An Argument For Market Anarchism

RB: The argument here is going in never-intersecting circles, and won't be resolved by a further series of dueling entries, which will soon be archived and forgotten by all.

As I have said here and in other posts, I appreciate the time you devoted to this. It was gracious of you, Robert. You helped me clarify my understanding of the problem. Your insistence on justice as proportional response and as causality in human affairs was import to me. Thank you, again.

This will not be forgotten. I have archived it to disk and thumb-drive in folders for criminal justice classes. I intend to use this material in my papers while earning the college degree that will enable me to be licensed as a private investigator. I now work as a security guard. This has not been idle debate for me, and for the third time, I have profited from the tutorials, Robert.

Post 81

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 9:09pm

Michael, I appreciate your courteous and gentlemanly demeanor throughout, and hope no one senses from our firm commitments any hint of personal animosity.

And I certainly hope that my way of addressing your comments did NOT come across in the manner of "tutorials"!

Post 82

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 10:47am

What is crime? Well, a high crime rate is a symptom of a sick society. So, what is the likely cause of a sick society? One word, government! That immoral institution has pervaded every sector of modern life and business. The logical solution to society's ills is to remove government's influence, especially in education, and fill that void with benevolent business.

Is it logical for Objectivists to justify the existence of government with a symptom to which government has greatly contributed? I think not. Crime will not be the factor it is today after government has been eliminated and society is allowed to heal itself through free market solutions.

Finally, Objectivists insist their preferred government is moral in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary. Setting up a new government using the same fraudulent structure (as is currently used in the US) and planning to use initiatory force against those individuals and businesses which don't perform as they're told to (follow regulatory law) is definitely not part of a moral solution. The day to day operation of that government will obviously be immoral.

Market Anarchy is the logical solution to the current government perverted societies we now experience.

Post 83

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 2:03pm

again, name one "regulation" that Objectivists would "force" businesses to obey. The only ones would be theft or outright fraud - and they would require proof, not prior restraint (i.e. a business would be presumed innocent of wrongdoing, and therefore not regulated, unless evidence was obtained to the contrary, just like it is for any individual).

Post 84

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 3:21pm

Leo wrote:

What is crime? Well, a high crime rate is a symptom of a sick society. So, what is the likely cause of a sick society? One word, government!

That's the problem with anarchists. How do you solve crime? We'll just get rid of the word! Bury our heads in the sand and pretend a utopia will flourish once we obliterate all notions of a government. It's the typical line of thinking of all religionists. For Christians, utopia is heaven. For communists, it's collectivization. For anarchists, it's the annihilation of civil authority. To pretend that all of sudden, all individuals in society would obey a code of high ethical standards and no conflicts of interests would ever arise once the threat of force is removed, is fantasy. Unless all of a sudden, human beings become omniscient and omnibenevolent beings, conflicts will occur.

As Michael Dickey pointed out in another thread, rational men can be working with different sets of data, and can both come therefore to different conclusions, and thus conflicts may arise. (Of course, all men are also not rational)

Anarchists think "Government is evil" but it is not. Statism is evil, but a Government is neither evil, nor a necessary evil. It is required of a civilized society.

Anarchists have it backwards. Government is not the cause of crime. Government is instituted amongst men to resolve disputes, conflicts, and crime. Governments are instituted BECAUSE of crime. It is not the case that one can eliminate crime, conflicts, disputes, by eliminating a final arbiter. Instead what you have is the individual with the bigger gun, the bigger militia, the more brutal tactics, simply uses brute force to resolve conflict. Not due process, not any objective standards of arbitration, but a completely lawless society where rape is only punishable by extracting an imaginary almost limitless amount of wealth from an assailant. (Half million dollars was it?) And only if the rapist all of a sudden decides to voluntarily abide by a contract. (Contracts by the way, mean nothing without the threat of force behind it, that's why we have contracts, because should there be a conflict, a contract spells out to the final arbiter how to resolve it)

I would suggest to the anarchists on this board to read the essay "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" by Peter Schwartz. And also follow this link for Robert Bidinotto's excellent essays on the subject matter which can be found in this forum post: http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0910_3.shtml#79

Post 85

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 4:23pm

Leo Gold (post #82) says that "government" is the cause of a "sick society."

Ummmm...what, then, is the source and cause of governments?

Sorry, anarchists: the governments we have were not imposed on "society" by invading Martians. Rather, they arose from our own midst...through (dare I say it?) market demand.

Society is the source, not the creation, of government. Governments, like water, cannot rise higher than their source.

Obliterate every government on the face of the earth, overnight...and inside of a month you will see what "market anarchism" will provide in their place: exactly the same institutions that people support NOW, through their votes.

The silliness of anarchism is that it ultimately reduces social change to politics, rather than to philosophy and values. If you truly wish to change the character of social institutions, including governments, you must first change the character of those who create and support such institutions. To change the character of individuals, you must change their values; to change their values, you must change their philosophy.

Sorry, folks. There is no political quick fix or shortcut. Politics is at the end, not the beginning, of social reform.

Post 86

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 4:00pm

Objectivists conveniently fail to mention any regulatory agencies they would include in their government which seems to be very poorly thought out. If Objectivists don't take their government plan seriously enough to cover all basic information, then why should anyone else take you serious.

Experience with other fraudulently structured governments shows that one regulation leads to another and I find it hard to accept that businesses would not be regulated in any way.

Post 87

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 4:04pm

"And also follow this link for Robert Bidinotto's excellent essays on the subject matter which can be found in this forum post: http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0910_3.shtml#79"

Yeah right. Illogically justifying government with a symptom it has greatly contributed to, is not what I consider "excellent"!

Post 88

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 5:00pm

Leo, you'd be much more convincing if your two posts even tried to address any of the points I raised. Switching topics and ignoring them simply won't make them go away.

Post 89

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 8:49pm

Robert Bidinotto observed: Obliterate every government on the face of the earth, overnight...and inside of a month you will see what "market anarchism" will provide in their place: exactly the same institutions that people support NOW, through their votes. ... To change the character of individuals, you must change their values; to change their values, you must change their philosophy.

I sanctioned that, Robert. I agree with much of what you said, and certainly with the context.

People change from the inside, not the outside. So, seeking to "change people" is questing after the Holy Grail. However, social change does happen when better ideas find people who want to practice them. I am currenly reading a biography of John Adams. Those were heady times. More is in store. I add also, that politics is near the end of intellectual development.

Rational politics is like rational theology -- but better to have Deists, and Agnostics than Muslims, Christitians, and Jews -- all other things being equal.

Post 90

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 7:00am

In #68, Leo Gold wrote: Wouln't you expect DRO's to have a severe penality for those convicted of violent crimes?

No, I would not. Once we get away from the "Soviet agriculture" model of justice (public goods, collectively produced and centrally distributed) we might actually find the cause(s) of crime(s).

In #86, Leo gold wrote: Objectivists conveniently fail to mention any regulatory agencies they would include in their government ...

And, I thought of a weak argument showing this, but it is not my strawman, Leo Gold, it is yours. Therefore, like everyone else here, I would like to see your derivation of which "regulatory agencies" would be part of an "objectivist" government.

Post 91

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 9:09am

quoteLeo, you'd be much more convincing if your two posts even tried to address any of the points I raised. Switching topics and ignoring them simply won't make them go away.

Your discussion of crime and retribution etc. will become moot when the cause of crime is removed.

If I recall, a point made in your blog was that there are only 2 justifications for government: Crime and National Defense. My contention is that using a symptom of a sick society (to justify the existence of government) which government currently contribes to is illogical. How does government contribute? One major contributing factor is drug laws, another is inferior public education, especially for inner (major) city students, another is crimminalizing activities while exercising rights.

Is there any doubt that government plays a major role in a high US crime rate?

Post 92

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 9:29am

quote Robert Bidinotto observed: Obliterate every government on the face of the earth, overnight...

Is it logical to expect major overnight societal changes?

I see no radical transformations. The move to Market Anarchism will likely be a slow transition occuring as private businesses out-compete government in areas like education and mediation. Also, the failure of democratic economies could speed up the process.

Post 93

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 4:26pm

Once we get away from the "Soviet agriculture" model of justice (public goods, collectively produced and centrally distributed) we might actually find the cause(s) of crime(s).

Top of the list is lack of competent education where students are taught what to think and how to fit in, instead of how to think and be an individual.

I actually favor teaching Objectivism principles and Nutrition in Elementary and High School classes.

And, I thought of a weak argument showing this, but it is not my strawman, Leo Gold, it is yours. Therefore, like everyone else here, I would like to see your derivation of which "regulatory agencies" would be part of an "objectivist" government.

I don't support any government, especially one based on fraud. The burden of explaining the Objectivist's government rests with Objectivists. The fact that you were unable to advance a rational view of the unmentioned "regulatory agencies" tends to confirm that little or no thought has been given to this area of government.

Here's a place to start: Do Objectivists plan to license or regulate any businesses or occupations, like airlines, trucking, TV and radio broadcasting, meat producers, restaurants, doctors, lawyers, accountants etc.?

Post 94

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 7:51am

Robert's post 85 is rationally persuasive (if you are currently in possession of a mind open to reason).

The cause of crime is deficient individual discipline (not accepting the universal human responsibility to exist as a trader in society). The causes of deficient individual discipline are manyfold, and not amenable to eradication.

So, minarchy is good (when you integrate all of the facts).

Ed

Post 95

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 11:53am

What is the source of the US government? A few individuals who did not know any better wrote a constitution which supposedly created and at the same time limited the powers of government. No market demand what so ever, just a few telling the majority what will be.

Why does government continue to exist and expand it's power? Because of a mistaken belief that government serves a benevolent purpose. A closer look shows government is corrupt from top to bottom and in every phase.

The dumbing down process, and inferior education which occur in public schools is a huge contributing factor to crime. Government continues to exist because of individual ignorance resultant from public education.

Religion encourages self-deceit, and ignorance of reality. Aren't the overwhelming majority of criminals theists? Keeping people ignorant and feeling guilty serves government well by making individuals easier to control.

Democratic government sets an example of fraud and initiation of force as acceptable forms of behavior, but only for people in government. Does a double standard actually exist or are all who initiate force against those who fail to obey the opinions of others immoral?

Another glaring example of government causing crime is drug laws. All drug related murders, burglaries, muggings, kidnappings, rapes, etc. could all disappear in the absence of drug laws.

Miniarchy = Democratic Government = Fraudulent Structure (where abstractions and strawmen are viewed as legal persons) = Statism. Objectivists seem to rationalize this perversion as moral.

Fraud and initiation of force against individuals and businesses which have harmed no one is immoral.

If integrating all the facts is your goal, include the above.

Post 96

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 4:47pm

Leo,

If integrating all the facts is your goal, include the above.

Nice comeback (I like your "style" Leo). I'll try to respond appropriately -- when I have the kind of time an appropriate response deserves.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/25, 4:48pm)

Post 97

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 9:47pm

Leo,

================
What is the source of the US government?

================

From M. Adler's book: How to Think about the Great Ideas [(Ch 40-44) How to think about government] ...

================
... government is necessary for ... peace, for what we call civil peace.

================

================
... since even when people do agree to the rules and decisions, not all voluntarily comply with them or obey them, there is some need for the use of force to compel compliance or obedience.
================

================
... men cannot long stand oppression, nor will they long suffer abuses and injustices. And when injustices thrive in a society they would rather return to a state of war than put up with a peace that is not really peace at all because they do not have justice.

As Locke himself pointed out, the word "rebel" comes from the Latin word "rebellare" which means "return to war," because the peace is not a good peace. Aquinas before him said exactly the same thing. Men always fight and always will fight to get the justice they think they deserve.

================

================
... understand the end of government to be the maintenance of civil peace through the administration of justice ...

================

Recap:
The source of US government -- is the concern for persistent peace (by way of securing justice).

================
A few individuals who did not know any better wrote a constitution which supposedly created and at the same time limited the powers of government. No market demand what so ever, just a few telling the majority what will be.

================

These few individuals knew better (you're wrong that they didn't). And you don't need a "market" to "prove" this.

================
Why does government continue to exist and expand it's power? Because of a mistaken belief that government serves a benevolent purpose. A closer look shows government is corrupt from top to bottom and in every phase.
================

Here, you're confusing the actual with the ideal. Proper government doesn't exist/expand to serve benevolence (ie. Welfare Statism), proper government exists to preserve civil peace through the administration of objective retribution (ie. justice).

================
Government continues to exist because of individual ignorance resultant from public education.
================

Welfare statism continues to exist from this. It is crucial to differentiate welfare statism from proper governance (though you seem to miss this crucial aspect of reality).

================
Religion encourages self-deceit, and ignorance of reality. Aren't the overwhelming majority of criminals theists? Keeping people ignorant and feeling guilty serves government well by making individuals easier to control.
================

This would NOT be a problem under complete separation of Church from State -- something explicitly stated by the Founding Fathers.

================
Democratic government sets an example of fraud and initiation of force as acceptable forms of behavior, but only for people in government. Does a double standard actually exist or are all who initiate force against those who fail to obey the opinions of others immoral?
================

All who initiate force against those who fail to obey opinions are immoral. The initiation of force, itself, (in the absence of self-preservation) is evil.

================
Another glaring example of government causing crime is drug laws. All drug related murders, burglaries, muggings, kidnappings, rapes, etc. could all disappear in the absence of drug laws.
================

True, but irrelevant. In a thoroughly-Objectivist society -- there would be no "drug-laws." Nobody would be able to restrict that which one chooses to put inside one's body.

================
Miniarchy = Democratic Government = Fraudulent Structure (where abstractions and strawmen are viewed as legal persons) = Statism.

================

Minarchy = Constitutional Republic (you, here, knock down a straw man).

================
Fraud and initiation of force against individuals and businesses which have harmed no one is immoral.
================

True but, again, irrelevant. NIOF, brother.

Ed

Post 98

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 8:55am

Statism exists when extensive economic, political, and related controls are concentrated in the state at the cost of individual liberty. Statism exists in the current US governments and will continue to exist in any fraudulently structured government, including that which is advocated by Objectivists.

Separating church from state does nothing to cure a religiously infected mind. Therefore, massive self deceit and ignorance of reality will continue to exist. Proper education consistent with reality is the cure for ignorance. Proper education will not occur while government runs public schools because a land full of independent thinking individuals would be impossible to control.

If you agree that "All who initiate force against those who fail to obey opinions are immoral" then you also agree that government is immoral, since 'legal opinions' are what you call "laws".

A Constitutional Republic is a democratic government and MUST be structured fraudulently. IE All governments are corporate (abstractions) and all citizens are given a corporate identity (strawmen). All criminal prosecutions show the plaintiff as an abstract (STATE OF OBJECTIVISM ) vs JOHN DOE (a corporate identity). Both parties MUST be equal and are therefore both considered legal PERSONS. That perversion can not be avoided by any democratic government having regulatory laws.

Post 99

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 4:37pm