Free Market Anarchism: A Justification

[syrakusos]

I'm not sure the Iceland, Harappan, and other historical examples aren't also practice. One reason, however, some might be skeptical of private security in the modern world is, some might argue, these work within the realm of current nation states -- states that already provide a matrix of social order for the firms to operate within.

I'm not saying I completely agree with this logic, but it does appeal to some, no?

Historical examples lose their power as the square of the distance. We live in a post-industrial, global world. It is better to solve today's problems. I have, indeed, looked to examples from "first peoples" (Cheyenne and Visigoth both among them) when researching community justice and other alternatives to incarceration. Still, here and now carries more weight and rightfully so.

As for the second point, if an atheist says that he is moral, the religionist can counter than atheism's morality is only a secular version of religion's morality. Largely, that is true, but obviously, Objectivism would contradict that. So, too, for the statist to claim that private security only exists within the context of national government is to ignore the objective derivation from first principles. Also, as you note, "historical" examples do exist as demonstrations and evidences, but I prefer to look closer to home.

[syrakusos]

I apparently misunderstand something here.

Doesn't it presuppose a majority of freedom-seeking, self-responsible and rationally moral citizens?

... the proliferation of competing agencies and services could lead to a confusing mass of separate mini Cantons, each providing its own version of Law...

We are geographic creatures by nature, as we are tied to the ground. However, we do migrate, we fly and we even teleport, if you want to think of the Internet like that. So, we have to think beyond limited geographies. As far back as 200 BC in Alexandria, men wrote of the KOINE and called themselves COSMOPOLITAN. You can have Roman Catholics and Anglicans being physical neighbors, yet adhering to different laws that supersede geography. When multinational corporations sign contracts, they decide in advance which laws they will adhere to -- that is part of the negotiation. And they need not adhere to the laws of any state, really. In the USA we have a "Uniform Commercial Code" an abstract kind of thing developed to get around the problem of 50 states with different laws. (Wikipedia article about it here.) Private International Law is also known as "The Conflict of Laws" as when different people in different states have a common personal problem, like an inheritance. The modern form is the Hague Convention of 1893 but it goes back to the Code of Justinian, really. The American Arbitration Association has a long history of international business services. There is the International Criminal Court in the Hague, also, where jurists from many lands are working out new laws with which to hold culpable the state actors who violate human rights.

[George H. Smith]

How and why can an anarchistic system work?

Doesn't it presuppose a majority of freedom-seeking, self-responsible and rationally moral citizens? And that an individual can be 100% rational, all the time? This rings of Perfect Man, and Utopianism, to me.

You raise a legitimate and important issue here, but the problem is shared by both anarchism and an ideal Randian limited government (i.e., a "government" without the power to tax).

Either system would require more of a rational public consensus about the nature of justice than we have today, though to characterize the necessary consensus as 100 percent is greatly exaggerated.

Rand understood the need for a broad consensus, as evidenced by her remarks about the importance of an intellectual and cultural underpinning for a truly free society, and how something like a pro-liberty third party in the United States is premature, owing to the absence of this foundation.

This is actually an old problem. The need for a broad consensus was widely discussed by early defenders of "republicanism," such as America's Founders, which is why they discussed the crucial importance of education so much.

One of the pillars of classical republicanism was the claim that freedom can flourish and survive only within relatively small communities (early New England townships were a popular model), because only in such communities will there exist a sufficient degree of value homogeneity among citizens.

In America, the most significant rebuttal to this traditional belief came from James Madison, especially in the celebrated Federalist Paper #10. Madison, drawing from the ideas of David Hume (without naming him -- the religious skeptic and suspected Tory Hume was always a tricky source among Americans), addressed the problem of "factions." He argued that the value homogeneity of small communities is potentially very dangerous, since the majority can suppress minorities with no effective opposition.

Madison goes on to argue that freedom is best preserved in a large republic. Why? Because a large republic will contain many different competing factions (interest groups, in effect), and when any one faction attempts to dominate others, it will be met with effective resistance. No one faction will be able to dominate.

Of course, this issue is a bit different than the problem you raised, but the fundamentals are very similar. Although I won't argue the point here, I would maintain that a system of competing justice agencies better deals with the problem of factions than a monopolistic government. The chances of a particular faction gaining control of a centralized government are far greater than any one faction dominating in a competitive system.

Ghs

[tjohnson]

A government without the power to tax. Is this possible? There would have to be some sort of infrastructure like offices, salaries, computers etc. even to administer the referendums about voluntary contributions. This basic cost would have to be in the form of a small base tax would it not?

[syrakusos]

A government without the power to tax. Is this possible? There would have to be some sort of infrastructure like offices, salaries, computers etc. even to administer the referendums about voluntary contributions. This basic cost would have to be in the form of a small base tax would it not?

General, allow me to point to the works of Ayn Rand, sir.

(Why did the little moron salute the refrigerator?)

Rand suggested that businesses could buy contract insurance for a small percentage and this would fund the courts, police, etc. Others have latched on to this. I find a raft of problems with it. If my dog digs up your roses, do you need to prove that we had a contract before you can haul my irresponsible ass into court?

The "voluntary contract tax" also admits implicitly, that other arbitrators were possible, as for instance the American Arbitration Association (find here) which would be willing to work out any problem, whether or not there was a "law" (so-called) involved.

The Uniform Commercial Code -- read here -- in the USA is a non-legislated set of common understanding. You can say that this contract conforms to the UCC and that ought to specify the context well enough for professional arbitration.

Also -- as you note, any government in America today is pretty large. This is not Andorra. Even one constitutionally limited to whatever these people dream is barely necessary will encompass more than they than think of. One of my favorite is Carpenters Hall, Independence Hall, in Philadelphia. That should remain a national monument, should it not? Back in the 18th century, governments had their own arsenals. In America, Eli Whitney was one of the innovators of the government contract system for procurement, but today, a government arsenal would include mining and manufacturing (as it did in France, which is where their "School of Mines" originated) and even petroleum, plastics, computers, medical care, automobile insurance, their own pencil factories, their own steel mills, their own paper mills, and all the other things that government needs to operate. Why not?

And all of that is to be paid for with "contract insurance?"

I point out that as millions of Americans have credit cards, we, too would be paying into that bloated -- but limited! -- government.

Don't government buildings require government architects? Are government buildings not to be decorated by the students of the government art college? Shouldn't government publications come from government colleges of journalism? Shouldn't the Post Office deliver government mail, and at least intergovernment mail? Shouldn't they have the right to protect those mails, thus arming all post men? (Bordering on science fiction here, isn't it?)

I agree, General, that if we do not have taxes, we might have a government so small that it cannot function at all.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[anthony]

How and why can an anarchistic system work?

Doesn't it presuppose a majority of freedom-seeking, self-responsible and rationally moral citizens? And that an individual can be 100% rational, all the time? This rings of Perfect Man, and Utopianism, to me.

You raise a legitimate and important issue here, but the problem is shared by both anarchism and an ideal Randian limited government (i.e., a "government" without the power to tax).

Either system would require more of a rational public consensus about the nature of justice than we have today, though to characterize the necessary consensus as 100 percent is greatly exaggerated.

Rand understood the need for a broad consensus, as evidenced by her remarks about the importance of an intellectual and cultural underpinning for a truly free society, and how something like a pro-liberty third party in the United States is premature, owing to the absence of this foundation.

This is actually an old problem. The need for a broad consensus was widely discussed by early defenders of "republicanism," such as America's Founders, which is why they discussed the crucial importance of education so much.

One of the pillars of classical republicanism was the claim that freedom can flourish and survive only within relatively small communities (early New England townships were a popular model), because only in such communities will there exist a sufficient degree of value homogeneity among citizens.

In America, the most significant rebuttal to this traditional belief came from James Madison, especially in the celebrated Federalist Paper #10. Madison, drawing from the ideas of David Hume (without naming him -- the religious skeptic and suspected Tory Hume was always a tricky source among Americans), addressed the problem of "factions." He argued that the value homogeneity of small communities is potentially very dangerous, since the majority can suppress minorities with no effective opposition.

Madison goes on to argue that freedom is best preserved in a large republic. Why? Because a large republic will contain many different competing factions (interest groups, in effect), and when any one faction attempts to dominate others, it will be met with effective resistance. No one faction will be able to dominate.

Of course, this issue is a bit different than the problem you raised, but the fundamentals are very similar. Although I won't argue the point here, I would maintain that a system of competing justice agencies better deals with the problem of factions than a monopolistic government. The chances of a particular faction gaining control of a centralized government are far greater than any one faction dominating in a competitive system.

Ghs

I think I understand that the problem is shared by both systems... but equally? Isn't there a question of degree in difficulty of implementation between them?

How does one arrive at the anarchist position, BTW?- I'm guessing that one could make a logical shift from Randian limited g'ment, and then decide to 'go whole hog'.

Or is this over-simplified?

There appears an element of putting all one's eggs in one basket (with centalized government), or separating them (with private agencies).

Thanks Ghs, MEM.

Tony (Eggs? Hog? I must be thinking of breakfast already, and it's only midnight.)

[mcm]

If the institution in charge of exercising defensive force and/or verifying that its sub-agencies, subcontractors, private security forces, or individuals acting in self-defense are complying with that single objectified set of standards is not a monopoly in its jurisdiction, then no market there can be fully free or competitive, because it would be subject to arbitrary acts of force by whatever extraneous agencies of force were being tolerated in addition to it.

You assume that the "set of standards" enforced by the government in question will be "objective." (By this, I assume you mean "just.") And you assume that the standards enforced by private agencies will be nonobjective (unjust).

No, George, I do not assume either of those. Rand's view and my own is that a government will be only as perfect as it is objective in everything it does. But the degree to which a government or anarchist agencies are rational and objective in the design and execution of their duties is not relevant to the point I am making.

I am saying that whatever the form of third party institution one concocts and however rational and objective they are in executing it, if there is not a defined jurisdiction in which one set of laws and procedures of enforcement obtains that is readily knowable and understandable by all subject to it, then the populace will be subjected to arbitrary force, the consequences of which, in the context of liberty, are indistinguishable from run-of-the-mill initiated force.

The necessity for a government monopoly over the standards for defensive action arises in part from the fact that acts of initiated force, at the point of occurrence, can seldom be distinguished by the populace from acts of defensive force. Confidence that the security of their liberty obtains rests on their knowledge that parties to violent or fraudulent acts will be processed by the justice system they know in a manner that they know.

Again: over half the value of liberty lies in the justifiable expectation of it. And anarchy cannot provide that essential value.

Would you claim that a government, no matter how unjust, will always be preferable to competing justice agencies?

This is a loaded question. What could anarchy possibly gain in validity from my preferring it over living under Hitler? No more than an absolute monarchy could gain from the same comparison. Zero.

Who or what determines the legitimate jurisdiction of a government? Is "consent of the governed" required, as Ayn Rand believed? Or may a "legitimate" government unilaterally decree sovereignty over whomever it likes, and extend its jurisdiction at will, regardless of consent?

And if consent is required for legitimate jurisdiction, then how must this consent manifest itself?

Since politics is an extension of ethics in the context of an individual into a social context, the legitimacy of a government or its jurisdiction means moral legitimacy. So the question "who decides?" is invalid. A government or its jurisdiction is legitimate simply to the extent that it is moral.

The phrase "consent of the governed" refers to the concept that the government is a body of employees who may only do what they are told they may do by the Constitution, laws, the legislature, the courts, and the voters, just as the existence and actions of a corporation require the consent of the stockholders.

[mcm]

A government without the power to tax. Is this possible? There would have to be some sort of infrastructure like offices, salaries, computers etc. even to administer the referendums about voluntary contributions. This basic cost would have to be in the form of a small base tax would it not?

Every tax, regardless of its purpose, constitutes a confiscation of a value under threat of force. So no tax can ever be justified. If a society cannot figure out how to defend itself from force without resorting to it itself, then it cannot have a moral government.

[Brant Gaede]

A government without the power to tax. Is this possible? There would have to be some sort of infrastructure like offices, salaries, computers etc. even to administer the referendums about voluntary contributions. This basic cost would have to be in the form of a small base tax would it not?

Every tax, regardless of its purpose, constitutes a confiscation of a value under threat of force. So no tax can ever be justified. If a society cannot figure out how to defend itself from force without resorting to it itself, then it cannot have a moral government.

But it can have a 99% moral government. You and I should live so long. 99% moral, I'd call moral. It would make no more sense to call a 99% evil government a moral government because of that lack of ideological purity than to call a 99% moral government immoral because of that lack of purity. Like Ayn Rand the anarchists want perfection which makes as much sense as the scientist-engineer wanting the achievement of absolute zero. Take the world as it is and work from there, not as it "should be" and despair! For if you don't you'll live in a world of these intellectualizations and mere chit chat! This is why after all these years it's the conservatives who have the moral gravitas and not the Objectivists or libertarians. The former want the perfection of man and the latter want the perfection of a system. Well, hell, you'll never get there; there is no "should be;" there is only "is." The "city on a hill" isn't on a hill; it's within us. We put it on a hill so it can be strived for. "God" isn't an old man with a beard in the sky; "God" is within us. We put him in the sky so we can strive for the sky not tear ourselves apart!

--Brant

please, get real!; the perfection of man is the (bloody) totalitarian vision, ultimately--especially for the communists and the Nazis

[tjohnson]

A government without the power to tax. Is this possible? There would have to be some sort of infrastructure like offices, salaries, computers etc. even to administer the referendums about voluntary contributions. This basic cost would have to be in the form of a small base tax would it not?

Every tax, regardless of its purpose, constitutes a confiscation of a value under threat of force. So no tax can ever be justified. If a society cannot figure out how to defend itself from force without resorting to it itself, then it cannot have a moral government.

But it can have a 99% moral government. You and I should live so long. 99% moral, I'd call moral. It would make no more sense to call a 99% evil government a moral government because of that lack of ideological purity than to call a 99% moral government immoral because of that lack of purity. Like Ayn Rand the anarchists want perfection which makes as much sense as the scientist-engineer wanting the achievement of absolute zero. Take the world as it is and work from there, not as it "should be" and despair! For if you don't you'll live in a world of these intellectualizations and mere chit chat! This is why after all these years it's the conservatives who have the moral gravitas and not the Objectivists or libertarians. The former want the perfection of man and the latter want the perfection of a system. Well, hell, you'll never get there; there is no "should be;" there is only "is." The "city on a hill" isn't on a hill; it's within us. We put it on a hill so it can be strived for. "God" isn't an old man with a beard in the sky; "God" is within us. We put him in the sky so we can strive for the sky not tear ourselves apart!

--Brant

please, get real!; the perfection of man is the (bloody) totalitarian vision, ultimately--especially for the communists and the Nazis

[George H. Smith]

I think I understand that the problem is shared by both systems... but equally? Isn't there a question of degree in difficulty of implementation between them?

How does one arrive at the anarchist position, BTW?- I'm guessing that one could make a logical shift from Randian limited g'ment, and then decide to 'go whole hog'.

Or is this over-simplified?

I would be content -- indeed, thrilled -- if an ideal Randian government, one without the power to tax, ever came about. There are two chances of this ever happening in the United States -- fat and slim -- but even so, I would have virtually no complaints if it did.

Why do I feel this way? Because in practice there would be very little difference between a society governed by an ideal Randian government and the private justice agencies envisioned by market anarchists. Without the power to tax, the Randian government could not effectively maintain its monopoly status. If and when it deviated from the principles or justice or its services became unreasonably expensive (the latter is bound to occur with any coercive monopoly), citizens would simply stop funding the government and go elsewhere for the services they wanted. The government would not be overthrown; it would simply wither and die on the vine from lack of financial nutrients.

It is for good reason that many political philosophers, including America's Founders, have repeatedly referred to taxes as the very lifeblood of government. Ever since the rise of the modern nation state (beginning, roughly, in the 16th century) the power to tax has been regarded as an essential feature of political sovereignty. A Randian government, unable to compel citizens to support it financially, would be a toothless wonder

Without the power to tax, a Randian government would be a government in name only. It could prattle on as much as it likes about about how it is the only institution that can define and enforce objective rules of justice, but citizens rational enough to have established a truly free society will know better than to take such claims seriously. If and when a Randian government degenerates to the point where dissatisfaction becomes widespread, citizens would euthanize that government by pulling the financial feeding tube.

Thus, when a Randian minarchist asks me how an anarchist society could ever come about, I reply: Let's get to your ideal society first, and then we will see what happens over time.

Ghs

[mcm]

A government without the power to tax. Is this possible? There would have to be some sort of infrastructure like offices, salaries, computers etc. even to administer the referendums about voluntary contributions. This basic cost would have to be in the form of a small base tax would it not?

Every tax, regardless of its purpose, constitutes a confiscation of a value under threat of force. So no tax can ever be justified. If a society cannot figure out how to defend itself from force without resorting to it itself, then it cannot have a moral government.

But it can have a 99% moral government.

You are attempting to justify the politics of statism and the morality of thieves by a need. How would you argue that that should be the 1% worth sacrificing morality to as opposed to someone else's 1% choice to kill you to get your wallet.

Rand is on record saying that voluntary financing of government would be the last step in achieving a moral government, not the first one. I concur, and would add that the due to the likely size and wealth of free-market corporations and the enormous advertising and good will benefits that could accrue, long before it would become a serious concern, corporate America would be competing over the opportunity to pay for it all. Then, just like the internet, the little guy would get way more government defense than he would pay for in the microscopic additions to the prices he would pay for products and services.

[George H. Smith]

I am saying that whatever the form of third party institution one concocts and however rational and objective they are in executing it, if there is not a defined jurisdiction in which one set of laws and procedures of enforcement obtains that is readily knowable and understandable by all subject to it, then the populace will be subjected to arbitrary force, the consequences of which, in the context of liberty, are indistinguishable from run-of-the-mill initiated force.

What makes you think that there would not be defined jurisdictions in a system of competing justice agencies? Of course there would be. Such jurisdictions would be determined by the consent of people who desire certain services and are willing to pay for them. This would be real consent, not the phantom "tacit" or "implied" consent" that even oppressive governments have invoked to justify their violations of rights.

The necessity for a government monopoly over the standards for defensive action arises in part from the fact that acts of initiated force, at the point of occurrence, can seldom be distinguished by the populace from acts of defensive force.

This is simply not true. The kind of public uncertainty you refer to generates the need for a justice agency of some kind, but there is no reason why this agency need claim a coercive monopoly. I addressed this issue many years ago in "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market." See:

https://mises.org/journals/jls/3_4/3_4_4.pdf

Again: over half the value of liberty lies in the justifiable expectation of it. And anarchy cannot provide that essential value.

I'm afraid we will need more than your say-so on this.

Would you claim that a government, no matter how unjust, will always be preferable to competing justice agencies?

This is a loaded question.

The question "Which is preferable -- anarchy or tyranny?" has been discussed many times in the history of political thought. It is a question fraught with important theoretical consequences. Just because you don't want to answer it, owing to its awkward implications for your position, doesn't make it a loaded question.

What could anarchy possibly gain in validity from my preferring it over living under Hitler? No more than an absolute monarchy could gain from the same comparison. Zero.

I didn't say anything about validity. I merely asked you a question. If you want to see the relevance of my question to the anarchism/minarchism debate, then answer it.

I will take up the problem of consent in a separate post.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Who or what determines the legitimate jurisdiction of a government? Is "consent of the governed" required, as Ayn Rand believed? Or may a "legitimate" government unilaterally decree sovereignty over whomever it likes, and extend its jurisdiction at will, regardless of consent?

And if consent is required for legitimate jurisdiction, then how must this consent manifest itself?

Since politics is an extension of ethics in the context of an individual into a social context, the legitimacy of a government or its jurisdiction means moral legitimacy. So the question "who decides?" is invalid. A government or its jurisdiction is legitimate simply to the extent that it is moral.

You have merely begged the question. The question is whether or not a government can be "morally legitimate" in the first place if it claims political jurisdiction over individuals without their consent.

Rand, like other political philosophers in the Lockean tradition, believed that all rights are ultimately individual rights, and that certain rights must be delegated to a government, if that government is to be legitimate. As Rand puts it in "Collectivized Ethics," a proper government "is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task..." (VOS, 103).

This delegation of rights is the essence of "government by consent." Your position, as I understand it, is that if a government is morally legitimate, then the question "Who decides?" is irrelevant. But what does this mean, if not that the key issue of delegation is irrelevant to the moral legitimacy of a government? And if that is your position, then it flatly contradicts Rand's.

The phrase "consent of the governed" refers to the concept that the government is a body of employees who may only do what they are told they may do by the Constitution, laws, the legislature, the courts, and the voters, just as the existence and actions of a corporation require the consent of the stockholders.

No, this is not what "consent of the governed" means, either theoretically or historically.

But putting this problem aside: One cannot legitimately be compelled to become a stockholder in a corporation. This is a matter of personal choice. And one may decline to invest in one corporation while choosing to purchase stock in another.

In short, your analogy supports private justice agencies (corporations, if you will), not a coercive governmental monopoly.

As for the Constitution, that document has moral authority only if it is based on consent, i.e., only if citizens have delegated the rights and powers that are specified in that document. The Constitution invests the right to tax in the federal government. I have never delegated such a right. Have you?

As for the legislature, voting, etc., I have never delegated any rights to Congress, nor have I authorized any majority to speak on my behalf or to dispose of my life, liberty, and property. Have you?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

A government without the power to tax. Is this possible? There would have to be some sort of infrastructure like offices, salaries, computers etc. even to administer the referendums about voluntary contributions. This basic cost would have to be in the form of a small base tax would it not?

Every tax, regardless of its purpose, constitutes a confiscation of a value under threat of force. So no tax can ever be justified. If a society cannot figure out how to defend itself from force without resorting to it itself, then it cannot have a moral government.

But it can have a 99% moral government.

You are attempting to justify the politics of statism and the morality of thieves by a need. How would you argue that that should be the 1% worth sacrificing morality to as opposed to someone else's 1% choice to kill you to get your wallet.

Rand is on record saying that voluntary financing of government would be the last step in achieving a moral government, not the first one. I concur, and would add that the due to the likely size and wealth of free-market corporations and the enormous advertising and good will benefits that could accrue, long before it would become a serious concern, corporate America would be competing over the opportunity to pay for it all. Then, just like the internet, the little guy would get way more government defense than he would pay for in the microscopic additions to the prices he would pay for products and services.

How do you know these things will happen? How do you know there will be a "corporate America'? Etc. You are simply starting at the wrong end with imagined results.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

The phrase "consent of the governed" refers to the concept that the government is a body of employees who may only do what they are told they may do by the Constitution, laws, the legislature, the courts, and the voters, just as the existence and actions of a corporation require the consent of the stockholders.

As for the Constitution, that document has moral authority only if it based on consent, i.e., only if citizens have delegated the rights and powers that are specified in that document. The Constitution invests the right to tax in the federal government. I have never delegated such a right. Have you?

As for the legislature, voting, etc., I have never delegated any rights to Congress, nor have I authorized any majority to speak on my behalf or to dispose of my life, liberty, and property. Have you?

Ghs

Shortly after writing this, it occurred to me that I might have misunderstood the passage by Mike that I responded to. He might have been referring not to the United States Consitution, legislature, etc. but rather to a hypothetical constitution and legislature that would exist in an ideal Randian society.

Nevertheless, even if I did err in this regard, my points remain the same, for Mike must now explain how rights are delegated to a Randian government.

This contrast between the U.S. government and an ideal Randian government raises an interesting issue. Rather than rewrite what I have written before, I will quote a passage from my article "In Defense of Rational Anarchism":

From "In Defense of Rational Anarchism," at: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/rational-anarchism.html

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.

Ghs

[mcm]

I am saying that whatever the form of third party institution one concocts and however rational and objective they are in executing it, if there is not a defined jurisdiction in which one set of laws and procedures of enforcement obtains that is readily knowable and understandable by all subject to it, then the populace will be subjected to arbitrary force, the consequences of which, in the context of liberty, are indistinguishable from run-of-the-mill initiated force.

What makes you think that there would not be defined jurisdictions in a system of competing justice agencies?

You dropped half ... it is not about jurisdictions alone, but rather about the combination of jurisdiction with a hierarchy of oversight. I have never found much to object to in the multitude of competing defense agency schemes put forth by anarchists nor the notion of overlapping jurisdictions. We have the latter now with city, county, state, and federal governments. Monopoly government means only that however many providers of defense there would be, there must be a hierarchy of oversight ultimately answerable to one set of principles and responsible for making all laws and procedures compliant and publicly known. I faintly remember Rand or Peikoff answering a question about the size of government with "the smaller and more local the better."

Would you claim that a government, no matter how unjust, will always be preferable to competing justice agencies? ... The question "Which is preferable -- anarchy or tyranny?" has been discussed many times in the history of political thought. It is a question fraught with important theoretical consequences. ...

It remains a loaded (and invalid) question. 1. it is irrelevant to the subject at hand, because no answer to it could have any bearing on the morality of anarchy in principle, and 2. it excludes the moral alternative, namely the monopoly government in which rational men define rational laws and exercise just enforcement.

The alternative you present is between a monopoly government in which evil men define evil laws and exercise force for their own benefit and anarchy in which some men may do likewise while others may be rational, but the governed have no way to know for sure which is which and when or if they will act given any particular circumstance nor can they know when or where new agencies of a different mind can spontaneously appear. That is the uncertainty that precludes the confident, justifiable expectation of liberty in everyday life.

[George H. Smith]

What makes you think that there would not be defined jurisdictions in a system of competing justice agencies?

You dropped half ... it is not about jurisdictions alone, but rather about the combination of jurisdiction with a hierarchy of oversight....

Okay, fine. So what makes you think that a "hierarchy of oversight" requires a monopolistic government?

Would you claim that a government, no matter how unjust, will always be preferable to competing justice agencies? ... The question "Which is preferable -- anarchy or tyranny?" has been discussed many times in the history of political thought. It is a question fraught with important theoretical consequences. ...

It remains a loaded (and invalid) question.

First, no question can be "invalid"; only arguments can.

Second, you apparently don't know the meaning of "loaded question."

Third, it would be much easier if you just answered the question instead of evading it. Then, if you regard any of the conclusions that I might draw from your response as irrelevant, we could deal with that problem as needed.

1. it is irrelevant to the subject at hand, because no answer to it could have any bearing on the morality of anarchy in principle,...

How do you know this, exactly? How do you know why I asked the question? Are you a mind reader?

...and 2. it excludes the moral alternative, namely the monopoly government in which rational men define rational laws and exercise just enforcement.

I didn't "exclude" anything. I asked you a question.

The alternative you present is between a monopoly government in which evil men define evil laws and exercise force for their own benefit and anarchy in which some men may do likewise while others may be rational, but the governed have no way to know for sure which is which and when or if they will act given any particular circumstance nor can they know when or where new agencies of a different mind can spontaneously appear. That is the uncertainty that precludes the confident, justifiable expectation of liberty in everyday life.

I didn't present any alternatives, and certainly not the one that you have concocted. I just asked you a simple fucking question.

Ghs

[mcm]

Shortly after writing this, it occurred to me that I might have misunderstood the passage by Mike that I responded to. He might have been referring not to the United States Consitution, legislature, etc. but rather to a hypothetical constitution and legislature that would exist in an ideal Randian society.

Yes. I am only concerned with the goal, which I express as,

the guarantee that no person shall initiate the use of force or threat thereof to take, withhold, or destroy any tangible or intangible value owned by another person who created it or acquired it in a voluntary exchange.

and the means to that goal,

the subordination of force to objectively verifiable moral laws and procedures of enforcement, adjudication, restitution and/or punishment that are knowable and understandable to all in any area where they obtain.

[George H. Smith]

Shortly after writing this, it occurred to me that I might have misunderstood the passage by Mike that I responded to. He might have been referring not to the United States Consitution, legislature, etc. but rather to a hypothetical constitution and legislature that would exist in an ideal Randian society.

Yes. I am only concerned with the goal, which I express as,

the guarantee that no person shall initiate the use of force or threat thereof to take, withhold, or destroy any tangible or intangible value owned by another person who created it or acquired it in a voluntary exchange.

and the means to that goal,

the subordination of force to objectively verifiable moral laws and procedures of enforcement, adjudication, restitution and/or punishment that are knowable and understandable to all in any area where they obtain.

I agree with these goals. So would Murray Rothbard and every other market anarchist that I know of.

The problem, of course, is how a monopolistic government can remain true to the principle that "no person shall initiate the use of force or threat thereof" when that government must violate this selfsame principle in the course of preventing other agencies from doing exactly the same thing that it's doing.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

I agree with these goals. So would Murray Rothbard and every other market anarchist that I know of.

The problem, of course, is how a monopolistic government can remain true to the principle that "no person shall initiate the use of force or threat thereof" when that government must violate this selfsame principle in the course of preventing other agencies from doing exactly the same thing that it's doing.

Ghs

Without a government the strong would eat the weak alive. And with government tyranny is inevitable. Conclusion: there is no remedy. Therefore pick the least worst resolution of the problem for there no good resolution of the problem.

That is my optimistic word on the matter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[mcm]

Your position, as I understand it, is that if a government is morally legitimate, then the question "Who decides?" is irrelevant. But what does this mean, if not that the key issue of delegation is irrelevant to the moral legitimacy of a government? And if that is your position, then it flatly contradicts Rand's.

You don't understand it. Men do not determine what is moral, they discover it. For that reason, it is nonsense to ask "who decides what is moral." Likewise the morality of a government. A government is moral when those who form and sustain it enact moral laws and enforce them with moral procedures. In stating my position I have used the word "legitimacy" strictly in the moral context. You are using it in a legal context while implying that they are one and the same.

Example:

As for the Constitution, that document has moral authority only if it is based on consent, i.e., only if citizens have delegated the rights and powers that are specified in that document. The Constitution invests the right to tax in the federal government. I have never delegated such a right. Have you?

Citizens can give a government authority by delegating powers to it, but it will be moral authority only if those powers derive from moral laws and procedures objectively defined and proven for the protection of valid rights. The right to tax you is not wrong because you did not consent to it, it is wrong because the threat of force required to collect it is not moral.

Here is Rand's statement:

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

"The Nature of Government" VOS, 110

Note that this means only that the government has no authority that the governed do not give it. It neither says nor implies anything about that consent giving the government moral legitimacy. It also does not say or imply that the consent of the governed need be unanimous. When a majority of a population gains control of a government and rewrites its constitution and laws to be moral, it does not need the consent of the rest of the populace and visitors who will be governed. Moral laws do not need consent to be morally legitimate.

To the degree those in control drift from moral law and enact laws that are not moral, the government will be tyrannical. But again, enforcing immoral laws against you is not wrong because you did not give your consent, but rather because the laws are immoral.

[mcm]

The question "Which is preferable -- anarchy or tyranny?" has been discussed many times in the history of political thought. It is a question fraught with important theoretical consequences. Just because you don't want to answer it, owing to its awkward implications for your position, doesn't make it a loaded question.

Loaded Question – a question that carries an assumption, and is worded in such a way so that the respondent who answers the question directly admits to accepting that assumption.

The assumption on your part is that there is in principle enough difference between a tyranny and anarchy that I could have a preference. There isn't and I don't. I cannot name either one without confirming your erroneous assumption.

[tjohnson]

How the hell can you discover morality?? I can understand how you discover gold, but not morality.

Edited April 26, 2010 by general semanticist

[BaalChatzaf]

How the hell can you discover morality?? I can understand how you discover gold, but not morality.

The same way you discover how to ride a bike, you yourself and unsupported. Try and fail, try and fail, then finally success.

Ba'al Chatzaf