An Argument For Market Anarchism

Kurt wrote -- you cannot hunt animals to extinction when there is private property

Leo replied -- This assumes that the owner is not the hunter. Many endangered species have limited habitats and could possibly become extinct by a few hunting owners.

In point of fact, it does not work that way. One expression of the law of identity is that "reality is real." Instead of arguing "would should could" look at the world.

In reality, in Africa, privatized reserves protect animals so that they can be hunted for huge fees. The fewer the animals, the higher the fees. The higher the fees, the fewer the hunters, hence, more animals and lower fees. Also, in Africa, so-called "public" lands have been given to tribes to manage for their own income. In such cases, grazing animals are killed to prevent them from outcompeting humans by eating their farm crops, yet the value in the hunt makes up for the losses at some level. Again, supply and demand define the limits.

Post 141

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 1:04pm

Driving a car with no license or registration or insurance.
==============================

While driving itself, without these restrictions, wouldn't necessarily be a crime; stiffer penalties -- for accidents, etc. occurring without these restrictions

What is a "license"? It's permission to do or not do something. Can a license be voluntary? Well, that would defeat the purpose of the dang thing. Even if you managed justify a voluntary license and registration, government would still have regulations for their issuance.

==============================
Dragracing police.
==============================

Letting the cops know if they can't catch you -- is of value to them (ie. they will know when it's time to give up the chase and radio ahead -- for the "stop (spike) strips"). Making it illegal to drag-race police -- would be absurd.

Why would police chase a drag-racer unless drag-racing is illegal?

Since all roads are privately owned, police would need permission to travel, unless of course government regulations forced private property owners to allow the supposed "official" traffic.

==============================
Traveling into or out of the country without a passport or visa.
==============================

This is part of national defense -- one of the 3 main, objective purposes of government. This type of travel requires regulation -- even if by a private company (picked by the public, for it's product value).

First, there is no "public" if all property is privately owned.

Now you admit that government must regulate a human activity. The act of traveling freely without interference by government is an individual right. So, regulation of that right must be justified as "for the greater good". And, when prosecuting the "crime" of "traveling without passport or visa" who is the victim?

==============================
Building and exploding incendiary devises on one's own property.
==============================

Let 'em burn!

This decision could allow terrorist groups to prepare attacks which would compromise national defense. It's unlikely that that would be allowed.

==============================
Employing children who work voluntarily with their parents permission.
==============================

Let 'em work!

Many people would not stand by while children worked long hours at hard labor for little pay. Great harm could be done to children during their formative years if allowed to work under harsh conditions. Government would surely need to regulate the conditions under which children could be employed.

==============================
Flying airplanes without license into all areas of the country.
==============================

Let 'em fly!

Even though this will place all government "officials" at risk? Do you realize how easy it is for a low flying plane to drop a bomb or two? This would also compromise national safety and therefore require government regulations (license, no fly zones etc).

==============================
Carrying concealed weapons of any and all kinds for personal protection.
==============================

Let 'em carry!

Even walking into courts, police stations, schools, banks, legislative buildings etc? Not likely. You would meet with considerable opposition to your decision to "Let 'em carry".

==============================
Impersonating a police officer.
==============================

Lock 'em up! Hell, some things just can't be allowed -- under an objective system of justice.

Again you admit that regulatory law is required to protect citizens from "possible" harm, even though one can impersonate police without harming anyone in the process.

==============================
Selling military secrets to the highest bidder.
==============================

Lock 'em up! Hell, some things just can't be allowed -- under an objective system of justice.

Another exception to your claim that no regulations will be advocated by Objectivists. Are you lying now, or did you lie then? Contradictions are not conducive to trust, are they?

I DO have a great answer to 13 out of 14 contexts.

Some of your "great" answers are good examples of shallow thinking and poor decision making. They also compromise your original stance of "no regulations" in an Objectivist government.

Now, since it's obvious, even to you, that government must regulate certain areas of human activity, it's time to face the fraudulent structure that must exist to allow "government" (an abstraction) to play victim in prosecutions.

Post 142

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 3:47pm

Kurt wrote -- you cannot hunt animals to extinction when there is private property

Leo replied -- This assumes that the owner is not the hunter. Many endangered species have limited habitats and could possibly become extinct by a few hunting owners.

In point of fact, it does not work that way. One expression of the law of identity is that "reality is real." Instead of arguing "would should could" look at the world.

What have we identified?

In discussing a hypothetical future situation where possibilities are explored the word "could" is appropriate to counter the claim "cannot".

Post 143

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 10:24pm

Leo, I'm planning to respond later -- perhaps in a few days. I appreciate your tenacity at holding my feet to the fire -- perhaps I'll return the favor.

'Til then,

Ed

Post 144

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 5:31am

Another Objectivist fails to add anything relevant and abandons Rand in favor of subjectivity.

I'm trying to help you. If you really want to debate the subject, calm down and grow up. Your tone has been hostile from the beginning.

Post 145

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 5:35am

What's "essential" to government? Rand called government a monopoly on the use of force, retaliatory force. Would rich folks pay (user fees, insurance premiums) for objective justice (ie. to be able to keep the earned) -- hell yes!

But, if your "government" could not force people to fund it, it's quite logical that more than one agency would arise, and compete for funding. In this way, no one would have a monopoly on force, and thus it would not meet Rand's definition of government.

Post 146

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 6:57am

Leo - which side are you arguing for? If you argue that Objectivist governments would "have" to do X because of Y, then why would your argument about no government be any different? If no government is better, then what about Y? And if Y is not a problem, then why would Objectivist government have to do X? You are arguing in a circle.

(Edited by Kurt Eichert on 8/04, 6:58am)

Post 147

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 8:01am

"If you argue that Objectivist governments would "have" to do X because of Y, then why would your argument about no government be any different? If no government is better, then what about Y? And if Y is not a problem, then why would Objectivist government have to do X?"

Right now the problem is your cryptic writing. Can you be more explicit?

Post 148

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 9:17am

Leo,

================
What is a "license"? It's permission to do or not do something. Can a license be voluntary? Well, that would defeat the purpose of the dang thing. Even if you managed justify a voluntary license and registration, government would still have regulations for their issuance.
================

There are 2 things going on here:

1) the personal freedom to make your own choices
2) the level of punishment received for the "kind" of choices you've made -- WHEN your choice harms another

Licensing wouldn't be required for driving, it would be required for not getting the book (and restitutive, and possible retributive, fines) thrown at you. We should be free to make our own decisions. We shouldn't be free from the consequences OF our decisions (it's the only way we'll learn).

So, a license is not a "permission" -- it's a rational choice (like insuring valuable things is).

======================
Why would police chase a drag-racer unless drag-racing is illegal?
======================

They wouldn't. When you brought it up, you brought it up as a hypothetical. So don't blame me for answering you -- and sticking to the fundamental issue behind this hypothetical.

======================
Since all roads are privately owned, police would need permission to travel, unless of course government regulations forced private property owners to allow the supposed "official" traffic.
======================

There are more ways to skin this cat -- than unilateral regulation. An agreed-to contract, for instance, between the land owner and the police force. Show me a man who wouldn't want the police to drive up his road to save him from a lynch-mob -- merely because of the "principle" of the thing.

Folks who own big things in a free society (like roads) are ipso facto, rational. In order to gain the kind of value they did, they had to be a kind of person.

======================
First, there is no "public" if all property is privately owned.
======================

The "public" is merely the sum of the individuals. One thing that would still be public, in an Objectivist society, is the air we breathe.

======================
Now you admit that government must regulate a human activity. The act of traveling freely without interference by government is an individual right. So, regulation of that right must be justified as "for the greater good". And, when prosecuting the "crime" of "traveling without passport or visa" who is the victim?
======================

You are taking the individual right to travel freely, and pulling it out of the context that justifies it's instantiation on earth (ie. making it a floating abstraction). In order to protect the exercise of individual rights, there need be a society ordered along a principle of objective justice, individual rights, and a transparent rule of law.

If you don't have (or protect) this society, this seedbed for the human exercise of individual rights, then you undermine what makes the exercise of rights possible in the first place (ie. you will court with gang-warfare; gangs coming from everywhere, to take advantage of the don't-ask/don't-tell, totally-anonymous border crossings.

======================
This decision could allow terrorist groups to prepare attacks which would compromise national defense. It's unlikely that that would be allowed.
======================

Anonymous border crossing (see directly above) would be a far greater threat than the allowance of CITIZENS to play with volatile compounds -- on their own property -- ever would be. You're making faulty assumptions.

How can you sit there and blame me for putting folks in danger, by allowing them to do what they want, on their property -- when you would allow for something (anonymous border crossing) that is even more dangerous; because of the anonymity factor?

If Joe Blow is testing dynamite on his land, then there'll be evidence linking these explosions to his identity. But if anonymous folks cross into the country -- they won't have an explicit identity (ie. they won't be easily found, or held responsible for their criminal actions -- should they choose criminal action).

======================
Many people would not stand by while children worked long hours at hard labor for little pay. Great harm could be done to children during their formative years if allowed to work under harsh conditions. Government would surely need to regulate the conditions under which children could be employed.
======================

Wait a minute. Aren't you the guy arguing for anarchy here (ie. no central government)? And, if there is an objective path to take here (would that all rational folks would agree to) -- then what WOULD BE wrong with putting this into law?

======================
Even though this will place all government "officials" at risk? Do you realize how easy it is for a low flying plane to drop a bomb or two? This would also compromise national safety and therefore require government regulations (license, no fly zones etc).
======================

Oops. I forgot these sensitive areas (flying over the White House, etc). Yeah, there'd be these no-fly zones, but only in objectively correct places to have them.

======================
Even walking into courts, police stations, schools, banks, legislative buildings etc? Not likely. You would meet with considerable opposition to your decision to "Let 'em carry".
======================

Just like above, there'd be places you couldn't carry guns into (courts, police stations, etc). And there's good reason for that restriction of the exercise of personal freedom.

======================
Again you admit that regulatory law is required to protect citizens from "possible" harm, even though one can impersonate police without harming anyone in the process.
======================

Well, obviously, you couldn't (shouldn't) lock someone up for dressing up as a cop on Halloween! I'm talking about the harm done to others -- harm that required cop-impersonation. eg. "Say, ma'am, I pulled you over -- in this dark, secluded area -- because you were speeding ..."

======================
Another exception to your claim that no regulations will be advocated by Objectivists.
======================

My claim was to have no economic regulation, this theft of military secrets (to sell them off) -- is not properly a part of the economy. You're dropping the context of what I said.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 8/04, 9:17am)

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 8/04, 9:20am)

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 8/04, 9:21am)

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 8/04, 9:22am)

Post 149

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 4:29pm

It is not cryptic. It is exactly what you said:

Without regulations, you are saying that every "crime" in your limited government will have a human victim. Therefore, the following can NOT be crimes: Driving a car with no license or registration or insurance. Driving drunk. Driving at high rates of speed. Dragracing police. Reckless driving. Traveling into or out of the country without a passport or visa. Building and exploding incendiary devises on one's own property. Employing children who work voluntarily with their parents permission. Flying airplanes without license into all areas of the country. Carrying concealed weapons of any and all kinds for personal protection. Impersonating a police officer. Selling military secrets to the highest bidder. Practicing medicine competently without license or formal training. Hunting all wild animals to extinction. And so on.

Now - Does Anarchism consider these problems? If not, then why does Objectivist government have to solve them? If yes, then how does Anarchism solve them?

Post 150

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 8:37am

It is not cryptic. It is exactly what you said

First, your message was cryptic in that you did not assign values to "x" or "y". This places the reader in the position of having to "assume" your meaning before answering.

Now - Does Anarchism consider these problems? If not, then why does Objectivist government have to solve them? If yes, then how does Anarchism solve them?

The problem is that people in a central government impose their will, via their opinions, on citizens. And, as I've explained many times "government" perverts justice by playing the role of victim in victimless "crimes". This fraudulently structured government assumes sovereignty. How can an abstraction be sovereign? It's all a perverted head game.

With any government in power, people tend to look to their external authority to solve societal and even personal problems. In a Market Anarchistic society people seek to solve all problems from within. Market Anarchism returns sovereignty to people (where it belongs) in a spirit of co-operation. Personal accountability becomes paramount in this society. Market demand determines what is needed.

Specific solutions are not easily explained and require considerable time and space. If you're truly interested I'd suggest you re-read the Stefan Molyneux's articles I posted earlier. There is also considerably more information on his web site.

Post 151

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 9:43am

There are 2 things going on here:

1) the personal freedom to make your own choices
2) the level of punishment received for the "kind" of choices you've made -- WHEN your choice harms another

Licensing wouldn't be required for driving, it would be required for not getting the book (and restitutive, and possible retributive, fines) thrown at you. We should be free to make our own decisions. We shouldn't be free from the consequences OF our decisions (it's the only way we'll learn).

So, a license is not a "permission" -- it's a rational choice (like insuring valuable things is).

Now you attempt to change the definition of "license" to fit your agenda. Are you ever honest? Look up the word in any dictionary. It's permission to do or not do something, period. A driver's license shows evidence that government has granted permission for the holder to drive a vehicle. Only those with adequate vision, driving skills and knowledge of traffic "laws" are granted a "license". Therefore, having a voluntary licence is absurd and oxymoronic.

There are more ways to skin this cat -- than unilateral regulation. An agreed-to contract, for instance, between the land owner and the police force. Show me a man who wouldn't want the police to drive up his road to save him from a lynch-mob -- merely because of the "principle" of the thing.

I know many people who do not and would not contact "police" or allow them access to their property.

Folks who own big things in a free society (like roads) are ipso facto, rational. In order to gain the kind of value they did, they had to be a kind of person.

Those with deep pockets can hire their own security personnel to protect their property. Having strategic highways privately owned presents a larger problem to "government" than you are admitting. But, then that's no big surprise.

The best solution, for government, is force. Regulations to force all road owners to allow "official" traffic. But wait, that would compromise property ownership.

The "public" is merely the sum of the individuals. One thing that would still be public, in an Objectivist society, is the air we breathe.

And what regulations would be required to protect that air?

You are taking the individual right to travel freely, and pulling it out of the context that justifies it's instantiation on earth (ie. making it a floating abstraction). In order to protect the exercise of individual rights, there need be a society ordered along a principle of objective justice, individual rights, and a transparent rule of law.

Rights are abstractions, mental realities if you will. So I'm not making it any more than it is. My point is that individual rights will be regulated by your government. Therefore when you, or Rand, or any other Objectivist says that your little government is STRICTLY rights protecting, that is a prevarication.

And, you justify your little lie by the presumed resultant good which may or may not occur. "The end justifies the means" syndrome, from which every government suffers.

Anonymous border crossing (see directly above) would be a far greater threat than the allowance of CITIZENS to play with volatile compounds -- on their own property -- ever would be. You're making faulty assumptions.

Americans are not immuned to being terrorists. You assumed the word terrorist to mean foreign radical.

How can you sit there and blame me for putting folks in danger, by allowing them to do what they want, on their property -- when you would allow for something (anonymous border crossing) that is even more dangerous; because of the anonymity factor?

The main thing I'm blaming on Objectivists is dishonesty in misrepresenting their government. I know Objectivists will want to regulated border crossings and incendiary experiments.

Wait a minute. Aren't you the guy arguing for anarchy here (ie. no central government)? And, if there is an objective path to take here (would that all rational folks would agree to) -- then what WOULD BE wrong with putting this into law?

There are other ways children will be protected in Market Anarchism. But society hasn't reached that advanced mind set yet. With your government in effect people are still looking to government (their external authority) to solve societal problems. They would not allow children to be abused and would insist that government regulate.

Oops. I forgot these sensitive areas (flying over the White House, etc). Yeah, there'd be these no-fly zones, but only in objectively correct places to have them.

More regs required. Are you ready to withdraw your claim to not advocating any regs? Or, should we expect you to continue lying?

Just like above, there'd be places you couldn't carry guns into (courts, police stations, etc). And there's good reason for that restriction of the exercise of personal freedom.

Oh, another oooops. Hey, I knew all along your government would have regulations. But, it was difficult to get you to admit it.

Well, obviously, you couldn't (shouldn't) lock someone up for dressing up as a cop on Halloween! I'm talking about the harm done to others -- harm that required cop-impersonation. eg. "Say, ma'am, I pulled you over -- in this dark, secluded area -- because you were speeding ..."

Which you conveniently forgot to mention. Oooops again.

My claim was to have no economic regulation, this theft of military secrets (to sell them off) -- is not properly a part of the economy. You're dropping the context of what I said.

Now you change the rules to fit your twisted rationalizations. And, btw your little government will also have economic regulations. Maybe you should just admit that now.

The point is that your proposed limited government WILL regulate human activities which you ( or legislators) think may lead to individual rights violations. IE: People in your government will impose their will via their opinions on all citizens. And, your "government" will play the role of victim in all victimless "crimes", making your goal fraud.

(Edited by Leo Gold
on 8/06, 8:19am)

Post 152

Sunday, August 6, 2006 - 8:28am

"I'm trying to help you. If you really want to debate the subject, calm down and grow up. Your tone has been hostile from the beginning."

Again someone claiming to be an Objectivist adds zero to the discussion and resorts to (out-of-touch with reality) subjectivity.

Post 153

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 10:00am

Leo, your contention that somehow because "government" is an abstraction it is illegitimate seems a very bad argument. I have to think about it more, but this kind of argument is weak because it seeks to make a broad categorical judgement based on the argument that a government is not the same as a person, yet that seems to me to be besides the point in most cases. For example, if there is a murder victim who has no family, does the government charging the murder victim as the state make that a fraud? I think not.

Post 154

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 12:02pm

That would not be a fraud only if the government, properly, was the executor of the estate, would it not?

Post 155

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 4:42pm

Leo, your contention that somehow because "government" is an abstraction it is illegitimate seems a very bad argument. I have to think about it more, but this kind of argument is weak because it seeks to make a broad categorical judgement based on the argument that a government is not the same as a person, yet that seems to me to be besides the point in most cases.

It seems the more Objectivists "think about it" the more rationalizations they conjure up. No matter how hard you try with twisted rationalizations you can never make an abstraction equal to a human being.

For example, if there is a murder victim who has no family, does the government charging the murder victim as the state make that a fraud? I think not.

Has the "state" been killed? Can one kill a "state"? Can a "state" stand up in court to testify and be cross-examined? No to all? Then it is fraudulent for the state to play victim. The legal papers accusing anyone of harming the "state" fail on their face to be provable.

The example you mention should be handled, like every other murder case with the actual victim shown as the plaintiff in absentia. The fact that the victim has no family is irrelevant.

Now deal with the thousands of potential regulation violations that have "no victim" and yet the "state" claims to be the specific victim in ALL those prosecutions.

(Edited by Leo Gold
on 8/07, 7:08pm)

(Edited by Leo Gold on 8/07, 7:17pm)

Post 156

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 7:33pm

Who puts the murderer up for trial? Why apprehends the criminal?

I don't need any regulations, because you already said the market can handle them. I can accept that. If it handles them, no need for them.

Post 157

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 8:25am

Hey you're the people who advocate "government". Answer your own questions.

If you "don't need any regulations" then you don't need government, and you can stop wasting energy on an immoral institution. If that's the case, I'll congratulate you.

Post 158

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 4:51pm

Leo, I think that your "real" name is:

F------s T------y (middle letters left out in order to preserve your anonymity).

Am I correct?

Ed

Post 159

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 8:11am