence is less a warning than a sign. It is suppose to rally the people who have been overcome by fear and give them a sign that resistance to tyrannical control and power is not only contemplatable but possible.}

^{Ironically, however, his one disciple is made through the realization of the ultimate futility of violence. Evie discovers that thing which she loves and cares about more than life and is thus able to say no to the perceived threat of death. V, as I’ve said several times already, shows it is possible to strike at and destroy the fascist government, but that is a very different thing from showing that he has anything to put in its place. “People should not be afraid of their government, government should be afraid of its people.” Will the government that is created in the wake of the revolutionary violence be one that is afraid of its people? Will it be one that values life, freedom, liberty, art, anything that would fall under the umbrella of what Matthew Arnold called “sweetness and light”?}

^{Although Ellul starts with a tactical objection to violence–non-violence works better–he ends the section with his philosophical objection, a premise which he will have to develop throughout the book: “Biblically, love is the way, not violence” (13). He does go on to say, however, that “Not using violence against those in power does not mean doing nothing” (13). Just as he articulates in Money & Power that the most effective way of combating the power of money is not by overwhelming it but subverting and perverting it (using it to give rather than to buy and control) so too the suggestion here is that the ultimately more powerful way of combating the power of violence is by non-cooperation rather than by greater violence.}

^{Robert Shaw and Paul Scofield}

^{It is the rejection of power–not the rejection of those who wield power but of the allure of the power of violence itself that ultimately creates the sort of anarchy through which tyranny is opposed without necessarily creating the fertile ground for more tyranny. Sir Thomas More destabilizes the government not through the exercise of power but through non-participation and non-cooperation. Josh, the young chess prodigy in Searching for Bobby Fisher refuses to cooperate with a teacher who insists that the success in chess depeWhen Josh offers a contemptible opponent a draw in an attempt to spare him humiliation, he resists not only his opponent’s power but his teacher’s insistence that power can only be met with greater power. In Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi, the eponymous hero drives the colonial tyrants from India not by meeting it with power but by fostering and revealing a state of true anarchy which shows and exploits the limitations of that power. “Because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate.”}

^{I’ve tried to argue that the spirit of anarchy in its highest form is less about using violence to create chaos where there once was tyranny than it is about resisting that tyranny by not buying into the methodology and philosophy that creates it. Anarchy is less a state of (non) government than a tool, an opposition not merely to agents of power who have already become tyrannical but to the concept of power itself, especially as it is created and maintained through violence.}

^{Ellul’s book extends far beyond the opening section I have mined, and it is more nuanced and thoughtful than the sort of summary I could provide here could do justice to, so I’ll move toward a conclusion by recommending readers track it down and read it in full. In his conclusion he calls anarchy “a happy counterweight to the conformist flexibility of Christianity” (104). That flexibility is evidenced in the fact that the Christian church has somehow managed to use the same people to be monarchist under monarchies, imperialist under empires, republican under Republics, and socialist under (or in) socialist governments. Paul says to be not conformed to present world, yet that has come to mean for most evanglicals not accepting social ideas or worldviews that run counter to the received and traditional virtues or morals. The notion that political philosophy could be an idea of this present world, that there might not be a right or God ordained one (or that the God-ordained one might not be our own) is, seemingly, anathema.}

^{The very center and stronghold of the notion that it is man’s ideal right and felicity to do as he likes?}

^{To truly conclude, though, I want to go back to where I started–Matthew Arnold and the problem of opposing tyranny. Arnold feared that anarchy could result from an uneducated, lower class constituency, because the working class is ” pressed by hard, daily compulsion” and has thus become the ““very center and stronghold of our national idea, that it man’s ideal right and felicity to do as he likes.” This commitment to personal freedom, he feared,meant that the working classes were less likely to cultivate and practice a state of “disinterestedness”–by which he meant not boredom but rather the capacity to act against one’s self-interest for the benefit of something or someone else. Were Arnold alive today, I’d like to watch Pray the Devil Back to Hell with him. The chaos created in Liberia was a double dose of tyranny, and it was opposed and defeated not by a greater, external, controlling exercise of power and force, but by a populace largely without formal, institutional power. The anarchy created by revolutionary violence was simply a larger pool for unspeakable cruelty and oppression. The personal anarchy practiced by those who refused to cooperate with an institutional government (or revolutionary counter-force) resting on violence as a means of control led to results those of us inculcated with Matthew Arnold’s view of the world and, especially, of the least of these who inhabit it, would be simply flabbergasted.}

^{I wonder how V for Vendetta played in Liberia?}

^{Ellul, Jacques. Anarchy and Christianity. 1988. Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1991.}

[Peter]

Selene:

I went to that site and got a bunch of Anarchists talking to each other, all of them disagreeing. Is that what you intended me to see? None of them were making any sense. None seemed in any way intelligent, just irrational. I think I may have stepped into the middle of their anarchist experiment, and they had just killed Piggie and were worshipping The Lord of The Flies. Maybe Timothy Leary can bring them down.

Peter

[Russell]

Note from MSK: Proven plagiarist. Content removed from all other posts by this poster and he has been banned. See below.

Let me try to explain this one more time.

A government is a conceptual description for a group of people (who claim and possess the moral right to initiate the use of violence against others within a specific geographical area").

Again: *government is a conceptual description for a group of people*—in that the word "government" is a conceptual description that has no more existence in reality than "numbers" do.

Actual individual people exist - a "government" does not.

Are you following me so far? Good.

Given the above, it is erroneous to illuminate on the actions or ethics of "governments" per se; we can only explain the actions and ethics of people—concrete specific individual people.

And now we get to the hub of it:

If morality is to have any Objective meaning--it must be universal, consistent and reversible. For example, it cannot be considered ethical for me to propose that "Action X" is perfectly moral for me, but perfectly immoral for you - or that this action is perfectly moral today, but perfectly immoral tomorrow.

What is right for one must be right for all and what is wrong for one must be wrong for all.

Why, can I compete with this government doing exactly as they do? By what right do they bar me or others in a given society to offer the services "governments" off? Perhaps they were sprinkled with some magic Philosopher King exclusive dust? THIS is what I mean by *opposing moral principles* ascribe to one set of human but not to others! It is a blazing contradiction. This cancels the whole concept—morally and epistemologically—of "government".

Now you can see, logically, where the contradiction exists when it comes to the citizenry and the so-called "government".

You can't ascribe opposing moral principles to different sets of human beings!

The logic is blazingly clear.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

PLAGIARISM alert!

Let me try to explain this one more time.

A government is a conceptual description for a group of people (who claim and possess the moral right to initiate the use of violence against others within a specific geographical area").

Again: *government is a conceptual description for a group of people*—in that the word "government" is a conceptual description that has no more existence in reality than "numbers" do.

Actual individual people exist - a "government" does not.

Are you following me so far? Good.

Given the above, it is erroneous to illuminate on the actions or ethics of "governments" per se; we can only explain the actions and ethics of people—concrete specific individual people.

And now we get to the hub of it:

If morality is to have any Objective meaning--it must be universal, consistent and reversible. For example, it cannot be considered ethical for me to propose that "Action X" is perfectly moral for me, but perfectly immoral for you - or that this action is perfectly moral today, but perfectly immoral tomorrow.

What is right for one must be right for all and what is wrong for one must be wrong for all.

Why, can I compete with this government doing exactly as they do? By what right do they bar me or others in a given society to offer the services "governments" off? Perhaps they were sprinkled with some magic Philosopher King exclusive dust? THIS is what I mean by *opposing moral principles* ascribe to one set of human but not to others! It is a blazing contradiction. This cancels the whole concept—morally and epistemologically—of "government".

Now you can see, logically, where the contradiction exists when it comes to the citizenry and the so-called "government".

You can't ascribe opposing moral principles to different sets of human beings!

The logic is blazingly clear.

Sharon on Solo Passion

"A government is a conceptual description for a group of people (who claim and possess the moral right to initiate the use of violence against others within a specific geographical area").

While Jeffery Smith might ague with latter part of this definition, it can't be argued that a *government is a conceptual description for a group of people*—in that the word "government" is a conceptual description; it has no more existence in reality than "numbers" do. Actual individual people exist - a "government" does not. It is erroneous to elucidate on the actions or ethics of "governments" per se, we can only describe the actions and ethics of people—concrete specific individual people. If morality is to have any Objective meaning, it must be universal, consistent and reversible. It cannot be considered ethical for me to propose that "Action X" is perfectly moral for me, but perfectly immoral for you - or that this action is perfectly moral today, but perfectly immoral tomorrow. What is right for one must be right for all - and what is wrong for one must be wrong for all.

Sharon on Solo Passion

Can I compete with this government doing exactly as they do? By what right do they bar me or others in a given society? Perhaps they were sprinkled with some magic Philosopher King dust? That what I mean by *opposing moral principles* ascribe to one set of human but not to others; this cancels the whole concept—morally and epistemologically—of a centralized government.

Why banned people want to come back to OL and do the same shit as before, I have no idea.

Sick sick sick sick...

This is the only post by "Russell" I will allow with content in it. I'm deleting the rest since I don't feel like looking up what is undoubtedly plagiarized in them.

Michael

[Peter]

Rational Anarchy as a *System* lacks a hierarchical command structure. Everyone does whatever they please until another anarchist persuades or forces them to stop. Rational people, the Anarchist says, can agree to associate with each other, respect individual rights, and peacefully settle disagreements.

Yet, people who profess a proclivity towards anarchism won’t supply an example of a current working anarchy where individual rights are protected. I ask them, if anarchy is somehow more rational than a Constitutional Government, why didn’t the countries that made up the former Soviet Union, spontaneously become anarchic states? Why is it that people always express a desire for freedom, but virtually no one coming from an un-free society ever desires anarchy?

A desire for rational anarchy primarily comes from people who live in a relatively free society. Relatively free is not good enough for me either, but “anything goes” is worse. Without the retaliatory use of force in the hands of the Government, Anarchy would not become Social Laissez Faire Capitalism.

I can think of two places in the news where anarchy is an interim form of social interaction: Somalia and Afghanistan outside of the cities. Whenever and wherever an interim anarchic System exists, there is always a hierarchical command structure. It may be a clan leader, a war lord, or a gang leader, but there is always someone telling others what to do. Or else.

Now I would like an anarchist to answer this. Is there is a better chance of having a respect for individual rights in these interim anarchies with the clan or gang leaders, or in a society that has a Constitutional Government? There is no other choice since Anarchy exists in no other form.

There is always a hierarchal command structure in human societies. Always. A Rational Anarchic System would be no different. The only checks and balances would be each individual’s ability to defend themselves, against other individuals and against a gang leader and his followers. Or as Rational Anarchists are so proud to proclaim, it would be my defense agency against your defense agency. That is not clever. Will every battle result in a standoff? Will no one reign supreme? Of course they will. Power comes from the barrel of a gun, as Mao threatened. Someone always reigns supreme, when might makes right.

Is anarchy a utopia or dystopia? Existent or non-existent? Dream or nightmare? Look at reality for your answer.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Edited January 19, 2010 by Peter Taylor

[syrakusos]

Rational Anarchy as a *System* lacks a hierarchical command structure. ... I can think of two places in the news where anarchy is an interim form of social interaction: Somalia and Afghanistan outside of the cities. ... There is always a hierarchal command structure in human societies. Always. ... Someone always reigns supreme, when might makes right.

You are confusing the religion of the Aztecs with the religion of Thomas Aquinas on the grounds that both are religions, both irrational, both demanding human sacrifice. While true, those assertions miss an essential difference between them. So, too with your ideas about "anarchy." I have aleady pointed to actual, working, real world, profit-making, examples perfectly consonant with Objectivist expectations for laissez-faire capitalism and you have ignored them. You prefer to make your statements for your own purposes.

It seems pretty clear to me that in YOUR world, YOUR gun will give YOU the power to establish YOUR hierarchy. I will make a point of giving you a lot of space if ever we meet.

A final point is that it is empirically, factually, evidentially, observably true that NOT ALL human societies are hierachical.

Tell us, all, please, if you can, why is it that the failure of "anarchy" (so-called) in Somalia and Afghanistan seems so final to you, while the putative "success" of government in 182 other places is to be excused as only not the best instantiation of constitutional guarantees for natural rights?

[Selene]

Films like My Bodyguard or The Magnificent Seven, for all their differing intended audiences are held together by belief in the ability, nay the necessity, or harnessing mercenary violence. Violence is viewed as bad on an institutional level because institutions are evil, but individuals who are good are thought capable of wielding power, even violence, to good ends. Anarchy becomes a positive force, a secular, non-socialist version of the Marxist myth of the upheaval that precedes the implementation of a just society (rather than spiralling into mob rule and the guillotine).

The passionate belief in anarchic violence–as a means of reform or revolt, as an instrument to leverage change, as the only real way of opposing tyranny–is so ubiquitous, that when one sees or hears it questioned one is simultaneously stunned (how can that be?) and refreshed (of course!)

...is the idol which modern man alone believes can save him from tyranny.

I had such a response the first time I read "What is Anarchy?" The first section of the first chapter of Jacques Ellul's Anarchy and Christianity, "What is Anarchy" is filled with the sorts of statements that typify Ellul's keen penetration and sociological insight: "By anarchy I mean first an absolute rejection of violence. Hence I cannot accept either nihilists or anarchists who choose violence as a means of action" (11).

Peter or am I now talking to Taylor? See how peculiar that looks?

At any rate, the citing of The Magnificent Seven, a remake of the Seven Samurai, illustrates that an anarcho capitalist society can work quite well. You neglect the fact that the village was self sufficient and functioning well until the initiation of force by the 40+ well armed bandits.

Moreover, you citing Jacques Ellul is interesting. I hope you read his book Propaganda.

Adam

Edited January 19, 2010 by Selene

[Peter]

Michael M. wrote:

“I have already pointed to actual, working, real world, profit-making, examples perfectly consonant with Objectivist expectations for laissez-faire capitalism and you have ignored them. You prefer to make your statements for your own purposes.”

End quote

I will reexamine what you showed me. OK.

Global *free trade,* or a stock exchange where disputes are settled internally, is not Anarchism. It is Capitalism, operating within various jurisdictions. Now if a sly fraud were to occur, your money would be gone. Would you then seek regress if the perpetrators had disappeared? Sure. Would you send your hired gun after the guy? OR the US Government, Interpol, or the World court or some other such legal body? Or would you do both? This sounds to me like New Jersey as usual. Tony Soprano owned the cops and the private defense agency.

End quote

Michael M. wrote:

It seems pretty clear to me that in YOUR world, YOUR gun will give YOU the power to establish YOUR hierarchy. I will make a point of giving you a lot of space if ever we meet.

end quote

Are you so truly locked into your position, that you cannot see that you are talking about yourself and your defense agency? Not me. You. I advocate placing the retaliatory use of force into the hands of the Government. Aren’t you the one advocating a bullet to the back of the head? YOU ARE INSULTING YOURSELF.

Rational Anarchism is not just the market. It is a society where people live without government. They do as they please until another anarchist persuades or forces them to stop. Yet somehow, no one initiates force or fraud, and individual rights are protected. It must last over multi-generations. Your free market operating in cyberspace or wherever it exists is not a Rational Anarchist Society. You don’t live there. Nobody lives there. It’s the Safeway Supermarket and the internet.

Michael M. wrote:

A final point is that it is empirically, factually, evidentially, observably true that NOT ALL human societies are hierarchical.

end quote

My following paragraph is not anti-capitalist in spirit, so don’t hit me with that charge. The playground? Family? Wikipedia. Fraternal Clubs? Towns, cities, States, Countries? Even a free market is hierarchical. Tell Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Standard Oil, The Robber Barons, etc. that they do not use leverage, buying power, and insider trading to trump your financial wisdom. Within Objectivist Living, the owner is at the top of a hierarchy. Respect due and audience accrued is to some extent hierarchical for people like BB.

You should have shown me the beef. Name some human societies THAT ARE NOT HIERARCHICAL. I will gladly say you are right, if you are right. Show me a Rational Anarchist Society too while you are at it.

Michael M. wrote:

Tell us, all, please, if you can, why is it that the failure of "anarchy" (so-called) in Somalia and Afghanistan seems so final to you, while the putative "success" of government in 182 other places is to be excused as only not the best instantiation of constitutional guarantees for natural rights?

End quote

These are YOUR examples of Anarchy too. Your market, (which I will not step into, because of the possibility it is rigged, nor will I buy gold from you,) Somalia, Afghanistan, and currently Haiti. Is anyone clamoring to visit these places, including your market? Or does the world gravitate to those regions where the freedom is the greatest? I rest my case.

Michael E. Marotta, I am not going to shun you, as you seem to be threatening me with. Yet, I think you are endorsing something dangerous. People who advocate Anarchism are intellectually blind and more likely to be morally unsound too. (No. I will not name, names.) Something is just not right. I won’t let it slide. I will speak out.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

I see. Adam Selene is your full name. I wondered about that. I kidded you about that. Sometimes you do not sign your posts, but Selene, which sounds like Celine or a female name to me, appears at the top.

I am amazed how many people do not use their names on this list or others. Is it fear? Prudence? Deception?

I am terrible with names but by now when I see Selene, I usually link it to Adam.

I advocate no one who is an anarchist. I came across that guy when I googled some key words like 'anarchy, movies,' and thought he was interesting, if not right.

Show me a working Anarchic Society where you would like to live. Show me your Utopia. I feel like I am likely to run out of steam to fight windmills.

Anarchy is a futile waste of time, engaged in by True Believers. Like back yard campers, they think they are experiencing the Wild, Wild, West.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

I see. Adam Selene is your full name. I wondered about that. I kidded you about that. Sometimes you do not sign your posts, but Selene, which sounds like Celine or a female name to me, appears at the top.

I am amazed how many people do not use their names on this list or others. Is it fear? Prudence? Deception?

I am terrible with names but by now when I see Selene, I usually link it to Adam.

I advocate no one who is an anarchist. I came across that guy when I googled some key words like 'anarchy, movies,' and thought he was interesting, if not right.

Show me a working Anarchic Society where you would like to live. Show me your Utopia. I feel like I am likely to run out of steam to fight windmills.

Anarchy is a futile waste of time, engaged in by True Believers. Like back yard campers, they think they are experiencing the Wild, Wild, West.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Peter:

I assume that in 1775, a poll of the world's citizens would have chuckled about a civil society based on individual rights acquired by God or Nature and rejected the only way governments were perceived.

I am sure that the polled would also think that it was "...a futile waste of time, engaged in by True Believers." As someone who has actually read Hoffer, that phrase would not apply to a non-centralizing movement. He addressed communists, fascists, nationalists and early christian movements.

Anarchism, by the very nature of the word An archos means no government.

Adam

[Peter]

Thank you for correcting me Adam. I did not remember Eric Hoffer saying that there was a specified number of True Believers. I read him too, but it was around 1971.

Now, will you forgive me? I like to hear myself talk. Special note at the bottom.

What is the stated mission of an Anarchist? To be as free as he can be, so that he may be all that he can be. To not be hampered by a harmful government. To live a peaceful life recognizing the individual rights of all others, whenever he comes into contact with them. And to protect his life and property, while engaging in Capitalism and prospering.

Uh, oh. Here come’s a quote:

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

And you thought I was scathing? A floating abstraction . . . I wish I could ask her, why do some, seemingly intelligent people read your books, Ayn, and then claim Anarchism is the logical evolution of your philosophy? How can they tear down your philosophy while claiming to fulfill it? And she would answer, “Son, I would not waste my time on the likes of them.” Ouch! She smacked me.

Perhaps Ayn was wrong. She was not infallible. Objectivist, after Rand, is contextual and can change as the facts change. Is the Anarchist right, or is there something disconnected in his thinking, or is there something more sinister? Would it sound laughable or oh, so true if I said, isn’t that just like a Rational Anarchist? An encounter with the facts is seldom a good reason for him to doubt his theories. (Now while I use the pronoun “his,” there may be other female Anarchists out there in MadMaxLand, but I only know of one in all my years on earth.)

Leonard Peikoff or David Kelley might agree with the following, but it is not a quote when I write: This may be the sinister key to the real meaning of the Anarchist agenda. They are on a mission motivated by hatred of Objectivism and Constitutional Government, and they are willing to destroy themselves so long as they can take the world down with them. Are Nihilism and Anarchism, flip sides of the same coin? What is wrong with you people?

I have enlisted a Fox reporter in Haiti to ask a Haitian women.

“With anarchy all around you, why don’t you embrace its logical necessity,” he asks?

She says something, in something sort of like French.

“You fear for your life,” he yells, “what is wrong with you women?”

No, an anarchist won’t believe this eye witness testimony because of the Creole translator slowing things down.

Excuse me while I get Ricky to ask Lucy, why is there only one female anarchist? He agreed. Let’s listen in:

“No, Lucy Anarchist, not Anti-Christ! Ay Chiquita Chihuahua.”

There might be an article in Psychology Today, if I can discover a good answer to “why only one?”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Robert Tracinski on TV Tonight

Robert Tracinski is scheduled to appear tonight, Tuesday, January 19, between 7:00 and 7:30 pm Eastern Time, on CNBC's "The Kudlow Report" to discuss the significance of the Massachusetts special election.

[Selene]

Peter:

You have successfully eviscerated the straw man of Anarchism by your or Ayn's definition.

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

Yep, those Amish are notorious for the savagery of their gang warfare.

Yep, all those frontier communities that degenerated into all that gang warfare which prevented the establishment of town marshals and sheriffs and OH MY GOD!

All those folks figured out how to live without gang warfare, how did ol Ayn miss that one?

Adam

thinking that we should agree to a definition of anarchism

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

You have successfully eviscerated the straw man of Anarchism by your or Ayn's definition.

end quote

Thank you Adam. I stopped reading at this point. What perfection.

Damn. Tracinski came on just now, not at 7:30.

Petite Pierre

[syrakusos]

Peter:

You have successfully eviscerated the straw man of Anarchism by your or Ayn's definition.

thinking that we should agree to a definition of anarchism

Well, actually, the title of the thread -- perhaps an example of the vicious bait and switch tactics of unregulated capitalism -- is '"rational government." I was expecting a positive statement from Peter Taylor. He chose to start with a deeper premise, and we went with that for a while. However, I am out of Nestles Troll House Cookies.

Rational Geology:

No astronomer can define "planet" therefore astronomy is a fraud. All that exists is geology. We live on Earth. Even those who claim to be "in space" are ORBITING the Earth.

Rational Roller Skating:

Every year 40,000 Americans are killed via automobile, despite government mandated seat belts and airbags and crash tests. Therefore, only roller skates are safe.

Rational Stone Cold Soup:

Cooking via electricity, gas or charcoal burns food, rendering it inedible. Therefore, all food should be eaten raw.

I dare you, defy you and challenge you to convince me otherwise on any of these points -- or on any other point. You cannot do so, I prevent it by my superior arguments.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Peter]

Michael, Adam, and to all. Here is what I am quoting in my next letter.

Peter

IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM

Copyright George H. Smith (november 1997)

Anarchism is a theory of the good society, in which justice and social order are maintained without the State (or government). Many anarchists in the libertarian movement (including myself) were heavily influenced by the epistemological and moral theories of Ayn Rand. According to these anarchists, Rand's principles, if consistently applied, lead necessarily to a repudiation of government on moral grounds.

I call this rational anarchism, because it is grounded in the belief that we are fully capable, through reason, of discerning the principles of justice; and that we are capable, through rational persuasion and voluntary agreement, of establishing whatever institutions are necessary for the preservation and enforcement of justice. It is precisely because no government can be established by means of reason and mutual consent that all Objectivists should reject that institution as unjust in both theory and practice.

Although it is sometime useful to distinguish between the meanings of "State" and "government," such distinctions are irrelevant to the present discussion, so I shall use the terms interchangeably. Following the classic discussion of the sociologist and historian Max Weber, I shall define the "State" as a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."

The State is vested with the exclusive power to enact legislation, adjudicate legal disputes, enforce laws, etc., while forcibly preventing other individuals and associations from engaging in the same activities. The State, in other words, exercises a coercive monopoly in the enforcement of justice. This ultimate power of decision-making is known in political theory as "sovereignty." In the words of the historian A. P. d'Entreves, "the problem of the birth of the modern State is no other than the problem of the rise and final acceptance of the concept of sovereignty."

The concept of sovereignty is the focal point of the current debate between anarchists and minarchists (a label coined by Sam Konkin for the advocates of minimal, or "limited," government). The fundamental problem is this: Where does the right of sovereignty come from, and how can it be justified? This is an especially difficult problem for those in the Lockeian tradition of minarchism - which, in this context, includes the followers of Ayn Rand.

John Locke (like Ayn Rand) believed that all rights belong to individuals. There are no special "group rights" that exist in addition to individual rights. The rights of all groups (including the group that calls itself a "government") must be based on, and in some way derived from, the rights of individuals.

I call this approach political reductionism, because it maintains that the sovereign rights of a (legitimate) government are reducible to the rights of individuals. Political reductionism stands in opposition to political emergence theory, which argues that at least one right (usually the right to enforce the precepts of justice) does not originally belong to individuals, but emerges only in civil societies under government.

Now, having presented this background material, I will address several key issues in the minarchist/anarchist controversy.

AYN RAND AND THE SOCIAL CONTRACT TRADITION

According to John Locke, every person in an anarchistic state of nature would possess the "executive power" to enforce his own rights against the aggressive actions of others. But owing to various "inconveniences" (such as the likelihood of personal bias when acting as judge in one's own case), Locke argued that rational people would unanimously agree to leave this state of nature and join a "civil society," which would thereafter use majority rule to decide upon a particular form of government, such as constitutional monarchy, democracy, and so forth.

This "social contract" was Locke's way of accounting for our obligation to obey the political sovereign. Beginning with the rights of individuals, Locke tried to show how the executive power to enforce these natural rights would be delegated, through a process of consent, to government. Eighteenth-century Americans were chiefly indebted to John Locke for their belief in government by consent.

Ayn Rand defends a consent doctrine in several of her essays, but she never explains how this consent should manifest itself - whether, for example, it must be explicit or merely tacit (as Locke believed). Nor does she explain precisely which rights are delegated to government and how they are transferred. Therefore, although Rand appears to fall within the social contract tradition (at least in a general way), it is unclear where she would stand on the nature and method of political consent. I sincerely hope that some of her minarchist followers can shed some light on this problem.

CONSENT THEORY VS. GOVERNMENT

Many of John Locke's critics - such as David Hume, Josiah Tucker, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and Jeremy Bentham - argued that the inner logic of consent theory, if consistently applied, will land us in anarchy. As these critics pointed out, no government has ever originated in consent, and there is no reason to suppose that individuals, in full possession of their natural rights, would ever subordinate themselves voluntarily to a government.

I agree with these critics. If we accept the premise that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and if we insist that these individuals must consent to be ruled by a government, and if we condemn as illegitimate all governments that rule without consent - then all governments, past and present, have been illegitimate.

Furthermore, I maintain that Objectivists, if they are to remain true to the consent doctrine, must embrace this kind of "practical anarchism" and condemn all historical governments as unjust. True, Objectivists insist that government can be justified in theory - though none (that I know of) has ever spelled out the necessary criteria - but this theoretically legitimate government has never existed anywhere on this earth. Nor can it exist anywhere except in what Edmund Burke called "the fairyland of philosophy."

As Josiah Tucker (a contemporary of Burke) put it, the consent theory of government is "the universal demolisher of all governments, but not the builder of any."

John Locke identified two fundamental problems that must be addressed by the political philosopher. First, what is the justification of the State? Second, assuming that we can justify the State in theory, what are the standards by which we can judge the legitimacy of a particular government? Too often minarchists deal only with the first question, while ignoring the second.

Suppose I am asked what could conceivably change my mind and cause me to endorse government, and suppose I give the following reply: "If I believed in the God of Christianity, and if I believed that God had dispatched a squad of angels to communicate with me personally, and if these angels told me that the State is a divine institution, ordained by God for the protection of human rights, and if these angels further informed me that anarchism would lead to widespread death and destruction - then, under these circumstances, I would abandon my anarchism in favor of minarchism."

But consider an important feature that would be missing from my newfound justification of the State. While believing that the State is justified, qua institution, I would not possess specific standards by which to judge whether a self-professed "government" is in fact a legitimate State at all, or whether it is merely a gang of usurpers and oppressors who claim to act on behalf of that divine institution.

As a remedy for this problem, suppose the angels provide me with a clear and unmistakable standard, to wit: "You will know legitimate rulers by the visible halos over their heads. This sign, and this sign alone, will mark the agents who are authorized by God to act on behalf of the State." Well, after looking around at the functionaries of existing governments, and after seeing no such halos, I would conclude that no one who presently claims to represent the State is morally authorized to do so. On the contrary, I would surmise that America is currently in a state of anarchy, since it contains no legitimate government - so, devoted minarchist that I am, I would dedicate my life to abolishing our wicked "government" and to exposing those Satanic politicians who fraudulently pose as functionaries of that divine institution, the State.

This is a species of the "practical anarchism" that Objectivists must logically endorse. For halos, they have substituted consent as the discernible sign of a legitimate government - and, like halos, consent is nowhere to be found in real-life governments. Hence, while defending the State in theory, these consent-minarchists should oppose all existing governments in practice. And this, I dare say, is a kind of minarchism that I can live with quite well - for we are more likely to be visited by angels than to find a government based on consent.

AYN RAND, ANARCHIST

My next point will probably cause me to be branded as a psycho-epistemological pervert, but here it is: I am convinced that Ayn Rand was essentially an anarchist in substance, if not in name. She was at most a nominal governmentalist. If the conventional meaning of a word is to count for anything at all (and it should), then Rand's ideal "government" is in fact no government at all, but is merely a sheep in wolf's clothing.

How can I make this outrageous claim? I base it on Rand's moral opposition to coercive taxation. The power of coercive taxation, as Alexander Hamilton said in The Federalist Papers is the very life-blood of government. Indeed, the great debate over ratification of the United States Constitution centered on whether or not the federal government should have the power to tax. The Articles of Confederation had withheld this power from Congress, reserving it exclusively for the states. Many Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution because they realized that the federal government, if granted the power to lay and collect taxes directly from the people, would strip the states of their sovereign authority.

If the defenders of either side in the ratification debate had encountered Rand's argument for "voluntary taxation," they would have assailed it, first, as a veritable contradiction in terms (which it is), and, secondly, as a rejection of sovereign government altogether (which it also is). Virtually every defender of government - from John Locke to Thomas Jefferson to Ludwig von Mises - has recognized coercive taxation to be an essential component of sovereignty, a power without which no true government can exist.

The principle of "voluntary taxation" reduces Rand's "government" to a free-market protection agency, which, like every business, must either satisfy its customers or close up shop. What is to prevent a dissatisfied customer from withholding his money from a Randian "government," while subscribing instead to the services of another agency? Why cannot a landowner (or combination of landowners) refuse to pay for the services of their Randian "government," which they regard as inefficient, and take their business elsewhere?

The right to pay for services or not, according to one's own judgment, is a characteristic of the free market; it has no relationship, either theoretically or historically, to the institution of government. There is no way a government can retain its sovereign power - its monopoly on the use of legitimate force - if it does not possess the power of compulsory taxation.

When the nineteenth-century minarchist Auberon Herbert advanced his theory of "voluntary taxation," he was widely praised by anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, who embraced him as one of their own. But he was assailed by fellow minarchists, such as Herbert Spencer, who correctly pointed out that Herbert's position was indistinguishable from anarchism. Likewise, Rand's position on taxation places her squarely in the anarchist camp - her idiosyncratic use of the word "government" notwithstanding. We should focus in this debate on the concept of government and its essential characteristics, not on the word usage of a particular writer.

OBJECTIVE JUSTICE VS. LEGAL MONOPOLISM

I defend anarchism, or society without the State, because I believe that innocent people cannot be forced to surrender any of their natural rights. Those who wish to delegate some of their rights to a government are free to do so, provided they do not violate the rights of dissenters who choose not to endorse their government.

As Ayn Rand has said, the lives of other people are not yours to dispose of. Yet this is precisely what every government attempts to do. A government initiates physical force (or the threat of force) to prohibit other people from exercising their right to enforce the rules of justice. (Either every person has this executive power, or no one does, according to the principle of political reductionism.) A government, while engaging in certain activities which it claims are just, coercively prevents other people from engaging in those selfsame activities.

By what moral means, I ask, does a government come to possess this exclusive right? A government cannot bestow justice on an action that would be unjust if undertaken by someone else. Nor can a government, through force or arbitrary decree, render an action unjust when undertaken by someone else, if that same action is just when undertaken by government. The principles of justice are objective and therefore universal; they apply equally and without exception to every human being, as does every rational precept and procedure. A mathematical computation, for example, cannot be correct when computed by a government, and incorrect when computed by someone else. A deductive syllogism, if valid for those in government, is equally valid for those outside of government. Murder, if wrong when committed by an individual, is equally wrong when committed by a government.

Likewise, an activity, if moral when pursued by a government, is equally moral when pursued by someone else. All this should be obvious to those who agree with the principles put forth by Ayn Rand. If, therefore, the principles of justice are objective (i.e., knowable to human reason), then a government can no more claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force than it can claim a monopoly on reason.

Those minarchists who claim that justice can prevail only under government must implicitly defend the view that justice is either subjective or intrinsic. If justice is subjective, if it varies from one person to the next, then government can be defended as necessary to establish objective rules. Likewise, if justice is intrinsic to government itself, if whatever a government decrees is necessarily just, then government is justified automatically.

If, however, justice is neither subjective nor intrinsic, but instead is objective - i.e., if it can be derived by rational methods from the facts of man's nature and the requirements of social existence - then the principles of justice are knowable to every rational person. This means that no person, group of persons, association, or institution whether known as "government," "State," or by any other name - can rightfully claim a legal monopoly in matters pertaining to justice.

Rational anarchism, in short, is simply the application of Ayn Rand's theory of objective knowledge to the realm of justice.

STATE-SOVEREIGNTY VS. SELF-SOVEREIGNTY

As far as I know, the first sustained attack on legal pluralism came from Marsilius of Padua in the fourteenth century. In his Defender of the Peace, Marsilius attacked the legal pluralism of his day - especially as it pertained to the political authority of the Church and he maintained that one authority, and one alone, should have sovereign power in a given territory.

In defense of this view, Marsilius argued that to deny the right of sovereignty leads ultimately to a logical contradiction. Someone - some person, association or institution - must have the authority to render a final verdict in order for a legal system to operate. One of Marsilius's more interesting examples went something like this:

Suppose two "competing governments" (to use the misleading terminology of Ayn Rand) claim jurisdiction over the same territory, and suppose both have the right to issue compulsory subpoenas that require a person to appear in court on a given day. Furthermore, suppose I receive subpoenas from both agencies demanding that I appear in court at exactly the same time. Since it is impossible for me to be in two places at once, it is impossible for me to obey both governments simultaneously.

Yet this conflicts with our initial premise - that both agencies have a rightful authority to issue subpoenas - because I am logically required to disobey at least one of these governments.

I don't know the official Objectivist position on subpoenas, but the logic of the foregoing argument can easily accommodate other examples. The important point here is the reasoning behind this "logic of sovereignty argument," as it is sometimes called. This argument exerted considerable influence after 1576, when Jean Bodin used it to defend absolute monarchy.

It was also used for the same purpose in the seventeenth century by Sir Robert Filmer (Locke's dead adversary) and Thomas Hobbes.

It is scarcely accidental that the logic of sovereignty argument was a favorite among the defenders of absolutism, and was vigorously opposed by John Locke and other champions of limited government. For consider: If the sovereign (whether one man or group of men) is the final arbiter in all matters pertaining to justice, then how can the sovereign himself be held accountable for committing acts of injustice? The absolutists insisted that he cannot be so judged by any human authority; the sovereign was accountable to "none but God."

Sovereign power, in this view, must be absolute (i.e., unconditional), because by definition there is no higher authority than the sovereign himself. The sovereign is therefore above the law, not under it, which means that there can exist no rights of resistance and revolution by the people. To advocate a "divided sovereignty," according to Filmer, Hobbes and other absolutists, is to advocate anarchy.

I cannot go into the various ways that Locke and other minarchists tried to get around this logic of sovereignty argument, but I think the absolutists had the stronger philosophical case. Either a government has sovereign power, or it doesn't. Either a government has the final authority to render and execute legal decisions, or it doesn't. Sovereignty is an all-or-nothing affair. And if this is true, then no person has a right to resist the sovereign, however unjust his actions may appear. For who is to decide whether a law is unjust, if not the sovereign himself? Who is to decide whether a right has been violated, if not a sovereign government in its role as final arbiter?

In any dispute between a sovereign government and its subjects, the government itself must decide who is right; and, as Locke suggested, the sovereign, like everyone else, is likely to be biased in his own favor. I would therefore like to know how those Objectivists who use the logic of sovereignty argument as a weapon against anarchism can avoid sliding down the slippery slope into absolutism.

If I am arrested for smoking pot or for reading a prohibited book (say, Atlas Shrugged) do I have a right forcibly to resist my incarceration?

If you say "no," then you are defending absolutism. If you say "yes," then what happened to the sovereign power of government to render final decisions in matters of law? - for in resisting the government I am clearly acting as judge in my own case.

Ayn Rand somewhere says that a government becomes tyrannical when it attempts to suppress freedom of speech and press, but who is to decide when this line has been crossed, if not the sovereign government? Surely we can't have crazy people like Ayn Rand running around condemning some laws as unjust and calling for disobedience, because this will lead to anarchy. We cannot preach sovereignty when it suits our purpose, and then oppose it when we don't like particular laws, for this undermines the rationale of sovereignty itself - i.e., that legal matters cannot be left to the discretion of individuals. The doctrine of natural rights, as foes of consent theory repeatedly pointed out, is inherently anarchistic. Burke called natural rights "a digest of anarchy," while Bentham castigated them as "anarchical fallacies."

If at any point Objectivists are willing to admit that individuals have the right to resist an unjust law or overthrow a despotic government, then they are conceding the basic premise of anarchism: namely, that true sovereignty resides in each individual, who has the right to assess the justice of a particular law, procedure or government.

There can be no (logically consistent) middle ground between state-sovereignty and self-sovereignty, between absolutism and anarchism. I defend the self-sovereignty of anarchism. If Objectivists do not understand how I can defend the individual as the "final authority in ethics," I recommend they read Ayn Rand's essay on that topic.

THE LOGIC OF STATE-SOVEREIGNTY VS. OBJECTIVE JUSTICE

In over twenty-five years of arguing with Randian minarchists, I have encountered few who seem even remotely aware that the logic of sovereignty argument has been a central theme in political theory for over four centuries. Those familiar with its long history will understand that it has everywhere and always been used to defend and expand the absolute power of government.

In The Federalist Papers, for example, both Madison and Hamilton repeatedly use the logic of sovereignty argument to defend extensive discretionary powers in the federal government, and to prove that no limit can logically be imposed on the taxing power of Congress. Indeed, Hamilton insists that an "unqualified" (i.e., absolute) power to tax is logically deducible from the axiom of sovereignty, and Madison defends a similar position.

As the saying goes, if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. The minarchists who lie down with the logic of sovereignty argument are infested with the fleas of absolutism, but apparently they haven't noticed or don't care.

Our primary concern should be with the justice of a legal system - i.e., with what laws are enforced, not with who enforces them. This justice can be ascertained by objective standards of right.

If the legal system of an agency (whether governmental or private) is truly just as evaluated by objective standards - and if, by "competition," we mean any attempt forcibly to overturn this legal system, replacing it with an unjust system - then our agency may forcibly resist and overthrow the outlaw agency, owing to its effort to violate individual rights.

As I said, however, the right to suppress the outlaw agency has nothing to do with the alleged necessity for a final arbiter. Rather, it is simply an application of the right of every individual, whether by himself or in combination with others, to resist and repel despotism, whatever the source of that despotism may be. The pertinent issue, therefore, is not whether we need a coercive monopoly to enforce justice; but whether we can determine the justice of legal system by objective methods, and whether, having objectively condemned a given system as unjust, we can then forcibly resist any individual or agency which seeks to impose that system.

This has everything to do with the individual right of self-defense, as manifested in the libertarian rights of resistance and revolution, and has nothing whatever to do with the supposed need for a final arbiter.

Objectivists, if they are to remain true to the theory of rights defended by Ayn Rand, must agree with anarchists that the moral legitimacy of a particular government depends, not on the subjective claims of that government, but on true measure of justice in its legal system, as evaluated by objective criteria.

If a legal system is objectively just, then its enforcement agency (whether governmental or private) may properly restrain the "competition" of an unjust legal system, whether implemented by a government or by a private agency. If, however, the competitor also works within the framework of a just legal system (perhaps differing from the other agency in optional matters of procedure), then that competitor may not be forcibly restrained from entering into contractual relationships with willing customers.

The logic of sovereignty argument is valid only within a subjective theory of justice, where a coercive arbiter must prevail in the absence of reason. In an objective theory of justice, however, what appears to minarchists (mistakenly) as the logic of sovereignty - i.e., the right forcibly to eliminate unjust agencies - has in fact nothing to do with the supposed need for a final arbiter, but is instead the application of an individual's right of self-defense.

Minarchists, after noting that an objective theory of justice can generate the right to exclude competing agencies in some cases (i.e., when the agency is unjust), erroneously conclude that this right flows from political sovereignty. But sovereignty demands the exclusion of competing agencies in all cases, even if the competitor is far more just than the sovereign itself.

Sovereignty, based as it is on subjectivism, cannot logically discriminate between just and unjust legal systems, so it transforms the de facto power of an existing government into de jure sovereignty - operating, in effect, from the maxim of Alexander Pope, "Whatever is, is right." This is why the theory of sovereignty and its attendant absolutism have always denied the rights of resistance and revolution.

A system of objective justice, on the other hand, enables us to discriminate between the initiation of force and the retaliatory use of force, thereby providing a rational method of assessing any person, agency or government which claims to use legitimate violence. Furthermore, a system of objective justice defines and sanctions the use of defensive violence, which has traditionally been expressed in libertarian theory as the rights of resistance and revolution.

These rights, which stem from the individual right of self-defense, can justify the suppression of any agency or government that seeks to impose an unjust legal system. And though this suppression of "competition" may sometimes bear a superficial resemblance to the sovereign suppression of all competition (whether just or unjust), this should not mislead Objectivists and libertarians into supposing that these two actions - one by a sovereign government, the other by a private justice agency - are based on the same mode of justification.

One (suppression by a sovereign government) is rooted in political subjectivism (or relativism), and has no relationship to the justice or injustice of the victimized agency. The other (suppression by a justice agency) is rooted in political objectivism, and is confined solely the suppression of unjust agencies and governments. The former power is justified by political sovereignty, a right that cannot be reduced to the rights of individuals. The latter power is justified by the right of self-defense, a right that is possessed equally by every individual and can be delegated (or not) to a specialized agency. The former theory leads necessarily to absolutism and cannot be reconciled with consent. The latter theory generates agencies whose power is specifically limited by the consensual delegation of rights by individuals.

As I have said before, we must ultimately choose between state-sovereignty and self-sovereignty, between absolutism and anarchy, between subjective decree and objective justice. There is no middle ground in logic. The chickens of the Law of the Excluded Middle have come home to roost. And they are fouling the minarchist nest.

LEGAL PLURALISM VS. STATE-SOVEREIGNTY IN HISTORY

The lesson here is that power is always dangerous, regardless of who wields it - be it a private protection agency or a sovereign government.

As Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Even the rulers in an ideal Objectivist society would be likely to abuse their power, and would therefore require constant monitoring. (I ask you, who is more likely to seek power in an Objectivist society - the Howard Roarks or the Ellsworth Tooheys?) It was this concern about the abuse of power that led Thomas Jefferson and others in his tradition to favor decentralization, a system in which power is checked by other external powers.

This was the original idea behind "limited government." A "limited government" was a government whose power was limited, or checked, by another power external to itself. Ultimately, according to Locke, Jefferson, and other minarchists, the only effective check on sovereign power is the right of the people to resist unjust laws and overthrow despotic governments. This sovereign right of the people was the external check that imposed real limits on a "limited government."

There are very good reasons to suppose that legal pluralism would be more effective in preserving justice than legal monism. The Western legal tradition, as many historians have pointed out, was rooted in legal pluralism. Legal pluralism existed in Europe for many centuries, until it was finally destroyed by rapacious and violent monarchs. Medieval Europe had a complex network of political authorities, legal systems and overlapping jurisdictions. There existed customary law, the king's law, feudal law, municipal law, canon law, and so forth. What some minarchists claim cannot exist, therefore, did in fact exist for many centuries.

Moreover, as Voltaire, Lord Acton and other liberal historians have argued, the Western World owes its liberty to the conflict among these competing authorities. Neither the spiritual nor the temporal authorities had libertarian intentions, but the ongoing competition between these institutions gradually led to the development of "intermediate" institutions (such as municipalities), as Pope and Prince conceded various "liberties" and "immunities" in an effort to win allies to their side. And it was these intermediate institutions, not governments, which were largely responsible for the freedom that is unique to the Western World.

A remarkable system of competing governments also existed in America for many decades prior to the War for Independence. The colonials came to regard their provincial governments as independent and autonomous institutions that were necessary to check British power. And the British government, in its turn, restrained the power of the colonial assemblies. This situation resulted in a paralysis of power (since neither government could do much) and in a great deal of personal liberty.

Later, after the countervailing power of Britain had been eliminated by a successful Revolution, the Constitution established a powerful national government - which, as Madison proudly announced during the Philadelphia Convention, was vested with greater powers than even the British Parliament against which Americans "have so lately rebelled."

This sentiment was seconded in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, who criticized the fundamental principles of the American Revolution, called for their repudiation by the American people, and advocated instead a Constitution and monopolistic government that were based on a newer and more sophisticated "science" of political sovereignty.

In just a few short years the decentralized legal pluralism of pre-Revolutionary America had succumbed to the logic of sovereignty and a powerful central government - those evil Siamese-twins that are largely responsible for our present unhappy condition.

Consider two of the most powerful and influential ideas in twentieth century politics: the notion of an all-powerful State that is the sole arbiter of justice, and the notion of an infallible general will that can force people to be free. The former was the brainchild of Thomas Hobbes, the latter of J.J. Rousseau. Consider also that it was these two philosophers of sovereignty who, more than anyone else, separated sovereignty from its religious roots in the divine right of kings, gave it a secular foundation, and unleashed the "mortal god" of Leviathan on the Western World.

I don't defend anarchism because I ever expect to see an anarchist society. (An anarchist America is almost as unlikely as an Objectivist America.) But I do think we can effectively combat statism with the right intellectual ammunition, and this includes the total repudiation of political sovereignty in favor of individual rights and voluntary institutions.

[Peter]

Michael E. Marotta wrote:

I dare you, defy you and challenge you to convince me otherwise on any of these points -- or on any other point. You cannot do so, I prevent it by my superior arguments.

End quote

Adam Selene previously suggested we agree upon a definition of Anarchism. Let us start with something already out there. I have posted, IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM, Copyright Smith H. Smith (November 1997). It is free to use as long as he is attributed as the author. Use that posting to verify my quotes.

I have used some of my words in previous letters to Objectivist Living.

Are Smith’s words deliberately meant to obscure? He starts in the middle, not with reality. He begins with what someone ONCE SAID, in the middle of a mythical, current debate. What current debate? He is renouncing Objectivism. He is debating Ayn Rand who would have nothing to do with Anarchists. Cutting to the chase, he is debating Ayn Rand’s defense of the Constitution. He wants to nullify the Constitution. He wants to destroy America.

His false dichotomy is either personal sovereignty, including the individual use of retaliatory force, or eventual slavery. If he cannot kill, then he is a slave. Smith throws in his selected historical quotes as proof, which keeps you from noticing that his main argument always goes back to earlier polemics, and does not go back to reality and validation by the senses.

George H. Smith wrote:

“The concept of sovereignty is the focal point of the current debate between anarchists and minarchists (a label coined by Sam Konkin for the advocates of minimal, or "limited," government). The fundamental problem is this: Where does the right of sovereignty come from, and how can it be justified? This is an especially difficult problem for those in the Lockeian tradition of minarchism - which, in this context, includes the followers of Ayn Rand . . . John Locke (like Ayn Rand) believed that all rights belong to individuals. There are no special "group rights" that exist in addition to individual rights. The rights of all groups (including the group that calls itself a "government") must be based on, and in some way derived from, the rights of individuals.“

End quote. Those three dots are his, and not an excision by me.

Sovereignty is the focal point of his mythical debate with Objectivists. And *Force* is the manifestation of sovereignty. Smith is saying, he never gave his consent to be governed, so therefore he may not be governed. He agrees with Objectivists that the government is not a rights bearing group. It’s *duty* is to act for its citizens based on the *consent of the governed*.

When he says the governed did not give their consent to be governed, he is selecting which eye witness he believes. Consent of the governed is a legitimate, usable concept. A trick he also uses is to say, we must go back to the first settlers to the territory. Did the colonists give their consent to be governed by England or the first Colonial Governors? This question, an attempt to show a break in the chain of *consent* just obscures the argument. Sure, a few people were writing anti-government tracts. Some people are always discontented. That’s why they left England and it proves nothing.

I will begin with The Declaration of Independence, and The Preamble to the Constitution. These documents could have contained a logical, justification for the rights of men and women, of all colors, but it did not. Historically, I wish it had. But instead, the status of both documents was trumpeted as axiomatic.

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 number one.

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 number two.

Here is my summation of the current state of affairs, using the first two Axioms as a beginning. The Government, with our consent, carries on the design of the Founding Fathers. The United States of America Axiom and three articles:

*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. Since freedom from England was confirmed, we now start with a legitimate, working, “State.”

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

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

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

End of Axiom number three.

Anarchy, as a working system, based upon a consistent, articulate philosophy, not as an interim lack of government, does not exist . . . anywhere . . . except in the imagination of Anarchists.

Smith wrote:

“Likewise, an activity, if moral when pursued by a government, is equally moral when pursued by someone else. All this should be obvious to those who agree with the principles put forth by Ayn Rand. If, therefore, the principles of justice are objective (i.e., knowable to human reason), then a government can no more claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force than it can claim a monopoly on reason.”

End quote

Equally moral? YES. But that equivalency does NOT equate to the individual legally using force. Government’s monopoly on the use of force is a prerequisite for a just society. There is an implied consent to allow the retaliatory use of force in the hands of the government. And, for a good reason. Just ask Judge Napolitano, or other legal scholars.

If Smith asked Ayn, who he is debating, she would answer:

“. . . 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.”

My imagined, third axiom reflects our entire body of law since 1776. It sets the table to explain, why moral equivalence does not extend to legal equivalence.

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, because rational people can disagree. Objective knowledge is knowable to all, but there are still legitimate disagreements.

An arbitrator need not be a government agent if all parties agree, by contract, but the final appeal to authority and force, must be reserved for the government.

To an Anarchist, vigilantism may seem personally satisfying, but would you trust your security force or their security force to always achieve justice? Would you trust your neighbor’s jurisprudence, or his handling of a rocket propelled grenade? NO? And they would not trust your knowledge in the philosophy of law.

Rational Anarchy is Utopianism. I DO appreciate Smith’s sweeping views, his paradigms and what he can teach about history. It’s fine that he uses Philosophic and Legal History almost like legal precedent, but it does not prove his arguments.

Smith wrote:

“If I am arrested for smoking pot or for reading a prohibited book (say, Atlas Shrugged) do I have a right forcibly to resist my incarceration? If you say "no," then you are defending absolutism. If you say "yes," then what happened to the sovereign power of government to render final decisions in matters of law? - for in resisting the government I am clearly acting as judge in my own case. “

End quote

It’s not an “either, or” situation. Rebellion, to be morally right is further down the slope. Civil disobedience, which Smith 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, constitutional amendments, and voting are for.

The right to resist DOES NOT exist “. . . at any point,” as Smith says. It DOES exist at a certain point, but not now. Not after a victory for liberty in Massachusetts. At this time, I cannot give anyone my judgment as to when the teapot comes to a boil. Want to take a time machine back to turbulent 1970 or something worse? I’m in no hurry to engage in that street fight. Hang in there. The tea parties are just the beginning.

With a new President and with the advice of “we the governed,” America can delete the bad from the books of law. The words, career and politician, should rarely be linked. Vote them out.

A strict, literally interpreting President will need to begin canceling ALL infringements upon individual rights, that are contradictory to MY Constitution.

I will end with the last waffling words of George H. Smith’s essay:

“I don't defend anarchism because I ever expect to see an anarchist society. (An anarchist America is almost as unlikely as an Objectivist America.) But I do think we can effectively combat statism with the right intellectual ammunition, and this includes the total repudiation of political sovereignty in favor of Individual rights and voluntary institutions.”

End quote

Smith was unable to do the obvious. Will you base your life and liberty on the likes of that? I want an anarchist to show me a definition and workable model of their theory.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

FYI - when you put the ellipses ["...the three dots..."] in, the example in parentheses is a model. Otherwise, if it is within the quote, it is understood to be the author's ellipses.

There are excellent style manuals for references:

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html

There is a free trial, but I have the book somewhere and it is an excellent reference manual. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226104036/ref=nosim/aresearchguid-20

http://www.aresearchguide.com/styleguides.html

Adam