RoR: Forum

A long time ago, a Web site called The Daily Objectivist featured an article entitled "Roy Childs Almost Refutes Himself." Evidently Childs had re-thought his position and drafted a recantation of this passage but died before publishing it. His estate executors found it among his papers and released it to the public. The site vanished ages ago and I cannot locate the article anywhere now. But here I share another analysis that makes arguments similar to those of the older and wiser Childs against anarchism.

Post 1

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 12:41pm

Jim,

In the future, if you want to post anarchy propaganda please have the courtesy to do so in the dissent section of this forum.
------------------------------

Mr. Childs did not use the "floating abstraction" concept correctly when he said, "It is my contention that limited government is a floating abstraction which has never been concretized by anyone..." The current land speed record is slightly less than 345 mph. That does NOT mean that discussing a future record of 400 mph is a floating abstraction because it has not yet been done.
-----

When he says, "...a limited government must either initiate force or cease being a government..." he fails to allow for the delegation of self-defense. After all, a minarchist would simply say, "A minarchy government will exercise appropriate force in response to those who initiate force and remain a moral and legitimate government." According to Childs' strange reasoning no one, nor any private "defense agency" could act morally.
-----

Mr. Childs provides a scenario where someone hires a private agency to recover things stolen from him. And says that the government either allows this to happen and no longer has a monopoly or it initiates force to stop this agency in which case the government is initiating force.

We already have some of what he mentions with bail bondsmen, people that make a living doing repossessions, and private security firms. Under a monopoly of objective law based upon individual rights there is nothing wrong with this approach and it would be in evidence far more than it currently is. The only time an individual would be at risk from the government would be if they used force that was initiatory instead of in self-defense (individually or as an agency).

Under objective law based upon individual rights the government could not interfere with any moral use of force as self-defense.

But what anarchy gives us is totally different because each agency and each customer of each agency can have different ideas as to what force they should be able to apply and there will be no common standard, no objective measure to decide the conflicts. The most brutal and/or efficient at initiating force will win. The anarchist might say that reason and free market principles would not permit that - but reason is often absent in the makeup of those who like to get their way with force.

And the argument that the free market will decide, that voluntarism in a competitive environment will make the best selection - that is also false. It blatantly ignores the fact that under anarchy the market is NOT free of initiated force, that without the monopoly of objective laws based upon individual rights there can be no freedom from initiatory force. There is no tooth fairy that magically eliminates bad "defense agencies" or bad people. There is no common standard to measure activities by. Under anarchy what will win the "competition" will be the most effective or brutal use of force.
------------------

It is "free market anarchism" that is the floating abstraction. It can never be concretized since it harbors a fatal contradiction of terms. "Free" means a significant absence of initiated force, fraud and theft. That will not happen without the observance of a set of laws that are uniform across a given jurisdiction and based upon individual rights. But anarchism is by definition the absence of such a monopoly of laws. All claims that competition in a market where there is no government can produce or sustain justice as a result of market actions ignores that fatal flaw - that failure to admit that the kind of competition that exists under capitalism, that produces values, that benefits all men, is a competition in an environment where the initiation of force is effectively prohibited - which anarchy fails to do.

Post 2

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 1:17pm

Luke, thanks for the link. Sanction!

I agreed with most of the article, except toward the very end, where what appears to me to be some hand-waving to obscure faulty reasoning occurs. First of all he concludes that a limited government has the right and the duty to monitor any competing private defense agencies, and intercede if those agencies engage in coercion -- but does not concede that those competing private defense agencies also have the right to monitor the limited government for any aggressions against their subscribers. But, he is conceding that free market anarchism is in fact possible, with the "government" becoming a de facto private defense agency itself, albeit one that has chosen to take on the function (and expense!) of monitoring the actions of private defense agencies in their actions among themselves and their clients.

Second, he implicitly asserts that such a government has the right to interfere with a group of people who have all voluntarily agreed to abide by a principle of coercion. For example, a bunch of socialists might all voluntarily agree to, and sign explicit contracts binding them to, a socialist cooperative where a government council expropriates most of the income of the group members via taxation, and redistributes the proceeds to members of the group they find worthy. They might agree to other, greater, coercions, voluntarily and explicitly agreed to. Under free market anarchism, this would be allowed, so long as these actions were confined to members of this voluntary group, and not to outsiders, and so long as members of this voluntary group were free to leave this society and repudiate its principles at will.

But, the government envisioned in the article would assert that this voluntary organization could not be allowed to exist, and assert the right break it up, thus initiating force against a group of people who were operating under an explicit social contract that violated no right of those not consenting to that contract. This is the premise of the "monopoly of law" in the following:

"The only monopoly he is interested in protecting is the monopoly of law: one law for everyone, no matter which police and courts he deals with, everywhere within the government's jurisdiction. Minarchists have been stressing that since John Hospers, who stated as far back as 1971:

I agree that most police forces aren't very efficient now, and that there's nothing like competition to put and keep hired service groups on their toes. But the point on which I insist is that there has to be a rule of law -- one law for the entire land -- and not a decentralized system of defense agencies, each with its own law. (6)"

In other words, he is arguing for coercion and the initiation of force.

Further, he is confusing adherence to a principle with adherence to a code of law. These are not the same thing. The principle of the non-initiation of force (NIOF) is something that a libertarian anarchist private defense agency would insist on having apply to all its customers, including interactions with them by non-customers. However, the details of how that principle might be codified into law would almost certainly differ among such competing private defense agencies, with differences of opinion about how to apply that principle for abortion, pollution, etc. differing from code of law to code of law.

And yet, so long as those differences were applied only among subscribers to a given private defense agency, no initiation of force would apply. The author of the article cited, however, would claim that the "government" could come to its own conclusions about what non-initiation of force means, codify it into laws which it asserts, correctly or not, adheres to those principles, and then use force to apply that asserted monopoly of law among interactions of people who have declined to subscribe to that government's rule, and may have in fact explictly denounced that government's interpretation of the NIOF principle and its codification into law. That would be an initiation of force by the government.

The article goes on to engage in some more reasoning I consider faulty:

"However, if it is true that this picture of minarchy is fully compatible with the anarcho-libertarian's ideal,"

as I have noted above, this is not the case

"then a new possibility emerges. For that means, as Moshe Kroy put it in a 1977 article, that Childs's argument

proves something totally different from what Childs intends it to prove. It proves that once you achieve a truly limited government ... anarcho-capitalism would emerge naturally. Thus, you don't have to try to achieve anarcho-capitalism. If you achieve, politically, a truly limited government, the market forces will do all the rest. (7)"

Well, no. As I have illustrated above, what may actually happen is what happened in the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation -- the originally limited government went on to overthrow the Articles, institute the greater statism of the Constitution, and then, over time, reinterpret the Constitution to mean things that contradict the plain text or mean the exact opposite. That is, by asserting a monopoly of law (rather than a monopoly of principle), and asserting an aggressive right to interfere in the peaceful contractual arrangements of people not its subscribers, the government could devolve into tyranny and use an initiation of force to suppress its legitimate competitors.

If political force is used to achieve a limited goverment, that government may continue using political initiation of force to end market competition from its competitors. Anarcho-capitalism does not necessarily follow, and is in fact unlikely to follow unless the limited government is overthrown once it starts trying to expand and intrude.

"Add to that the fact that anarcho-capitalism would never emerge, by peaceful operation of market forces, under any other type of government -- since any such would not be concerned with avoiding all aggression"

Again, not a true statement. There are several ways anarcho-capitalism could emerge, most of them bitterly opposed by any government, limited or otherwise, since those who claim a monopoly using force are likely to be reluctant to give up that monopoly peacefully. A revolution is one possibility, a gradual whittling away of a government's powers until it becomes a minarchy and then anarchistic is another possibility, a secession of a portion of the territory of an existing government is yet another.

leading to this unjustified assertion:

"-- and Kroy's conclusion is inescapable:

Thus, the only politically legitimate purpose for an anarcho-capitalist, the only purpose he can try to achieve by political action, is a limited government. (7)"

Well, no. An anarchist's goal would be a free market of competing firms operating under the NIOF principle, with a minarchy being closer to that than the current far from limited governments ruling virtually the entire globe.

In other words, a government claiming to be limited, and claiming a monopoly of law (rather than a monopoly of the NIOF principle for its own subscribers) over a geographic area, and claiming the right to apply that law to interactions among people who have explicitly withdrawn their consent to being ruled by that allegedly limited government and who have made other contractual arrangements to protect their rights, or who have decided to directly protect their own rights without resorting to a private defense agency -- such an allegedly "limited" government is almost certain to engage in initiation of force.

Such a "limited" government, rather than naturally leading to anarchism via market forces, would be likely to try to use political and military force to overthrow its competitors.

(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 3/12, 1:26pm)

Post 3

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 1:21pm

Steve: In the future, if you want to post anarchy propaganda please have the courtesy to do so in the dissent section of this forum.

I respectfully disagree that this is propaganda. I posted a quote from an article written by someone who, at least at the time they wrote it, thought that Ayn Rand was wrong about something, and was arguing that a different viewpoint was more consistent with the body of Rand's Objectivist writing.

You are, however, free to dissent with my not putting this in dissent. You are free to take this matter up with the owners of the website.

Post 4

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 2:47pm

I agree with Steve. Jim out of courtesy to this forum you should post anything that promotes anarchy in dissent. Otherwise it gives the appearance to those unfamiliar with RoR that RoR, or Objectivism, sanctions anarchy. I don't care if you want to promote anarchy, but some decorum here would be preferred.

(Edited by John Armaos on 3/12, 2:48pm)

Post 5

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 4:02pm

I've got to break with you two on this, John and Steve.

I say let Jim post tons of quotes, even if they are quotes judged to "promote" anarchy. Let him lose the argument on a free and fair field, with no favors -- in the marketplace of ideas.

I often post quotes that are anti-Objectivist as well (example #1, example #2, example #3), trusting that discussion that follows will "do justice" to them. If we start regulating Jim, eventually we'll be out with pitchforks talking about beginning to regulate me (and others, too). We'll root out so much "evil" that the place'll be empty -- like the audience seats at an NPR studio during a Rachel Maddow show.

Ed

p.s. But if Jim were an RoR board member, half-intellectually mocking an Objectivist-friendly publication endorsed by an intellectual heir to Ayn Rand, then I'd ask him -- even though I don't have the power to force him -- then I'd ask him to resign from his position as a board member, out of a sense of integrity (though I wouldn't have a problem with him posting here after that).

:-)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/12, 4:32pm)

Post 6

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 4:08pm

Jim,

Here is the principle that should be applied. If during the course of a discussion, some one ends up arguing in favor of anarchy... well, that just happens when that is what someone believes in. If the discussion focuses on that for more than a few posts, it is a discussion that should be taken to the dissent area. But it is completely different to open a thread that is devoted to presenting anarchy over minarchy. It is also in somewhat poor taste to quote someone when he later retracted his words, but I take it that you were not aware of that.

The site belongs to Joe and accordingly he makes the rules and has the last word on this. I can only ask that you respect those here. For example, respect for Joe might include taking notice of his position on anarchy.

I know that I would not go to a private site promoting anarchy and refuse to use their dissent section - it is a matter of respect.

Post 7

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 4:38pm

I agree with Ed on this. People post stupid quotes from Obama (et al) all the time, and its obvious bait for ridicule. Jim can do the same, even if his motives aren't to attract ridicule, they can certainly initiate discussion.

Jim may not be at all familiar with what constitutes dissent or not. Unless you can prove his motives to be a dubious attempt to undermine the integrity of this site, I'd suggest simply taking the bait, and not the man.

Post 8

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 4:42pm

Child's argument never seems to go away. As I wrote on January 14, 2006:

The government does not have to initiate force to keep out competition from a rival legal system, for if the government's laws are based on individual rights, an alternative legal system would necessarily be in violation of those rights and therefore tantamount to an outlaw gang that should be prohibited from operating. By prohibiting its operation, the government would not be initiating force; it would be employing retaliatory or defensive force.

Nor does anarchism constitute a coherent political system. What, according to anarchists, would involve a violation of their theory? The existence of a government? I don't think so, for an anarchist defense agency would have a right to do exactly what an Objectivist government does, if it happened to acquire the same degree of power and could get away with exercising it. There is nothing in libertarianism that would forbid an anarchist defense agency from attempting to monopolize the administration of justice, if doing so were at all feasible. Why should such an agency allow a competing government to operate if the latter has a legal system at odds with its own? Clearly, it should not. On the contrary, it should make every effort to prohibit its operation.

After all, the purpose of a defense agency is to defend its clients against a violation of their rights. If another agency had laws whose enforcement the first agency viewed as violating people's rights, then why should the first agency permit it to operate? Of course, it should not. But by prohibiting its operation, the first agency would be attempting to "monopolize" the enforcement of justice; it would be acting like the very government to which anarchists say they are opposed.

Alternatively, for a government to "permit" an anarchist society to exist, the government would have to abstain from enforcing its own laws against a competing government that was committed to enforcing a different set of laws. But to do that would be to abdicate its function as an agency that is devoted to the defense of people's rights. And if it should not defend its own laws against other agencies - against any scofflaw agency that would violate them - then why should an anarchist defense agency do so? It too should abstain from enforcing its own laws, in which case, what you would have is a society in which no legal agency should enforce its own laws. But then why have a defense, or law-enforcement, agency in the first place?

Nor is it clear how one could ever get from here to the kind of society that anarchists envision, for to do so, the government would have to allow other agencies with a different set of laws the right to compete with it, which means that it would have to abstain from enforcing its own laws. It is naive to think that defense agencies with conflicting laws would invariably compromise on their differences in order to avoid a violent conflict. If violence were the bete noir of a law-enforcement agency, the agency would never attempt to enforce its own laws to begin with, because to do so, it would have to engage in violence.

Besides, if we assume that these competing agencies would be willing to compromise on their differences, as anarchists typically claim they would, then to that extent the agencies would be in agreement on a uniform set of laws, and insofar as they were willing to enforce those laws against dissenters, would be acting as a de facto government.

Finally, insofar as anarchism sanctions the enforcement of competing and therefore mutually incompatible views of justice, it necessarily sanctions the initiation of force, because if two legal systems are in competition with each other, then at least one of them must be unjust and therefore coercive. To require that both of them be allowed to operate within a civilized society is to sanction a violation of rights and to betray the very principle of liberty on which libertarianism depends.

As far as I can see, anarchism is a hopelessly muddled, self-contradictory theory that cannot withstand critical examination. Yet, surprisingly, it continues to garner support among certain "libertarians." I put the term "libertarians" in quotes, because I do not regard anarchists as bona fide libertarians, since they don't actually believe in liberty. They may claim they do, but the theory they advocate is incompatible with it.

Post 9

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 5:07pm

Jim,

(a) It can use force or the threat of it against the new institution, in order to keep its monopoly status in the given territory, thus initiating the use of threat of physical force against one who has not himself initiated force. Obviously, then, if it should choose this alternative, it would have initiated force. Q.E.D.

If it's possible to objectively know what both is and isn't an initiation of force (as Child's example assumes), so that we, on the one hand can, with a straight-face, say that the "new institution" has not, itself, initiated force, and that, on the other hand, that the intervening government reaction is an initiation of force -- if this kind of a thing is knowable in an objective sense -- then an argument for (limited) government has been made.

If all reasonable men can, in principle, always know the answer with regard to an initiation of force (because it is objective knowledge), then any rivalrous, competing, private defense agency (any RCPDA) that deviates one iota from that knowable thing ought to be shut down as an unjust institution which violates individual rights.

They should not be allowed to compete freely in an open market.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/12, 5:09pm)

Post 10

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 5:22pm

Let me take Child's criticism point by point. He writes:

"Suppose that I were distraught with the service of a government in an Objectivist society. Suppose that I judged, being as rational as I possibly could, that I could secure the protection of my contracts and the retrieval of stolen goods at a cheaper price and with more efficiency. Suppose I either decide to set up an institution to attain these ends, or patronize one which a friend or a business colleague has established. Now, if he succeeds in setting up the agency, which provides all the services of the Objectivist government, and restricts his more efficient activities to the use of retaliation against aggressors, there are only two alternatives as far as the "government" is concerned: (a) It can use force or the threat of it against the new institution, in order to keep its monopoly status in the given territory, thus initiating the use of threat of physical force against one who has not himself initiated force. Obviously, then, if it should choose this alternative, it would have initiated force.

Not true. A defense agency must ensure that retaliatory force does not involve a violation of people's rights -- that such retaliation does not cross the line into police misconduct or brutality -- that it does not involve the initiation of force. It must therefore monitor and regulate any alleged use of retaliatory force and in so doing, cannot permit the use of retaliatory force by any individual who is not aware of and trained in the agency's enforcement protocol. It cannot permit non-agency personnel from retaliating against a suspect by, for example, forming a lynch mob and hanging him from the nearest tree.

Or: (b) It can refrain from initiating force, and allow the new institution to carry on its activities without interference. If it did this, then the Objectivist "government" would become a truly marketplace institution, and not a "government" at all. There would be competing agencies of protection, defense and retaliation – in short, free market anarchism."

What this says in so many words is that the government would have to refrain from using force against a lynch mob, on the grounds that the lynch mob might very well be dispensing justice by hanging a man who is guilty of murder. What this implies is that the government would have to allow the use of force by anyone and everyone, lest it prejudge which use of force is aggressive and which is defensive. But, of course, no defense agency could operate this way, if its goal is to protect people from the initiation of force. It must necessarily stop a lynch mob in order to determine by an impartial examination of the evidence whether or not the suspect is guilty and if so, whether or not he deserves the death penalty. In other words, the defense agency must regulate the use of retaliatory force. However, in doing so, it will necessarily be asserting a monopoly on the use of physical force and the administration of justice and thereby declaring itself a government.

Post 11

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 5:30pm

"As far as I can see, anarchism is a hopelessly muddled, self-contradictory theory that cannot withstand critical examination. Yet, surprisingly, it continues to garner support among certain "libertarians." I put the term "libertarians" in quotes, because I do not regard anarchists as bona fide libertarians, since they don't actually believe in liberty. They may claim they do, but the theory they advocate is incompatible with it."

William Dwyer
------------------

"The first reason given to support anarchism is the efficiency of free markets. By allowing competition between companies, they have to compete with one another through better value for your dollar. Why not allow governments to do the same thing? Why not allow competition, and then the world will get better and better?"

"This is what Rand called the fallacy of the stolen concept. That means that the concept is used while denying or ignoring it's necessary foundation. In this case, a free-market doesn't automatically, magically provide good results. It's because the use of force is outlawed between the companies, and the customers are allowed to not deal with any of them, that they have to offer the customer values for trade, and they have to offer the most. If governments themselves compete, that assumption of freedom, and the inability to use force, is not valid. The governments are dealing with force. Some anarchists still try to claim that "market forces" will make it all work out, but it all rests on this false foundation."

and this... "My personal belief is that the anarchists crave a system where they are free from taxation or government intervention, and fantasize about a system where you can always just walk away from the existing government. They've arrived at their conclusions based on their desires, and not based on logic and reasoning."

Joe Rowlands in Objectivism 101 What about Anarchy?

(And anyone who finds anarchy attractive should take a look at Joe's article on The Epistemological Need for Government
-------------------------------------

"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government."

And...

"A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

"Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean."

"One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms 'competition' and 'government.' Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there."

Ayn Rand, “The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 112

Post 12

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 6:02pm

Hi Ed and Teresa, I'm not saying Jim should be relegated to the dissent forum. Just that if he wishes to promote something adversarial to Objectivism then it ought to be in dissent. I also don't mean to say that no one should be able to post quotes hostile to Objectivism if the purpose is to criticize it. But I don't think that's what Jim is doing here with this quote and I see it as an active promotion of anarchy.

I can also let it go if this is the first time an RoR participant does this and isn't aware of this sub-forum. But this is a regular thing with Jim.

Again, I don't have any issue with him promoting anarchism, just that there is a specific sub-forum made just for these kinds of things.

Post 13

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 9:09pm

When I said this kind post should be in Dissent, that was all that was meant, NOT that Jim be restricted to Dissent. I agree completely with John's post - he put it quite well.

Post 14

Sunday, March 13, 2011 - 8:57am

When Roy Childes met Ayn Rand along with a throng of fans, like many others, he offered a book for her signature. Most people who did that brought Atlas Shrugged, of course. Some brought The Fountainhead. Childes asked Rand to sign Introduction to the Objectivist Epistemology, which Rand commented on.

This is an old discussion we have had here and elsewhere since 1971 or '72, when the first "anarcho-capitalist" publications were offered to Objectivists by Objectivists.

Several questions are being addressed at once. Conversations become lengthy and entangled. Each of us thinks they know a lot and that they know best. Having taken some position, giving it up would be an admission of error, always difficult.

Whether and to what extent private services in defense and adjudication are consistent with Objectivism is not clear. We here all agree that you have a right to defend yourself. We here all agree that you have a right to hire someone else to do that. We here all must know from life experience that many of our contracts for homes, credit, automobiles, healthcare and more, all specify private adjudication and no one has complained about it. So, this must be consonant with Objectivism as well, at least for us here.

According to Ayn Rand, who knew something of Objectivism, if you think your neighbor has stolen your wallet, you have no right to pursue him or the wallet yourself. That is what governments are for. Whether that is "valid Objectivism" or "merely Ayn Randism" is another question. Some here might support the theory that common law allows citizen arrest. It is a constrained right, not unlimited, and comes with attendant responsibilities and risks, but I think that most conservatives, including Objectivists, would say that you do have a right to bring the suspect to court yourself.

Ayn Rand said that ancient Rome was an example of a society with objective law. The laws were written down. Everyone knew what they were. They were not subject to whim. Her fear was the subjective, the whim of the whiphand. She offered anti-trust laws as the paradigm of that in our society. I think that most here would agree that merely writing down the laws and following them is not "Objective law." Bad laws that violates rights cannot be "objective" no matter how clearly they are stated.

That said, I believe that government is just one way to instantiate law. The Uniform Commercial Code was invented by a self-appointed committee of jurists. Governments can adopt it or not and contracts can specify it or not. In fact, businesses routinely shop for laws, which is why some companies choose to be Delaware corporations, no matter where they actually do business. It is why ships fly the flags of Liberia and Panama, no matter where their owners live. They choose the best product according to their expection of law. Law comes first. We have an idea of what it is and what we want from it. We buy it every day. Most of us have a revolving charge account with Govco against our taxes. Some people - corporations, especially, but John Fredriksen among others - shop more carefully.

The way I see it, there is a lot to discuss. We all know a lot. We might all be right -- but not in the same context at the same time. Defining those contexts and times might generate more light and less heat.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/13, 9:06am)

Post 15

Sunday, March 13, 2011 - 11:23am

Harry Binswanger gives an argument against the libertarian anarchism idea of competing governments in his 2009 talk entitled "The Objective vs. the Intrinsic and the Subjective".

He argues that the ability of another person to use force against you is an objective violation of your rights because he's a threat to you. It's an objective threat, not an intrinsic threat, because he may be telling the truth, that he'll only use force in retaliation; but you don't know that. You're not a mind reader. If there's no overarching law you have no way of knowing what he will consider to be retaliation and for what reasons he will use force against you.

Likewise, "in the government's context of knowledge, any private, unsupervised competing wielder of force is an objective threat" and thereby violates the rights of the citizens.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 16

Sunday, March 13, 2011 - 3:35pm

But this is a regular thing with Jim.

Yeah, I know it is. BUT, I think Jim is more sympathetic to Objectivism than he is antagonistic. Don't you, John?

Obviously, the quote is getting the appropriate attention, which is exactly what should happen.

I only question the assumption that Jim is deliberately trying to promote ideas which he knows to be antithetical to Objectivism. I'm not certain he's doing that.

Post 17

Sunday, March 13, 2011 - 3:47pm

The problem is not with Jim's intentions. He believes that Objectivism and anarchy are compatible. They aren't. He is, as he frequently does, advocating for anarchy - with good intentions.

This is no different than someone making a claim that devote Catholicism is compatible with Objectivism and saying that Rand was just wrong on this one little business of faith. In this case they would periodically advocate, in a well intentioned fashion, for Catholicism. And I believe that those instances should be done in Dissent.

Good intentions aren't a magical material capable of healing broken logic, anchoring floating abstractions, or resolving contradictions.

Jim should NOT be put in dissent, but threads like this should be - we can chew on in there every bit as well. But out here it gives the impression that anarchy is a viable position for an Objectivist - it isn't.

Post 18

Sunday, March 13, 2011 - 4:15pm

He believes that Objectivism and anarchy are compatible.

That's my point. He's in error, but doesn't know it. He really believes they're compatible. Jim may even be evading his own error, but that's not our problem. Its his problem.

Post 19

Sunday, March 13, 2011 - 5:06pm