About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 11:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So you would propose the term "governmentist" instead?

- Daniel

Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 1:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Machan cites Roy Childs's 1968 essay, "The Contradiction in Objectivism," "in which he announced his dissent from Rand's minarchist position." If memory serves, Childs later recanted this dissent.

(Edited by Jonathan Rick on 3/19, 2:32am)


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 4:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, Roy A. Childs did write an article where he claimed that he said he had changed his mind on anarchism. However that article was never finished and Roy never mentioned what he rejected from his first articles, probably the most influential of them was an "Open Letter to Rand". So while Roy stated that he had changed his position on the subject he never gave a clear reason why, and thus his logical reasoning in his earlier works still brings about discussion between people from time to time.

Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 3:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Roy had changed his mind on competing defense agencies on the basis of what he believed was going on in parts of the Middle East where different groups claimed to be the governments--I think Afghanistan may have been one place this happened--which Roy thought turned out to be a sort of Hobbesian war of different gangs against one another, all claiming to be adapt at dealing with the business of adjudication, protection and maintenance of competing legal claims.

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Monday, March 22, 2004 - 5:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would prefer "archist" or "minarchist"
to "statist,"  to contrast with "anarchist." States are what collectivists, who see society as the singificant entity, talk about -- think of Hegel or Marx or T. H. Green,  Sure, some libertarians, such as the later Robert Nozick, use "state" but not too many who work within the Objectivist political framework. 

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 5:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I took a recent interest in the Great Medieval Fairs.  I have about a dozen coins from Champaigne/Troyes -- whence the "troy" ounce.  I have been collecting essays, bibliographies, etc.  This is a long-term project for me.

I read about these "merchant courts" in Uncle Sam: the Monopoly Man way back in the 1970s.  We all know about arbitration.  We all know about private security.  (Private security provides more dollar value protection than the city police.  There are more guards in uniform than cops.  We do not have television shows about guards and arbitrators, but rather about cops and lawyers.)  So, that is not new material to SOLOists. We know that non-governmental solutions are possible, that the market is superior to the state, etc., etc.  Personally, I am an anarchist, myself.  That said, a few points might be clarifed.

Called "pie powder" courts in the UK -- from pied poudre: dusty feet -- these are courts of first resort.  Just as with arbitration and adjudication in the USA, the parties still have the option of going to the government court.

In the Middle Ages, in Champaign, four generations of counts made the place safe for merchants.  The count arranged for some "civil engineering" of pavilion space, road maintenance, etc.  One count paid ransoms when merchants were waylaid by other lords.  So, this system of laissez faire agorism worked because there was force of arms behind it.  The count let the merchants settle their own disputes for two reasons.  First, it was not in his interest to get involved.  Second -- and perhaps more to the point -- there was some previous dispute between the count and the bishop over court jurisdictions with the result that the titular authority withdrew, leaving a vacuum -- which the merchants filled on their own.
The point of that to me is that in absense of government, people pretty much figure things out for the best.

Finally, this thing with Champaign and Troyes may have a mystical origin.  While the town of Troyes was someplace to be even in Celtic-Romanic times (Dark Ages),  the town only became a bustling commercial center after Hugh of Champaign returned from the Holy Land Crusades.  In addition tot he great fairs, Troyes also became a center of Jewish learning.  See the biography of Rabbi Sholomo Itzak (RASHI).  Make of that what you will, to me, it means that a fundamental requirement for a just society is an enlightened government.

The American Revolution led to the American Constitution because the people at the top had the right vision.

We Americans are prejudiced against monarchy, not without reason.  In the science fiction quickie, Double Star, Robert Heinlein makes a case for it.  Someone who serves for life, inheriting the life work of othes and passing his life's work on, has a very close interest in the success of those around him. We Americans condemn bad governmet as "tyranny" yet tryanny was specifically a mercantile invention.  Tyrants of the 7th C BCE replaced heriditary rulers.  Mercenary troops replaced family ties.  This was at a time when philosophy replaced religion and trade replaced agriculture.  Tyranny worked to everyone's advantage when the tyrant did a good job.  He was a businessman who ran the business of the polis.  The form of govrenment is mostly irrelevant.  It all comes down to people, to individuals. 


Post 6

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 11:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a great article. 

I waste many hours at Libertyforum.org debating with anarchists.  Since my handle there is aynfan, they are drawn to me like flys to sh--. 

It is gratifying to see that you deduce as I do, that their arguments fall apart unless government is, by definition, evil. 


Post 7

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 12:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I love this article, because it defines government in a way that accords with my own understanding of proper political organization. Government is an institution that makes and enforces laws in a manner consistent with the principle of voluntary association.

There is much I do not yet understand about this issue. I have always assumed that for individual freedom to flourish, As Rand explained, people must respect and uphold reason. In the absence of a philosophical/cultural regime of reason, rival unproven ethical claims proliferate, producing blood feuding and contests. However, the histories of the trade fairs of Champaign, Icelandic law, and probably many other cases argue otherwise simply because these were comparatively primitive cultures inspired to a great degree by superstition. Perhaps pre-enlightenment societies could adapt when their cultural norms minimized violence.

One reason that people often (but not always) seem to quickly adjust their relationships voluntarily to law is that they must in order to get things done. That is, people in a commerical society require contracts to do business, even on primitive scale. Both parties to any contract require reliable enforcement and dispute resolution, or no one can accomplish much. So laws rapidly evolve, as I understand it.


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.