RoR: Forum

Jon,

What do you think Rand meant when she defined a government as "an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area"? Did she intend to rule out private police and private security guards? If she did, then what would she say about the government we have now, which permits private police and private security guards? Would she say that, by her definition, it's not a government, because it doesn't hold the exclusive power to enforce these rules of conduct? If not, then perhaps by "exclusive power" she means something other than a prohibition on private law enforcement. And what might that be?

- Bill

Post 21

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 11:52pm

I've enjoyed reading Joe's posts where he talks about the epistemological need we all have, as a society, for a structure to create and implement the standard of what is appropriate in the exercise of retaliatory force. It is so obvious, yet it had never occurred to me.
------------

The questions about how much government is needed (versus how much can be contracted out, or how much can be totally privatized) is to a large degree dependent upon the evolution of our society. How politically and philosophically literate are we? How many of us still believe in entitlements? How many are willing to use theft or fraud or force to gain value? Those numbers will say how large the structure needs to be to create the environment that allows people to have trust that their rights will be respected in the future (which is what a flourishing society needs). And the worse those numbers are, the harder the effort is, and the less perfect the results. Also, the larger the government, the more errors to be expected.

I'll repeat myself here... That legal environment, with its working structures and parts, gives us reason to trust that in the future our rights will be respected - and that is critical, It is one of the primary purposes to having all of the structure that flows from a proper government (the laws, the courts, the police, the military, etc.)

Example: I have no confidence in the economy at this time, but I do have confidence that I could sell my house or buy another house and do so without fear that my money would stolen, that I would be cheated out of the house, or that any form of theft or force would get between me and my choice. The number of areas where our property rights are still safe, although diminishing rapidly, are still considerable. That is because the machinery, the structure is there and working. Much of it is private (Realtors, title companies, etc.) and it is all wrapped in laws defining property rights as they apply to real property and to transactions and contracts. For now, anyway, there is stability in much of this area despite the horrendous upheaval in housing market prices and the investment end of the real estate. The same applies to many areas of our life. You don't get that without the overall structure, and you won't have that without a government and a monopoly of laws.

Post 22

Friday, April 30, 2010 - 5:09am

The formulaic criticism that Prof. Machen was responding to -- 'there exists pain/strife/imperfection/unhappiness under system X, therefore system X is a goal to be avoided' -- actually has influence with many people, or it wouldn't be used as much as it is.

The irony that it is so often used to advocate some form of Totalitarianism is rich.

A washing machine so much shuts off a rinse cycle short of perfection in America, and that would be enough reason to attempt to trot out this argument. Prof. Machan was right to tube it.

The generated spawn of the same carny hucksters who showed us those pathetic pictures of poverty in Appalachia in the 60's as their excuse for funding 'The Great Society' can today, after throwing trillions of OPM down a bottomless pisshole, show us the precise same pictures of poverty in Appalachia.

Success, like education, is not primarily given; it is primarily taken. Trying to eliminate poverty by subsidizing it is like trying to push a rope up a hill. Politicians/power grubbers have no power to compel anyone to either take education or success(two related concepts in the modern world.) What they can do is carny huckster convince folks to hand them over power to try to 'give' both education and success. As this cannot ultimately be done, they never succeed at either, but so far, have been successful in convincing the electorate that the solution to that is to try even more of what hasn't worked in the past(else, those pictures of poverty would be changing over time.)

At some point, maybe, it's neither a given nor a likelihood, the electorate might come to realize that we are precisely doing the wrong thing by attempting to subsidize poverty and ignorance.

We are also working against our well meaning goals by outlawing the concept of voluntary assistance. We've inhibited the ability of those who can to voluntarily help those who can't, because of our irrational fear that others won't do what we believe is necessary, and so, we've tried to point a gun at others to force them to do what we believe is necessary, and in so doing, made them:

1] less able to voluntarily help others (by forcefully taking from them and directing their wealth to achieve our visions)
2] less likely to voluntarily help others (by the predictable human reaction to being told instead of being asked)
3] unable to voluntarily help others (because they are forced to do so, and 'voluntarily' has nothing to do with the transaction.

This is a combination of the tribe:

1] Resenting the need to politely ask.
2] Being afraid to be told 'no.'

Given the choice, what beggar wouldn't prefer to be a thief at the point of a gun, especially if that act can be dressed up as a noble act of Social Justice?

As our tribal 'safety net' becomes dominated by the human transactions above, we shouldn't be surprised when the overwhelming response of those who can is increasingly 'f**k the tribe."

The self-fulfilling feedback of our once well meaning tribal insanity regarding fringe poverty in a once free America is doing nothing to actually eliminate poverty anywhere in America, primarily because of the original axiom I posited above:

Success, like education, is primarily taken, not given.

As an extreme example based on extreme amounts of 'giving' , look at how many lottery winners end up broke after only a few years of having been 'given' success.

Nearly one-third of lottery winners become bankrupt.

�The CFP Board made an offer to the National Association of State and Provincial Lotteries to provide the organization's members with information to distribute to winners. The Investment News article highlighted the lack of financial guidance many winners receive from state lottery agencies; estimates show that nearly one-third of
lottery winners become bankrupt.�

Source: Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc
http://www.cfp-board.org/bulletin.html

regards,
Fred

Post 23

Friday, April 30, 2010 - 8:25am

Bill, you ask:

�what do you think Rand meant when she defined a government as "an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce[...]�?�

I think she meant that government would have the power to enforce. Writing the rules while having no power to enforce them, having to borrow other people�s armies and police�that exists already. It�s called the UN.

Post 24

Friday, April 30, 2010 - 10:32am

Jon,

The phrase is "exclusive power to enforce." Why did she use that particular phrase if all she meant is the "power to enforce"?

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/30, 10:42am)

Post 25

Friday, April 30, 2010 - 12:06pm

I don�t know.

Why did she say police, courts and military if all she meant was rulebook-keeping?

Post 26

Saturday, May 1, 2010 - 4:33pm

Jon,

Maybe she meant that the government could allow private police, private arbitration agencies, and even paramilitary groups like Blackwater, but that the government had the exclusive power to ensure that these organizations operated according to proper standards and procedures -- in other words, that the government is the final arbiter, the final court of appeal in case questions arose as to whether or not these private organizations were operating within the law. So, just as the Supreme Court presides over lower courts, so government police, courts and military would preside over private police, courts and military.

In her article on competing governments, she does argue against competing private police on the grounds that conflicts would result if two people in a criminal dispute -- victim and alleged perpetrator -- each had their own police force. In that case, you would need a final arbiter to resolve the dispute and a higher order, monopolistic police agency to enforce a resolution of the conflict between the two private police agencies, who would each be attempting to enforce the law on behalf of their client's own interests -- much as private defense attorneys seek to advance the interests of their clients.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 5/01, 4:39pm)

Post 27

Saturday, May 1, 2010 - 9:56pm

Bill,

That�s all fine and I am sure she had heard of private security and thought it fine, so long as there is, as you put it, �a final arbiter to resolve the dispute and a higher order, monopolistic police agency to enforce a resolution of the conflict between the two private police agencies.� Put another way, as you say, �government police, courts and military would preside over private police, courts and military.�

But that�s not what Jim said and what I was advising him to be careful about. He wrote: �several minarchists here have already stipulated that such things as police and fire and military services could be privatized, so long as they operate under a monopoly of law. Several minarchists have further stipulated that Ayn Rand has written that mandatory, involuntary, coercive taxes are not part of the minarchist scheme of government she envisions. Basically, there's very little left for a monopoly government to do in this Objectivist minarchy -- essentially, just maintaining a code of laws�

I advised him to be careful because Rand was not on board for this formulation.

Do you mean to argue that she was? That her vision was one where the government would only maintain a code of laws? You don�t appear eager to argue this, as your post 26 suggests she was for a government capable of crushing any private agency that crossed it. Again, you wrote, �government police, courts and military would preside over private police, courts and military,� i.e., a government that possesses more than words on paper, a government that has police, courts and military. Or, the other way you put it, �[a] monopolistic police agency to enforce a resolution of the conflict.�

Do you disagree with my cautioning Jim as I did? Do you think it�s fine to attribute her with having promoted a government that only maintains a code of laws? If so, please cite something from her that is on topic and remotely convincing. And please don�t say that a strictly paper government is consistent with some things she said. That�s not the same as her putting forward the allegedly consistent position, as I am sure you understand.

Post 28

Saturday, May 1, 2010 - 10:47pm

Jon,

I agree with your caution. I don't thing she would be on board for just keeping a record of the laws - it would occur to her in a fraction of a second that more structure would be required to ensure they were enforced rather than ignored.

Post 29

Sunday, May 2, 2010 - 8:24pm

I advised him to be careful because Rand was not on board for this formulation.

Are you implying that Objectivism is whatever Rand said it was? Since she is dead, who would be the final arbiter of how her thoughts might be interpreted?

And, here is where it gets a bit meta and ironic -- is there a monopoly organization that adjudicates what is or is not Objectivism, and determines whether people are straying off course?

Or is the structure of people who maintain the boundaries of Objectivism (and its assertion that minarchism is the most ethical form of government), adjudicate disputes within that school of thought, and otherwise govern and police it -- is that structure composed of private, competing individuals and entities who interact in an entirely voluntary matter?

Is the structure of Objectivism governed in an anarchist manner?
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 5/02, 8:26pm)

Post 30

Sunday, May 2, 2010 - 9:15pm

Jim,

I was trying to be helpful. I wouldn�t want anyone to be misinformed that Rand forwarded a position she never forwarded. I�m not implying anything, but informing. I don�t imagine her position to be a debate-stopper on any issue�but her position was what it was, and not something else.

I will be interested to see how close you and Bill are on this issue. You seem keen to certain ideas in post 17 and I wonder how far apart you and others here really are, especially those who see no issues with a government as pure contractor of private force-wielders.

Post 31

Sunday, May 2, 2010 - 9:22pm

Now that my small caution has surely been taken to heart, going back to before my interruption, Jim had furthered the debate thusly:

�Basically, there's very little left for a monopoly government to do in this Objectivist minarchy -- essentially, just maintaining a code of laws -- so now I'm chipping away at which, if any, aspects of a code of laws might be privatized.

The difference between Objectivist minarchists and anarcho-capitalists is far less than I originally thought it was. This has been a fascinating couple of days on these related threads.�

Please continue.

Post 32

Sunday, May 2, 2010 - 9:51pm

Jim said, "Is the structure of Objectivism governed in an anarchist manner?"

Anarchy is the political state of having no government within a geographical area, in a context where that makes sense. There wasn't a government in my bathroom this morning, but that doesn't mean that my showering was done in an anarchist manner. Everything that occurs within the boundaries of our country falls under the laws of our government.

People interacting and freely making choices is NOT anarchy.

Post 33

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 - 11:31am

People interacting and freely making choices is NOT anarchy.

People interacting and freely making choices without any government interference for a given activity is anarchistic for that given activity.

The "governance" of the definition of, and meaning and interpretation of, Objectivism is entirely anarcho-capitalist for that activity. Anyone can create their own website about Objectivism, and claim to be an authority about it, such as Leonard Peikoff, but they can't enforce their views, or force people to join their organization, or police behavior on any website other than one they own, or act as a final authority or ultimate arbitrator.

This is in contrast to the minarchist "governance" of, say, the Mormon Church, which does have an ultimate authority (the current president of the Church) and the ability to police the meaning of the Church's dogma and excommunicate anyone who crosses the lines the Church has drawn. The tithing and membership is voluntary and non-compulsory, and a handful of splinter groups with tiny memberships have sprung up offering competing visions, but none of them can claim to be the LDS Church or speak for it.

So, curiously, despite Ayn Rand saying minarchy is the best form of governance, she set up (or more precisely, failed to set up and thus by default allowed) an anarcho-capitalist structure to carry forward Objectivism.

If you extend this interacting and freely making choices for all but a handful of activities (generally involving things important to wealthier people such as police protection and national defense), that's minarchy. If you keep whittling away at the remaining activities that do not involve such free interaction, you start to approach anarcho-capitalism.

We have some people here who call themselves minarchists, but in the course of examining their beliefs about what should be left to government, I've concluded they closely approach A-C while stopping just short of it.

I'd be happy to live under the preferred government of anybody who regularly posts here -- any degree of minarchy beats the statism we endure now.

The Articles of Confederation were minarchist approaching A-C, the Constitution that replaced it had more statism but was still pretty minarchistic.

It's a continuum running from pure statism to pure A-C, from the nearly absolute statism of Orwell's 1984, to the somewhat lesser hellhole of North Korea, to the socialist democracies of Europe, to the current U.S. government, to the government under the Constitution shortly after the revolution, to the government under the Articles of Confederation, and finally a pure A-C which has been approached at times in the past in places like Iceland and Ireland but never quite attained.

Prostitutes and drug dealers are reviled by government propaganda in part because their dealings with each other are laissez-faire capitalistic (there are other nanny-statist reasons, of course). If you smoke dope, there's a high (pun intended) probability that you're liberal and generally worship big government, but that transaction with your supplier is an anarchist event within a statist society.

Post 34

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 - 2:17pm

Jim,

You are abusing logic. It is a fallacy to take 'anarchy,' a word whose definition depends upon the noun government, meaning an organized state and turn around and use it, not metaphorically, but literally, in a context where it is could not possibly apply.

Anarchy: noun
1.a state of society without government or law.
2.political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3.a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Government: �noun
1.the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.
2.the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government.
3.the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration.
4.a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole: a dam built by the government.

You conflate "government" with a different concept, "governance" which means the governing of, the controlling of, or the administering of - and is much broader than "government" - as in the sentence, "In intelligent discourse, the context is governed by logic."

I don't know why you don't realize that everybody here is likely to know the difference between, say,the United States Government and, say, the governor installed on a kid's motor scooter to keep it from going to fast, or governing the language they use when they get angry.

The worst thing you do here, with that conflation, is to completely mix up force and volition. People in the Mormon Church and the Objectivist movement are engaged in voluntary activities. When you talk about government you are talking about the regulation of force - the use of force - hence, involuntary activities.

So when you say that Ayn Rand attempted to set up a system of anarchy to carry forward Objectivism, you are just revealing an abysmal lack of care in using words. Anarchy is an absence of a government and both the LDS church and the Objectivist activities you refer to happen within a context under the governance of the United States Government.

Post 35

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 - 2:20pm

Jim, you said, "If you extend this interacting and freely making choices for all but a handful of activities (generally involving things important to wealthier people such as police protection and national defense), that's minarchy."

I can't imagine how you think that the poor or middle class don't see police protection or national defense as important to them. They don't mind being robbed, or assaulted? And it is okay with them if their nation is invaded?

Post 36

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 - 7:33pm

I can't imagine how you think that the poor or middle class don't see police protection or national defense as important to them. They don't mind being robbed, or assaulted? And it is okay with them if their nation is invaded?

I would concur that virtually everyone, regardless of social class, would prefer to not be robbed, assaulted, or treated badly by foreigners wearing uniforms (well, a few people like Ted might enjoy being humiliated by burly foreign men in the Castro district wearing leather uniforms, based on some of the pictures he posted prior to being booted off this site, but that's a different thread), but your questions assume that the only way to prevent these things is to have the government protect you, rather than any of the alternatives.

Actually, quite a few poor people view the police as the enemy. People with a lot of wealth will place more importance on having that wealth protected than people with less wealth.

And, there is a huge difference between private protective services and the police or military, which you seem to be not recognizing. You can want to not be harmed by foreigners wearing uniforms and yet not support the government-run military. Do you think that the vast majority of American colonists in the early 1770s regarded British redcoats, and the taxes levied to support them, and the forcible quartering of those troops in their homes, as GOOD things?

If you are poor and live in an inner city and your primary interactions with the government-run police are being treated like perps despite not having harmed anyone else (though you might have broken some unlibertarian laws such as ones prohibiting smoking weed), you might want to protect yourself with chain-link fences and guard dogs and guns rather than being taxed to pay for people you understandably regard as oppressors who are violating your natural rights rather than protecting them.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 5/04, 7:51pm)

Post 37

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 - 7:44pm

Steve -- re post 34 -- you seem to have a rigid and non-creative view of how words can be used to give fresh insights to complex subjects. The literal meaning of "anarchy" means one thing when describing a situation where a government has been toppled and there is a brief period where various factions violently contend to reinstate a new government, whereas "anarchistic" when applied to the levels of authoritarianism and central control for the LDS Church versus Objectivist thought means something else, since it modifies that root word to apply to a considerably less common situation than it is usually applied.

Just a little tongue in cheek here -- Do you get similarly exercised when Shakespeare uses words in ways that no one prior to him had used them? "But, dammit, Will, that's not how anybody I know uses those words. Stop it, stop it, STOP IT, and write regular plays that don't make my head hurt."

Post 38

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 - 10:55pm

Jim,

Your post #33 wasn't just a creative use of the word "governance" - it was a logical fallacy.
------------

But I don't want you to worry about my abilities. To show you that I have no problems with a non-rigid and creative view of how words can be used to give fresh insights to complex subjects... just consider how anarchist it is of the supporter of political anarchy to chafe under the monopoly of the laws of logic and rebel against the governance of reality-connected meanings. Clearly it is a disorder, as in chaos, that is expressed in politics but where the real root cause is somewhere deep in psychology.

Post 39

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 - 11:15pm