An Argument For Market Anarchism

Leo, I admire your (misguided) zeal.

Let me ask you this one question: Is it possible to compare the objective moralities of Stalin's communism with our "constitutional, democratic, republic"?

Is one clearly more moral than the other?

Ed

Post 121

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 3:58pm

"Let me ask you this one question: Is it possible to compare the objective moralities of Stalin's communism with our "constitutional, democratic, republic"?

Is one clearly more moral than the other?"

You seem to rate morality and freedom by degree. And, I'll agree that Stalin's communism was "hell" compared to any democracy. Further, I'll agree that a limited Objectivist government is better than the current form of socialistic democracy.

My view: Why stop short of a purely moral goal? Your "constitutional republic" must be fraudulently structured and therefore "justice" would be based on fraud.

Do you think that "the end (higher degree of "morality") justifies the means (government operating from a position of fiction and fraud)?

Post 122

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 6:59pm

Okay Leo, so you seem to be in agreement that there is an objective morality for man on Earth (and that we can discover and compare better instances of governances to inferior ones). That's a great common denominator for us both.

Now, you keep mentioning fiction and fraud. I'm trying to relate that to this ability that we have to discover the best way to govern. However, it appears that what you're saying is that there is something inherently evil about governance. Only thing is, is that I'm not sure that you're using man's life as the standard -- when you call governance evil. Perhaps you could speak to that (showing "why" governance is inherently "wrong").

Earlier, quoting M. Adler, I argued that men WANT objective justice (and so bad that they'll "return to war" if they don't get it). Objective justice seems NECESSARY in order for civil peace. A justice that is demonstrably objective. Do you agree with THAT?

Ed

Post 123

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 8:36am

I've answered your question honestly, but you've chosen to not answer my question. To reiterate: Do you think that "the end (higher degree of "morality") justifies the means (government operating from a position of fiction and fraud)?

Okay Leo, so you seem to be in agreement that there is an objective morality for man on Earth (and that we can discover and compare better instances of governances to inferior ones). That's a great common denominator for us both.

What is "government"? In every instance, including limited Objectivist, government is CONTROL by FORCE. And, assuming that Objectivist government will have the authority to tax citizens (via regulatory law), you also are advocating THEFT by FORCE.

Now, you keep mentioning fiction and fraud. I'm trying to relate that to this ability that we have to discover the best way to govern. However, it appears that what you're saying is that there is something inherently evil about governance. Only thing is, is that I'm not sure that you're using man's life as the standard -- when you call governance evil. Perhaps you could speak to that (showing "why" governance is inherently "wrong").

What you want is for me to accept your rationalizing justification for government.

I've demonstrated numerous times how a regulatory government MUST be structured. Did you not understand? Can you tell me "how a man/women (John/Jane Doe) injures or damages an abstraction (STATE OF OBJECTIVISM)"? Do you think that objective justice can be achieved through fraud? It's time to face these tough questions.

Earlier, quoting M. Adler, I argued that men WANT objective justice (and so bad that they'll "return to war" if they don't get it). Objective justice seems NECESSARY in order for civil peace. A justice that is demonstrably objective. Do you agree with THAT?

Objective justice can be attained without all the negatives associated with "government" as Stefan Molyneux has demonstrated in his articles.

Post 124

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:28am

Leo, I'm short of time right now, but wanted you to know that I intend to answer your questions ...

Ed

Post 125

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 6:08pm

Leo,

=========================
Do you think that "the end (higher degree of "morality") justifies the means (government operating from a position of fiction and fraud)?
=========================

No. In fact, in objective morality, the ends DICTATE the means. "Right" ends PRESCRIBE the right means. Let's take an example. It is right and good to earn others' trust. Just think about trying to exist well on Earth -- without ANYONE'S trust.

Now, the means to earning others' trust -- is to, repeatedly, be honest with them (see the works of Aristotle for confirmation of this aspect of reality). The value (trust) implies what it is that one should do, in order to gain it. It is the same with government. Objective justice implies what it is that is acceptable.

=========================
In every instance, including limited Objectivist, government is CONTROL by FORCE. And, assuming that Objectivist government will have the authority to tax citizens (via regulatory law), you also are advocating THEFT by FORCE.
=========================

Who ever said that an Objectivist government would have the "authority" to tax citizens??? Leo, have you even READ Rand? To quote Congressman David Crockett (1827-1835) ...

==========================
We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of public money.
==========================

==========================
Can you tell me "how a man/women (John/Jane Doe) injures or damages an abstraction (STATE OF OBJECTIVISM)"? Do you think that objective justice can be achieved through fraud?
==========================

No, but I can tell you how a man/woman violates individual rights (which is ALL that ever matters). How come, Leo, I don't think that that is a good enough answer for you (in spite of it objectively being so)?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 7/30, 6:09pm)

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 7/30, 6:11pm)

Post 126

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 8:39pm

No. In fact, in objective morality, the ends DICTATE the means. "Right" ends PRESCRIBE the right means. Let's take an example. It is right and good to earn others' trust. Just think about trying to exist well on Earth -- without ANYONE'S trust.

Do you know anything about how an Objectivist government must be structured? Does the word fraud earn your trust?

Now, the means to earning others' trust -- is to, repeatedly, be honest with them (see the works of Aristotle for confirmation of this aspect of reality). The value (trust) implies what it is that one should do, in order to gain it. It is the same with government. Objective justice implies what it is that is acceptable.

Not what is acceptable. Calling it "objective justice" does not make it objective. In order to accept your "objective justice" one must first accept the fraud (government) from which it emanates. Who in their right mind would do that? You?

Who ever said that an Objectivist government would have the "authority" to tax citizens??? Leo, have you even READ Rand?

Murray Franck wrote a book entitled "Taxation Is Moral". Even though most Objectivists think that government can be financed by voluntary donations, when reality proves otherwise, taxation will have to be considered as the only possibility for government's continued existence.

Rand apparently didn't write the Objectivist's proposed government. The only thing that I approve of regarding Objectivism is it's principles. And, yes I've read them.

Leo wrote:
Can you tell me "how a man/women (John/Jane Doe) injures or damages an abstraction (STATE OF OBJECTIVISM)"? Do you think that objective justice can be achieved through fraud?
Ed wrote: No, but I can tell you how a man/woman violates individual rights (which is ALL that ever matters).

Isn't fraud (by the government you advocate) a violation of individual rights?

Since you failed to answer the first question, I'll answer it for you: A human can not harm an abstraction. Your government must be an abstraction. Therefore, to claim that a man or women has injured or damaged the STATE OF OBJECTIVISM is an outright lie. Convicting a citizen of victimizing the "state" is fraud. You can not get around those FACTS. All you can do is justify government through rationalizations. That seems to be what you do best.

How come, Leo, I don't think that that is a good enough answer for you

Because you know it's inadequate. You've rationalized "government's" fraud as OK. You do not know what you're advocating.

Post 127

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 6:06am

Leo,

=====================
Do you know anything about how an Objectivist government must be structured? Does the word fraud earn your trust?
=====================

Please state -- in plain terms, if at all possible, the "fraud" of minarchy.

=====================
Calling it "objective justice" does not make it objective. In order to accept your "objective justice" one must first accept the fraud (government) from which it emanates.
=====================

Where is the fraud in the full and legally-equal protection of Individual Rights? This is the part I'm not getting, Leo. And I need your help to fill in the blanks.

=====================
Murray Franck wrote a book entitled "Taxation Is Moral". Even though most Objectivists think that government can be financed by voluntary donations, when reality proves otherwise, taxation will have to be considered as the only possibility for government's continued existence.
=====================

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Now, some rubber has hit the road. Now, I can syllogize and analyze your reasoning -- allowing you to counter with criticisms of your own ...

1) Ojectivists work toward a minarchy with no coercive redistribution of wealth (because taxation violates Property Rights -- and Objectivists won't ever stand for the violation of any Individual Rights).

2) But reality will, ultimately, show that any centralization of any limited power -- even of minarchy -- will, sooner or later, require a coercive redistribution of wealth.
=====================
Therefore, Objectivists seek a Utopian pipe dream.

Leo, does THAT about sum up where it is that you are coming from?

=====================
A human can not harm an abstraction. Your government must be an abstraction. Therefore, to claim that a man or women has injured or damaged the STATE OF OBJECTIVISM is an outright lie. Convicting a citizen of victimizing the "state" is fraud.
=====================

Let's get concrete with this: Subject X violates Subject Y's rights. Y goes to court against X. The sworn-to-uphold-the-law individuals working in the court system, the Z-workers, use objectivity and the scientific method -- to look for evidence of criminality beyond reasonable doubt and, if found, they convict. WHERE is the abstraction, Leo?

Ed

Post 128

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 4:46pm

Let's get concrete with this: Subject X violates Subject Y's rights. Y goes to court against X. The sworn-to-uphold-the-law individuals working in the court system, the Z-workers, use objectivity and the scientific method -- to look for evidence of criminality beyond reasonable doubt and, if found, they convict. WHERE is the abstraction, Leo?

I've explained this numerous times. Government itself is an abstraction. It can not be seen or touched. The authority of government exists only in the human mind. And yet this abstraction appears as the plaintiff in every criminal case. The STATE OF CONFUSION has accused JOHN DOE of a crime. If Subject Y (Sally Loo) is the victim then she should be the plaintiff and John Doe the defendant. So the summons is bogus on it's face.

Why does that perversion occur? Because the STATE OF CONFUSION is a corporate government which enforces regulatory laws and must appear as the plaintiff. Why? Because there is no victim in regulatory "crimes". Therefore, the SOC fraudulently plays the role of victim even when there is a human victim.

That structure allows any government to become corrupt. Can objective justice emanate from a fraud (misrepresentation of both plaintiff and defendant)? I think not.

Also consider that there is an obvious conflict of interest in a court room. The Judge, prosecutor, and any police may all have the same employer which could lead to anything but an objective verdict.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Now, some rubber has hit the road. Now, I can syllogize and analyze your reasoning -- allowing you to counter with criticisms of your own ...

1) Ojectivists work toward a minarchy with no coercive redistribution of wealth (because taxation violates Property Rights -- and Objectivists won't ever stand for the violation of any Individual Rights).

2) But reality will, ultimately, show that any centralization of any limited power -- even of minarchy -- will, sooner or later, require a coercive redistribution of wealth.
=====================
Therefore, Objectivists seek a Utopian pipe dream.

Leo, does THAT about sum up where it is that you are coming from?

I have no problem with an idealistic Utopia. But, an Objectivist government is not the vehicle that will allow that goal to be reached. Until mankind stops looking to external authorities to solve personal and societal problems progress will be difficult. As the title of this thread indicates, I think Market Anarchism provides a moral means to the utopian society you seek.

Post 129

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 8:01pm

Leo,

=============
Why does that perversion occur? Because the STATE OF CONFUSION is a corporate government which enforces regulatory laws and must appear as the plaintiff. Why? Because there is no victim in regulatory "crimes".
=============

Aren't you assuming that there'd be government regulation in an Objectivist society? And, if so, aren't you wrong about that? Last I heard, Rand called for a complete separation of economy and state.

=============
That structure allows any government to become corrupt.
=============

Not a government that was held down by a Constitution that had been contrived and written by Peikoff, Binswanger, Schwartz, Bidinotto, Hudgins, Rowlands, and Thompson! No sirrrreeee!

;-)

=============
Also consider that there is an obvious conflict of interest in a court room. The Judge, prosecutor, and any police may all have the same employer which could lead to anything but an objective verdict.
=============

In an Objectivist society, all court cases would be recorded for public viewing -- the public would be allowed to oust any exploiters of the justice system (Objectivists don't tolerate exploitation -- it's part of that whole "seeking the unnearned" thing, ya' know??). The really BIG courtroom, would be the 6-O'-clock news. So there.

=============
Until mankind stops looking to external authorities to solve personal and societal problems progress will be difficult.
=============

What you're saying is that -- left to our own devices (left to fend for ourselves) -- that justice would be served. But, au contraire, the "external authority" that Objectivists seek is not another "person" -- it's a damn objective principle. It doesn't matter who discovered it, or who extolls it -- the damn thing is right, objectively.

You "personify" principles too much, and this leads you to argue in a fashion that gets mileage by the dictum: "Who's Justice? Who's Rationality? Who's Morality? But Objectivists are "above" that. Yup, you read that right. So there (again).

hmf!

Ed

Post 130

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 9:34am

Ed, you say that an Objectivist government would not tax people right? Then it's not a government.
From Harry Browne's book "Why Government Doesn't Work":

"What separates government from the rest of society, isn't its size, its disregard for profit, its foresight, or its scope. The distinctive feature of government is coercion - the threat of force and the use of force to win obedience."

Post 131

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 11:20am

Aren't you assuming that there'd be government regulation in an Objectivist society? And, if so, aren't you wrong about that? Last I heard, Rand called for a complete separation of economy and state.

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

Again here's a quote from:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=453&h=42

"In both civil and criminal realms, law functions by providing clear standards for determining which actions and interactions among people are consistent with individual rights."

The key words here are "consistent with individual rights". That's the Objectivist's justification for enacting and enforcing regulatory laws.
Example: Reckless driving could easily lead to a violation of someone's individual rights through property damage or injury, therefore, reckless driving (a judgement call) would likely be illegal.

Does that cause your brain to kick into gear and realize that regulatory law is necessary, even with limited government.

Not a government that was held down by a Constitution that had been contrived and written by Peikoff, Binswanger, Schwartz, Bidinotto, Hudgins, Rowlands, and Thompson! No sirrrreeee!

LOL. You have far more confidence in Objectivists than they deserve. My experience, in general, with Objectivists is that they're dishonest rationalizers often abandoning Rand's principles.

In an Objectivist society, all court cases would be recorded for public viewing -- the public would be allowed to oust any exploiters of the justice system (Objectivists don't tolerate exploitation -- it's part of that whole "seeking the unnearned" thing, ya' know??). The really BIG courtroom, would be the 6-O'-clock news. So there.

Do you think "drama" makes your rationalizations more believable?

What you're saying is that -- left to our own devices (left to fend for ourselves) -- that justice would be served. But, au contraire, the "external authority" that Objectivists seek is not another "person" -- it's a damn objective principle. It doesn't matter who discovered it, or who extolls it -- the damn thing is right, objectively.

More drama. What you fail to comprehend is that government is actually people claiming to have authority over other people. This authority, supposedly stems from a constitution written by a few people who have no authority to delegate authority.

You "personify" principles too much, and this leads you to argue in a fashion that gets mileage by the dictum: "Who's Justice? Who's Rationality? Who's Morality? But Objectivists are "above" that. Yup, you read that right. So there (again).

Dramatizing dishonesties is a tactic used by politicians and religious leaders to evoke emotional (subjective) assent from a sheep-like audience. Who in this audience do you consider sheep-like?

I stick to facts without drama.

Post 132

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 11:35am

I stick to facts without drama.

Actually, I happen to think you're acting like a jerk (and I agree with alot of things you're saying).

Post 133

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 4:05pm

"Actually, I happen to think you're acting like a jerk (and I agree with alot of things you're saying)."

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

Post 134

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 10:54pm

Jonathan,

====================
Ed, you say that an Objectivist government would not tax people right? Then it's not a government.
====================

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

====================
From Harry Browne's book "Why Government Doesn't Work":

"What separates government from the rest of society, isn't its size, its disregard for profit, its foresight, or its scope. The distinctive feature of government is coercion - the threat of force and the use of force to win obedience."
====================

While it's true that governments will use force to win obedience -- it's only to the obedience of the irrational (those seeking the unnearned) that government HAS TO use force. Taking the use of force, and turning it into a floating abstraction -- not tied to the deeds of the men who are "forced" -- is incorrect.

There is a better way to think about the use of force in society (ie. remove the subjectivity of it).

Ed

Post 135

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 11:19pm

Leo,

==============================
Without regulations, you are saying that every "crime" in your limited government will have a human victim.
==============================

Right! Down with the victim-less crimes, I say!!!

==============================
Therefore, the following can NOT be crimes:

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

While driving itself, without these restrictions, wouldn't necessarily be a crime; stiffer penalties -- for accidents, etc. occurring without these restrictions -- would "steer" (pardun the pun) folks into maximizing expected utility (ie. into jumping through the pragmatic hoops, so to speak).

Also, individuals owning sections of roads, would stand to benefit from others' thoughtless demise (they'd get something out of it -- when folks were caught not jumping through the rational hoops). The market would minimize the insanity.

==============================
Driving drunk.
==============================

Again, if you can drive well when drunk (ie. no accidents) -- then you ought to be free to drive drunk. Of course, again, stiffer penalties apply -- and people get paid (out of your pocket), if you choose irrational behavior.

==============================
Driving at high rates of speed.
==============================

Again, if you can drive really, really well (ie. no accidents) -- then you ought to be free to drive really, really fast. Of course, again, stiffer penalties apply -- and people get paid (out of your pocket), if you choose irrational behavior.

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

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

==============================
Reckless driving.
==============================

Again, if you can drive really, really well (ie. no accidents) -- then you ought to be free to drive really, really recklessly. Of course, again, stiffer penalties apply -- and people get paid (out of your pocket), if you choose irrational behavior.

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

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

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

Let 'em burn!

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

Let 'em work!

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

Let 'em fly!

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

Let 'em carry!

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

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

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

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

==============================
Practicing medicine competently without license or formal training.
==============================

Let 'em medicate! But remain personally responsible for measurable fraud.

==============================
Hunting all wild animals to extinction.
==============================

Whoa! That's one (ie. one out of 14) that I don't have a great answer to -- and I DO have a great answer to 13 out of 14 contexts.

Ed
[13 out of 14 ain't bad]

Post 136

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 5:00am

Ed, obviously, you are a rational person with the best of intentions. I have not had much to add to this phase of the discussion for other reasons of my own. However, I point to a different thread that I started, " Government : Contradictions, Stolen Concepts, and Blank-Outs " in the Dissent Forum.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0096.shtml

As I explained in another post, theories of policing have changed over the last 150 years. We now try "community policing." It involves the people who are affected. the potential victims. It means spending more time getting city hall (or whoever) to get the garbage off the streets, tear down the vacant houses, dress up the vacant lots, and basically, make an environment that is not conducive to predatory crime. Some people who think they want to be cops don't like this. They call it "social work" and they want to be "crime fighters." But the fact is that community policing works. It prevents crime.

So, couple that fact with the fact that most protection (two-thirds of it) is privately provided, so obviously, we do not need government to protect us from crime.

Perhaps "social work" (so-called) is the proper role of government -- if it has a proper role at all. Assuring basic the wellbeing of each individual might go most of the way to preventing the problems that boiling perpetrators in oil has not. I am not sure. I am not selling this. I am only asking you, as I have been asking myself this past year. As an Objectivist, I can offer many of the same refutations you would. You might object on many grounds, but, as in the case of the anarchist complaints about government, you claim that objective laws would not have these problems. Perhaps there exists a theory of "objective social work."

Post 137

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 6:57am

Ed I am surprised at you - you cannot hunt animals to extinction when there is private property - it only happens when there is lots of "public" park and wild lands and anyone can hunt there, otherwise, get the hell off my land!

Post 138

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 7:35am

Interest points, Michael. I look into that.

Thanks Kurt, I missed that aspect of reality.

Ed

Post 139

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 8:12am