RoR: Forum

@ Teresa: You're ignoring counter arguments and hanging on to a bad idea like a fundamentalist. Its dumb. Why do you do that?

Teresa,

Can you put yourself in my shoes for a moment and see that, from my perspective, arguing for a minarchist government that doesn't force people to sacrifice for others is not possible? That, based on that perspective, the idea of an Objectivist minarchy is the fundamentalist and dumb idea?

I'm listening to the counter arguments. It's just that the counterarguments all, as far as I can discern, contain the initiation of force and making people sacrifice for others.

If you insist on a monopoly government, what if it gets sloppy and lazy, like any monopoly not subject to the discipline of competition will almost invariably do? What if they charge high prices, or give slip-shod service, or dispense injustice? Are you going to deny people the right to take their business elsewhere? Isn't that demanding that those people make a sacrifice, a sacrifice that is anathema to Objectivists?

That is, a monopoly minarchist government could in fact be dispensing perfectly Objective law, but if someone else can do the same thing for cheaper or with better service, how is denying people the right to exit and switch to the more efficient provider of protective services not demanding a sacrifice?

That's the gist of my objection -- as I see it, such a monopoly government of necessity will demand that Objectivists sacrifice higher values for lesser ones. That is what makes no sense to me. Does insisting on not sacrificing really seem "dumb" and "fundamentalist" to you?

Show me how to set up a minarchist Objectivist government that doesn't demand such a sacrifice, and you will win me over.

Post 41

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 9:34pm

Jim,

Thurston Howell proposes that a third party will have a monopoly on settling all disputes, and that person's judgment will be final -- and ... they should sacrifice and live for others instead of themselves some of the time, and so they should all kick in a supply of food and whatnot to compensate this person who will form a monopoly government. Thurston Howell points out that since he already has a gun, and no one else does, he is the logical candidate to have that absolute monopoly power.

You are using a subjectivist approach to the administration of government, but that's what a Constitution is for (to remove the need of trust or confidence from the equation):

In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

--http://rebirthofreason.com/inc/Galleries/Quotes/201_t.shtml

If you cannot get yourself out from under a Primacy of Consciousness view -- in this case: rule by men, not rule by law -- then we will never reach any agreements on this matter, Jim.

1) What if the aggressor who is to be judged is Thurston Howell?

Then, if he is uncooperative, the others work together and rush him, taking his own gun and using it against him (as any virtuous person would do, if put into that situation). Liberty is not free.

2) What if someone .. thinks that a monopoly of ANYTHING is a bad idea, much less a monopoly of force ...

That's what a Constitution is for. Retaining the right to "alter or abolish" a government means that the "monopoly of force" that the current administrators of a government "enjoy" is not a true finality. Instead, there are written and transparent rules and methods, the people can tell if the administrators of government are doing their job just like a boss can tell if you do your job. If you get enough bad "performance reviews" (a "long train of abuses"), then you get fired from your job.

What if one or more of those people decline to participate in this government the rest of you are so eager to entrust to Thurston Howell and his gun? Are you all, as good Objectivists, going to force this person or these people to sacrifice and contribute anyway?

First of all, weapons would be made by all the people ("a well regulated Militia").

Maybe Skipper will turn the mast of the Minnow into a great big lance. Maybe Gilligan will lace the rim of his hat with super sharp rocks or some poison spurs from a stinger fish -- so that he could use it as a throwing weapon like Oddjob from the James Bond film, Goldfinger. Maybe Ginger and Mary Ann can convince some of the indigenous people to give them blow-dart guns with special sleeping poison (a neurotoxin from indigenous plants). Maybe the Professor can make explosives from bat dung. Maybe Thurston Howell can work with the Professor to make a shot-gun that shoots coins and precious metals, instead of lead, and Mrs. Howell can help by digging for gold.

:-)

This first point is the same as above -- that a monopoly isn't a finality. Secondly, we would only "force" folks to contribute (the notion of "sacrifice" was dealt with above) -- we would only "force" them to contribute if they made the personal decision to remain inside of "our" geographical area. They are free to leave anytime. In that respect, they are given the ultimate choice regarding which way forward they would like to personally choose.

What they can't choose -- because it is an evasion of reality -- is to choose not to make a choice on the matter.

3) And what if everyone else but this Professor guy initially decide to go along with this monopoly governance, but then the rates start seeming too high or the service seems shoddy or the person with the gun seems to be letting the power go to their head ...

That's (again) what a Constitution is for. There has never been a perfect constitution, but it is entirely possible to write one addressing all of these concerns that you bring up. In fact, using the U.S. Constitution -- and two centuries of experience with it -- as a model to build on, puts us in an excellent position to achieve a truly moral minarchy.

... perhaps we should think about this and let Ed * cough cough * I mean Gilligan come back to us tomorrow and see if he can come up with some reasons why the objections I just raised aren't really a problem."

See above.

:-)

Ed

Post 42

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 9:44pm

Luke, interesting questions. Sanction! Here's my POV:

First, I assume that Jim and any others would join one of these competing gov't entities which matched their ideals most closely.

Yes, if the price and service were right.

Given this, what would one do when their preferred company became the market leader and eventually forced other companies out of business?

It is unlikely that, absent initiations of force, any company would drive all their competitors out of business, even temporarily. And it would be impossible for such a company to permanently maintain a monopoly of a marketplace unless, again, it initiated force. This is basic economics. Name a single company that, without any government coercion, simply by being more efficient than anyone else, created a monopoly in a market and maintained it over long stretches of time. There isn't a SINGLE example of that, ever. Try it. Name even one.

I would stick with that provider as long as they delivered better value than any other competitor. As soon as someone else came up with a significantly better mousetrap, I'd switch coverage.

I imagine most of the competing entities will look somewhat alike, assuming rational law is most successful. So what would be the argument against a monopolistic entity which grew from the market?

No arguments against that, so long as they did not use force or coercion to prevent fresh competitors from springing up when they slipped up and grew arrogant or lazy.

Would one insist that competition exist even if it couldn't compete? Would there be antitrust lawsuits against this rationally based gov't which some huge percentage of the population chose to let govern them?

No such statists lawsuits would be filed by any strict Objectivists.

Think of it this way. PC personal computers have a huge chunk of the market, over 90% last I checked. Yet, recently my wife and I bought FOUR Apple computers because the PCs we bought previously were crap. I'm typing this on a new iMac. Do I care that 90%+ of the computers being sold are PCs, so long as I get to have this wonderful, superior product (wonderful and superior according to those criteria I value of course)? Of course not. Because my choice of computers is not subject to a government monopoly, I get to pick what suits me, even though I'm in a distinct minority in my preferences. My choice of computers is not subject to a majority vote, I get to cast the single, deciding vote in the marketplace and get exactly what I want, and all the PC lovers get to do the same. Everyone gets what they want because we get to choose.

Post 43

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 10:04pm

Ed, interesting remarks. I see several seemingly unobjectivist initiations of force and compelled sacrifices buried in there. I may have missed a few in my haste, but these seem to me to be pretty compelling arguments against your minarchist government:

Then, if he is uncooperative, the others work together and rush him, taking his own gun and using it against him (as any virtuous person would do, if put into that situation). Liberty is not free.

So, the idea is to have a monopoly over a geographic area, but not a monopoly over time?

So, you're OK with overthrowing the minarchist Objectivist government any time it quits being just -- or offers poor service -- or charges too high a price? Would you be OK with an individual, if well armed enough, overthrowing that government just within the confines of their own house, and leaving the rest of the government intact because they don't have to force -- yet -- to overthrow it? How about if 2 -- or 10 -- or 100 such people combined to do the above in a subset of the geographic area? Still OK with that? If not, why not? If so, how is that any different from an anarchist competitive market situation, except with guns to enforce one's rights in that market?

Wouldn't it be a lot less bloody, and create more prosperity in the long run, to allow people to set up market mechanisms to drive away such government using economic competition instead of bloodshed?

Secondly, we would only "force" folks to contribute (the notion of "sacrifice" was dealt with above) -- we would only "force" them to contribute if they made the personal decision to remain inside of "our" geographical area. They are free to leave anytime. In that respect, they are given the ultimate choice regarding which way forward they would like to personally choose.

So, an allegedly Objectivist government that has sworn to not initiate force and not force people to sacrifice would be originally set up by using the initiation of force to drive peaceful people who have not harmed anyone off their private property and steal their private property and give it to one or more individuals comprising the government?

How exactly is that not causing them to make a sacrifice for your sake?

Post 44

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 10:29pm

Jim,

Name a single company that, without any government coercion, simply by being more efficient than anyone else, created a monopoly in a market and maintained it over long stretches of time. There isn't a SINGLE example of that, ever. Try it. Name even one.

Alcoa (1).

Ed

Reference:
(1) See the final third of the web-page at:
http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/12/12/interrupting-the-election-coverage-alan-greenspan-on-antitrust-circa-1961/

Post 45

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 11:19pm

Jim,

So, you're OK with overthrowing the minarchist Objectivist government any time it quits being just -- or offers poor service -- or charges too high a price?

Pretty much. A proper constitution would provide some kind of objectivity (a "way forward") for this kind of a thing, instead of leaving it up to the personal "say-so" of random individuals internally ruled by their subjective "feelings" (a primacy of consciousness view). Terrible things, even bloodshed, would follow from adopting this latter kind of politics:

The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.”

--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivity.html

Anyone who resorts to the formula: “It’s so, because I say so,” will have to reach for a gun, sooner or later.

--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mysticism.html

Would you be OK with an individual, if well armed enough, overthrowing that government just within the confines of their own house, and leaving the rest of the government intact because they don't have to force -- yet -- to overthrow it?

No, because that would be leaving it up to the personal "say-so" of random individuals internally ruled by their subjective "feelings" (a primacy of consciousness view). You can't get yourself out by merely getting a gun and burning crosses on your front lawn -- you can only get yourself out by getting a syllogism (which gets everyone out, simultaneously). Either that or just leave the jurisdiction. What good government does is subject might to right, it lifts syllogisms up over guns or whims.

Wouldn't it be a lot less bloody, and create more prosperity in the long run, to allow people to set up market mechanisms ...

I've already busted this false dichotomy above. I don't need to answer this (in a rational debate). Anyway, if you still want to know my answer (even though it can't be rationally used against me), then my answer is "no."

So, an allegedly Objectivist government that has sworn to not initiate force and not force people to sacrifice would be originally set up by using the initiation of force to drive peaceful people who have not harmed anyone off their private property and steal their private property and give it to one or more individuals comprising the government?

There were only 2 ways forward on Gilligan's Island, Jim.

I can say that I'm sorry about that, but that is the reality of initially-free men living on Earth: one of 2 ways forward. But, if you want to change your position up somewhat and become "not-free," then there is a third way out of the initial problem -- the problem of either getting into the position wherein justice can always be achieved, or renouncing justice outright (in favor of whims and/or guns):

1) dictatorship (appeal to the gun)
2) cut-throat, Machiavellian "individualism" (appeal to the whim; the popular notion of the bloody "anarchy" of gang warfare; visible even today, in primitive warring tribes)
3) Objectivist Minarchy (government based on the rule of reason, not men)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/14, 11:27pm)

Post 46

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 6:28am

Jim, I don't imagine a large country sized monopoly with a competing gov't system. I would assume that it would become cost prohibitive for a company to continue service in a region with less than a certain market share. So I think you a best case would be several regional monopolies, maybe states, maybe city states. The problem I think you run into is the power you have given over to these gov't agencies and the possible reactions to them once they decide to initiate force, work against your rights.

Post 47

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 6:29am

Thanks, Luke (Setzer).

I didn't know how much of a good idea it was -- to get this thing written down, at least for 3rd-party viewers (the debate audience) -- until you told me.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/15, 6:40am)

Post 48

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 6:33am

Teresa said:

John, just so you know -

But again, not sure why the 'ban' thing came up. I never used that word or suggested anyone gets banned.

I never mentioned it, either.

And I never mentioned it, either.

Ed

Post 49

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 6:39am

Jim,

[You said to Teresa]:

Show me how to set up a minarchist Objectivist government that doesn't demand such a sacrifice, and you will win me over.

See 'Gilligan's Island example' in post 26 of this thread.

Ed

Post 50

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 9:11am

The early history of America, of establishing a brand new political context based on a constitution of liberty, was that it was a flight from an unacceptable political context.

Two conflicting boundary conditions, relative to today:

1] Then, it was technologically more difficult to flee, but it was at least geopolitically possible to flee. Possibility trumped difficulty.

2\ Today, it is technologically easier to flee, but geopolitically less possible. There is no dirt simple New World. Mankind has all but consumed geopolitical gradient on the face of the earth. There is still www.privateisland.com, for anecdotal escapes, but little opportunity to establish a new nation on earth.

This establishes an increased reliance on political solutions within an expensively established and maintained political context..

This is also a mild criticism of Rand's portrayal of Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged. There was a claim in the book that the land in Colorado had been 'paid for' by Midas Mulligan. That is only true inside of an expensively established political context. In fact -- not the fantasy of Atlas Shrugged -- that political context was not paid for by a banker in Gold, nor by a sharp shooting pirate and six of his closest pirate friends. That political context was in fact paid for by a nation half our present size, that put 16 million of its people into uniform, that borrowed the equivalent of $3T in today's dollars as war bonds, betting on an uncertain future, and that also unleashed, in a do-or-die, had to do it necessity, the soft-fascism of our own Arsenal of Democracy, the expedient cozy crony deals between American heavy industry and the war needs of a nation in an existential battle with global totalitarian alternatives.

Had America not made that collective effort and prevailed in WWII, then Hitler's Third Reich was not going to honor the claims of deeds to private property by any Midas Mulligans. Those that rule by force would have brushed aside all such claims.

When benefiting from an expensively established and maintained political context, one based on and fettered by ethical principles and a constitution of liberty, then there is an ethical obligation to pay for what one benefits from, even as it is a decidedly collective effort. As long as it is a collective effort operating under constitutional constraints, and not unlimited, then it is ethically supportable.

This is not the same as saying that we must agree with or accept or support every collective action of the political context we find ourselves benefiting from. It is the result of collective action, no mistaking that, and it is unlikely that everyone agrees with every collective action taken. The best we can hope for is action under a sensible set of constitutional constraints(as opposed to, the megapolitical actions of an out of control mob over-running a state legislature in Wisconsin and making the most mob noise...)

When we find ourselves in disagreement with the way the collective political wind is blowing, we have only so many ethical choices:

1] Work politically to change the direction of the wind.

2] Concede the issue and get on with the rest of our lives.

Both of the above, while continuing to support the expensively established and maintained political context we yet benefit from.

3] Remove ourselves from the political context. Difficult but not impossible. www.privateisland.com Remove our support.

All of the above are political actions. There are also megapolitical actions:

4] Scofflaw ourselves, and be willing to subject ourselves to and bear the consequences of those scofflaw actions, because the local political context will and can defend itself, short of complete overthrow.

5] If none of the above is possible, and if we regard the collective actions as being tyrannical, then we have the choice? obligation? to choose megapolitical action. Revolution, complete overthrow. But, such action is 'all in.' It must be 'complete overthrow', as in, expensively establish and maintain a brand new political context, because half-way measures are like a boulder pushed halfway up the hill. It is win or nothing. There are no half-way revolutions. Otherwise, such actions are just nihilistic acts of desperate protest, violent gesture politics going nowhere.

As in, what was the name of the guy who flew the single plane into the IRS building?

Pointless, but understandable. Where is it possible to flee from growing tribal insanity these days?

Producers produce, consumers consume, and politicians count heads. The latter is where socialism eventually comes from to rot every tribal political context. When there is no place on earth left to flee, it is time to stand and choose well from that list of 5].

Post 51

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 12:16pm

Fred,

Great points. I wish I could have posted this before you posted that, however. My post is about the basics and essentials of anarchy vs. minarchy -- your post already goes beyond that (diminishes apparent value of my post) to include specifics about time and place.

Jim,

I want to coin a new concept called "Perfect Law." It's the "natural" law objectivists refer to, but they don't use my nifty new name-tag for it. I'll start with a metaphor and then tie it into the discussion regarding whether we should have competing law agencies or not.

Metaphor
Imagine that in order to succeed in society on Earth, we needed to discover the answer to "2 + 2." Now, for myriad reasons (some of them irrational) many folks will think they have the answer and they will build political establishments based on their answer. If they fail to think straight, they will err and there may be a lot of bloodshed from that. Other folks may claim that we should let the market decide what the answer to "2 + 2" is (or should be). But even here, there is a possibility of error (even "markets" make mistakes).

But still other folks will claim that there is only one right answer to the equation "2 + 2" -- and they will claim that they can prove it (as long as others are willing to listen). They will claim that to leave it up to the market is counter-productive on two levels (because we already know and can prove the answer; and because the answer is first needed for markets to work). Indeed, if it was as easy as "2 +2 " -- then there may not be many political problems in the world today.

Let's pretend it's as easy as "2 + 2" and we are going to evaluate different answers against each other. Possibilities may include:

1.0
2.0
3.0
3.1415927
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0

If we take any two answers, we should be able to determine, a priori, which one is more right than the other. Let's take 1 and 3. Which one is a better answer to the equation men need to solve in order to live well on Earth? Well, with those 2 possibilities, the best answer is 3 because it can be known/proven that it is closer to 4 (which, itself, can be referred to -- without any contradiction -- as "the Perfect Answer" to the equation).

Take any 2 numbers and you can continue to make these judgments on a finer and finer scale, always correctly picking the one that is closer to being a perfect answer to the equation men need to solve in order to live well on Earth.

Now let's try it with law
Let's try to evaluate different possible laws and see if we can determine, a priori (and without relying on a market), which one is more right than the other. Possibilities may include:

Potential Law #1
It's okay to steal on Thursdays if it's cloudy outside. If caught stealing any other day of the week (or if it's a sunny Thursday), you will go to jail for a year (on average; depending on magnitude of theft).

Potential Law #2
It's not okay to steal things, regardless of the weather or day of the week. If caught stealing, you will go to jail for a year (on average; depending on magnitude of theft).

Can we arrive at the better answer based on objective knowledge of man and of first principles (a priori)? More to the point, can we arrive at the better answer without relying on a market? The answer to both questions is yes and that is one big reason why minarchy is morally superior to anarchy.

Take any 2 laws and you can continue to make these judgments on a finer and finer scale, always correctly picking the one that is closer to being a perfect answer to the equation men need to solve in order to live well on Earth.

Ed

Post 52

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 2:42pm

Ed:

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse the thread with that.

"in order to live well on Earth."

That's a really interesting way to put it. In a sense, we have a single ruling authority/law agency, but with competing political entities wrestling for serial control over that authority, towards totally incompatible visions of 'in order to live well on Earth."

Do we live well in Earth when there is process based justice/equality, or do we live well on Earth when there is outcome based justice/equality? (Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions.") There is not widespread consensus on that in our politics, which is why there is a political struggle. Fully half of us don't recognize 'outcome based justice' as any kind of justice at all(it leads, for example, to the equivalent of Vonnegut's lead weighted ballerinas, as in his short story Harrison Bergeron), and the other half only recognizes outcome based justice as justice. Totally and thoroughly and completely forever irreconcilable.

A political struggle based on two totally incompatible views of Justice.

In a single political context with multiple authorities/law agencies, there would be at least these two incompatible but competing views of justice, of visions of what is required 'in order to live well on Earth.'

Never mind competing authorities, how is that ever reconciled with a single authority? They are fundamentally irreconcilable views of justice, and both sides in this political struggle cling to their view of justice with the same fervor of anyone fighting for their view of justice. Both sides are absolutely convinced to their core that the other sides' view of justice is demonstrably flawed.

With a single authority, it turns into a pendular but political tug of war, serially swinging now closer, now farther, from either goal of justice.

With multiple authorities, it would just be constant ... war. Our single authority political solution to that is endless political struggle.

Post 53

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 3:33pm

Fred,

Do we live well in Earth when there is process based justice/equality, or do we live well on Earth when there is outcome based justice/equality? (Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions.") There is not widespread consensus on that in our politics, which is why there is a political struggle. Fully half of us don't recognize 'outcome based justice' as any kind of justice at all(it leads, for example, to the equivalent of Vonnegut's lead weighted ballerinas, as in his short story Harrison Bergeron), and the other half only recognizes outcome based justice as justice. Totally and thoroughly and completely forever irreconcilable. ...

With multiple authorities, it would just be constant ... war.

Great points. But to add to this:

Do we live well in Earth when there is process based justice/equality, or do we live well on Earth when there is outcome based justice/equality? (Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions.") There is not widespread consensus on that in our politics ...

I want to iterate that the two views are not morally equivalent, so that you could substitute one for the other in an isolated society and end up with the same sum total of morality. There isn't consensus, then, in the same way that there wasn't consensus for a heliocentric theory of our solar system back in Copernicus' and Galileo's time. There was one right answer, but no consensus on it (not even anything even remotely approaching consensus).

The Gilligan's Island example shows the superiority of the process-based justice/equality over outcome-based justice/equality. It doesn't prove the superiority (that requires syllogisms), but it shows it. And just because everyone should agree, doesn't mean that everyone will agree. There are people out there who would prefer anarchy -- or perhaps even slavery! -- to process-based justice/equality.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/15, 3:35pm)

Post 54

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 4:14pm

Can you put yourself in my shoes for a moment and see that, from my perspective, arguing for a minarchist government that doesn't force people to sacrifice for others is not possible? That, based on that perspective, the idea of an Objectivist minarchy is the fundamentalist and dumb idea?

What would an Objectivist government "force" on/from people that a few dozen competing government agencies wouldn't, James? Seriously. I have no idea what you're talking about. Buy an island, fend for yourself any way you can, and be happy. No one wants to stop you by force. No one cares.

Post 55

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 - 12:41am

Jim,

I know you've got everyone ganging up on you and that you probably don't have the time or patience to address each and every one of their replies. But how would you address Post 10 of this thread, if you were so inclined?

Thanks. :-)

Post 56

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 - 8:38am

Ever hear the joke about the anarchist and the minarchist?

An anarchist and a minarchist walk into a bar ... [how come jokes always start out with folks walking into bars, anyway?]. Anyway, as I was saying, an anarchist and a minarchist walk into a bar and ...

What the hardline anarchist says:
It violates the human right to freedom and property for you to tax folks to pay for a monopolized legal system. People should get to choose.

What the hardline minarchist hears:
People who evade reality should get to exercise rights to the same extent as others who don't. People should get to choose to evade the notion that human nature prescribes one particular way to ensure justice over all others, and they should get to choose to evade the fact that reality is such that there is a necessary trade-off involved -- i.e., that there is a natural or metaphysical "means" -- in achieving that end.

Okay, I know, that joke is not very funny. It makes a good point, though.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/16, 8:55am)

Post 57

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 - 10:27am

Ed:

When there is no place on earth left to flee, it is time to stand and choose well from that list of 5].

The thought process behind this brand new geopolitical boundary condition of humanity, I think, fully explains the cult status appeal of the series 'Firefly' / movie 'Serenity', and it's clear conflict between endless 'Unification' and 'Independents' seeking freedom from the tribe.

Post 58

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 - 11:04am

Fred,

I saw Serenity but cannot remember it (thank God it wasn't titled: Senility!). Anyway, can't those folks set up shop on a new planet with like-minded others? That way, there'd be a planet called Individualistia and one called Collectivistia, and folks could go to live their own life-experiment where they choose.

:-)

Now, I'm a "live and let live" kind of a guy (an anti-collectivist). But the trouble with these anarchists is that they want to take the phrase "live and let live" too far. They don't acknowledge the truism that ends prescribe means (Nature, to be commanded, must first be obeyed). It's like the freedom debate itself. When it was said that a poor man is not free to dine at the Ritz, what was meant was that poor people should be free to choose to dine at the Ritz. But that reasoning ignores the process (wealth production and trade) required in order to engage in the enterprise of even building a Ritz in the first place -- let alone maintaining one.

Anarchists, in their own way, want to be free to take all kinds of paths on the journey toward justice -- when there is only one way to actually do it. Instead, they want their justice on a silver platter, cooked precisely they way they aesthetically prefer.

Ed

Post 59

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 - 5:30pm