| | That is intriguing, Peter. Thanks for the links. I created a print version with citations, etc., keeping the pagination as close as possible. The header has the URL, the footer the journal citation.
Marnee Dearman in Post #9
I would be prohibited from contracting out my own security needs.
No you wouldn't. This is the same old anarcho argument I hear all the time. I dont understand this point at all. Even in today's government people can hire private detectives, install security alarm systems, private body guards, and private security guards. So then, how does this necessarily follow?
Is that "anarcho-argument" as in "anarcho-capitalist" or is that "anarcho" as in "pinko" or "jingo."
Actually, the point does have to be made, because we argue de novo. Nothing is given. Objectivism questions everything back to the Law of Identity. If the government is to have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, then government is to have a monopoly on retaliatory force. That is why Ayn Rand questioned the need for handguns or the "right" to own them.
There may be some lower threshhold or barrier below which the government cannot go. In other words, private defense agencies would need to be registered and could not be armed, but you could hire one if you wanted. A defense agency could never be a party to a suit, except in common law. In other words, a defense agency could never arrest someone. That means never detain them.
Also, we have adjudication businesses now, like www.adr.org, the American Arbitration Agency. Would they be allowed to exist, if the government has a monopoly on justice? If they were allowed to exist and if they were licensed as are protection firms, then would be be prohibited from having protection agencies for customers?
The key word here is monopoly.
- Again, in our mixed-premise mixed economy we have all kinds of things going on as businesses that may or may not be allowed in a truly rational, objective capitalist society.
- Similarly, if not for eminent domain, the railroads would not have been built because under strict laissez faire any one landowner could have held up a cross-country line. (Going around creates a winding snake of a line that cannot allow high speeds necessary for efficiency.)
- Pollution is one such. (Businesses won that privilege by pointing to the greater "common good.")
- We have had discussions here about public property. Would there be any "public property" (so-called) that was not ipso facto government property? Or would the government have to rent all of its resources from the private sector?
- Before recent times, the idea of the military arsenal was that the Army (Navy, etc.) manufactured everything it needed. Then we went to contractors. You see how that worked out...
So, yes, I would like to read that some Objectivist of standing and merit admits that in the truly (Objectivist) capitalist society, you can hire your own armed guards and that they can contract with a private arbitration agency.
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/10, 4:46pm)
|
|
