IDOAR #11: Damned to Repeat It, Pt. 2 - Anarchism

[egervari]

Great response. One thing that was obvious to me that I don't think you mentioned is that aaron0883 dropped context when he uses the word "force" -> he mentions force in a manner that government can't use force period. But Rand was very clear about this - she talked about government not being able to INITIATE force, which is very different from retaliating with force. aaron0883 though seems to drop this distinction entirely.

[richardcadbury]

It wasn't pointed out here that Rand was NOT in favour of coercive taxation, as is claimed by some.

[lashkaretoiba]

Someone sound make a drinking game out of this video. Everytime paul says Objective law you take a shot. :)

[Humpipe]

You should debate Stefan Molyneux on this topic. I'd love to see it.

[snarfeater]

who should govern you? you arent the master of your own body? and its immoral for the government to tell me what is wrong and right you communist in a state of constant fear??? of what ? its called LIFE thats life the role of government is to place the power in the hands of a minority and command people its a livestock company

[olvew]

Exactly right, unless the Objectivists get their hands on a strong enought weaponry to shake of the ravaging hordes of the irrational. However, I would like to add that the majority of course not are prohibited from passing ANY law, just laws that infringes the rights of the individual.

[olvew]

Also, I am in no way associated with the Freedom Party, thus I do not know if this is their platform.

[olvew]

Unfortunately, they cannot be established against the will of an irrational majority. They can only be established by winning a democratic election and changing (in my case; restoring) the constitution. However, once the new constitution is written, the Supreme Court has the right to stop any new laws that infringe the rights of the individual, thus protecting the individual from the will of a whim-driven majority in the future.

[olvew]

Objective laws are defined by the facts of reality and hammered down in a constitution. They are not to be overrided by a majority.

[dannidandannikins]

absolutely fascinating videos. Thanks alot.

[Autonova]

people only become violent, unproductive and chaotic without leaders when they are in an environment of scarcity. crimes are predominantly commited by poor people.

we have the resources to give everyone on earth everything they need, with mundane work being automated. if everyone only engages in what they are passionate about, and have access to everything they need, they won't feel the need to steal, exploit, etc.

[AnarchyInYourHead]

There is no "single system" without unanimity. If every single person doesn't agree with it, it's not objective law; it just has the greatest consensus and therefore enough might to back it up. There is a DESIRE and perhaps even a NEED for objective law, but that doesn't mean the strongest institution has achieved it. The need for something doesn't prove it exists or can be created. I could argue we need God or we will not live forever. Doesn't change objective reality. Only natural law exists.

[TheAnarchist33]

Survival of the fittest!

[SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR]

Rand sucks. Read Rothbard.

[lukeev]

Oh dear, I was enjoying PaulMcKeever's videos until I got to this one, I don't even know where to begin with the logical fallacies. Most (if not all) of the [Randian-esq] 'critiques' here of anarchism can be applied to the state as well. Nevertheless, most of this guy's videos are really brilliant & what a top philosopher-YouTuber dude he is.

[Irondukesteve]

Great video Paul. I must say that I disagree with Rand's quotes provided. I also disagree with your critique of Anarchism...theories of participatory economics, co-operative economics and participatory democracy are evolving and I believe these are the ideal models for anarchism. I define myself politically as a mutualist/cooperativist/social libertarian by the way. Great response to his video though.

[WorBlux]

"Whenever man is living under two sets of laws, they cannot be objective"

The nature of taxation and the prohibition of competition by force neccesarily entail the creation of two laws. One for the govenment (theft and assualt are hunky dory) and one for everyone else (theft and assault are evil)

As for procedure, it would be decided like the use of measurements and language, as a common convenience.

Also private courts and police systems have worked in the past.

[PaulMcKeever]

It is true that a territorial "monopoly" does not make law objective. However, the reverse is not true: you cannot have AN objective legal system if there are TWO sets of laws in the same territory which deal with the same subjects in mutually exclusive ways. That is why, in Canada's federal system, the doctrine of Federal Paramountcy was developed: to deal with situations where provincial and state laws overlapped but one violated one government's law by complying with the other's.

[lukeev]

Why might you assume governments do not also deal with the same things in different ways? Under "anarchy", which is how we spend most of our lives (meeting friends, going out, working etc) we agree upon rules without 'objective definition' enforced at gunpoint. Do you assume that w/o law writ large on fancy paper there would be no law, or rather, rules? Perhaps that's the confusion, laws VS rules? We ALWAYS live by rules, government or not. So I still don't see why we need coercive governments?

[Sam26100]

By the title of this "Damned to repeat it" Im guessing that you are frustruated with having to make this argument on youtube, but this particular video is one of my favorites from the rest of your videos that I've watched because you adress specifically the difference between Objectivism and another philosophy which seems almost parallel to Objectivism. In other words, I think we need more videos that adress specific discrepancies, using specific examples whenever possible. Good job overall.

[grantsinmypants2]

And another thing: When you spoke of "the evolution of laws" in an anarchist society. This idea also describes what we have now!

Anarchists claim that private agencies which enforce bad laws would go out of business. How, exactly? Well, they'd be defeated through violent conflict with those agencies defending good laws and innocent people. How is that any different than a proper government preemptively prohibiting and suppressing the formation of such bad "private governments"?

[Vodka2389]

Then why did it take so long for Nazi Germany to be defeated? We know now that it was unjust, but nobody was capable to stand up against it.

[grantsinmypants2]

I suppose by "nobody" you mean the Germans? Clearly the rest of the world sensed the Nazis as a threat. That it took so long for them to destroy them is only because they werent a threat until the war started. I wouldnt argue that the US had an obligation to "save" the Germans from the Nazis, ony to save themselves.

As for the Germans, it took so long because totalitarianism is what they wanted. Why does it matter how long it took? And how does this make anarchism more efficient?

[Vodka2389]

Sorry, I misunderstood your original comment. For some reason I thought you were in favor of anarchism.

[grantsinmypants2]

The silliest part about anarchism is that we already have exactly what it wants! The government already "competes." Every day, it must renew it's committment through word and deed to those it governs or it will be "fired.". If it doesn't govern correctly, it is, to quote the Declaration of Independence, "altered or abolished." If it doesn't govern effectively, it will be invaded by another "competeing" government.

Anarchism really, truly is a floating abstraction.

[dakshinamurti]

There is at least as much possibility of a government acting/ruling out of whim than a free competitive market. The very act of ignoring the essencial argument that government per se violates the non agression principle, can only come out of whim. To be a defender or a free market one must aknowledge that it is not proper to exclude/vetoe certain activities from the private economic domain. Any service can be of interest to the market, and he can fulfill that interest better than any monopoly.

[UnhealthySalad]

I find it interesting that "anarcho-capitalists" say they value individual rights, yet in their utopian world, the market would decide "the law." That sounds extremely collectivistic and democratic--it gives no regard to the individual, only to their deity, the market. Not to mention, anarchism would literally be survival of the fittest, as one would constantly be on the defense, and eventually lead to tribalism. Hmmm, what do I perfer more, the life of a wild animal or that of a civilized man?

[D4rkReaver13]

Most of what you said doesn't really make sense to me (is English not your first language?) but I'll try to answer. It's nothing to do with individuals in a government somehow being more virtuous and creating objective laws, but simply that a.) multiple systems of law would necessarily contradict each other (or there'd be no need for multiple systems). (cont..)

[D4rkReaver13]

.. and b.) an Objectivist government is DEFINED by whether it enforces the non-initiation of force principle. Anarchism on the other hand does not suggest that it should be universally enforced, but rather it should be left to the whims of the masses whether it gets enforced or not (which will almost certainly result in being right back where you started).

[PaulMcKeever]

A private defence company doesn't make objective laws. It simply uses force in accordance with the whims of whoever is paying it.

A government, ultimately, is a group of individuals. Those individuals' "rights" - i.e., the code governing what they should and should not do - do not change simply because they become part of that group.

If they are a government, they write objective laws. If the laws are truly objective, they are righteous.

[MillionthUsername]

Paul, you said "Without objective law, chronic fear(and uncertainty)is the state of society."

Does your definition of "objective law" differ from a defense company's law merely because it is a monopoly? So any monopolistic law system over a given territory qualifies as objective even if it's privately funded and not a gov't? A corporate "gov't", perhaps, where each citizen of a given city is a stockholder?

Do objectivists propose things like this?

[SoakyBeaver]

"Anarchism means without leaders, not without order."

[PaulMcKeever]

More specifically, "anarchy" means: "without a ruler" (i.e., without an entity that exercises power over others).

[SoakyBeaver]

Yes, but isn't a leader by definition someone who exercises power over another person? I know what you mean, though.

Of course, we'll still need policemen, etc. But their job would be to serve and protect the people, that's the way I see it.

Thanks for keeping the conversation alive, Paul. That's exactly what we need in times like these.

[PaulMcKeever]

My pleasure.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

Look into Stefan Molyneux's DRO theory.

[DackBev]

In addition, you don't seem to realize that there are multiple versions of anarcho-capitalism. A number of anarcho-capitalists could get together and write up a constitution. There would be "objective law." What makes it anarcho-capitalism is that enforcement of the law, and funding to finance that enforcement, would be left to the market.

[DackBev]

You're not addressing the point. If your ethics says that you must allow people to do as they wish as long as they do not initiate force, then you must allow people to arrest and punish other people that initiate force.

[DackBev]

That is, you must allow anyone who wants to, to arrest and punish people in their own private jails. This is because they wouldn't be initiating force. That's anarcho-capitalism.

[D4rkReaver13]

But then anyone could arrest anyone for anything and nobody would be able to do anything about it. An objective legislature is required to ensure that proper justice is done. Human beings aren't omniscient, so they can't automatically know if an application of justice is right or wrong without knowing the facts of the matter. Individuals arresting individuals would be suggesting that the rest of society should accept potentially unjust retribution / vengeance with no argument or investigation.

[DackBev]

And preventing that requires initiation of force, is the point I'm making. I'm not saying I'm in favor of market anarchism.

[MillionthUsername]

But they would be initiating force without some sort of sanction from the community. What motivates someone to go around arresting people unless they are serious about law enforcement? Where does their money come from to do this? If it's not a business, then it's just criminal. If a business, they would not arrest people without cause. They could get killed! Any new situation can be chaotic, but it should stabilize because it MUST. People won't allow a free-for-all with no order whatsoever.

[BinaryT]

If you do not support a one world government as a minarchist, you are not being consistent.

Supporting many goverments living side by side (e.g. US, Canada), is supporting anarchy between those states.

Anarchism isn't about not having one single law, it's about the individual's right to choose his own laws (as long as they do not violate other people's rights).

If a group of people in a specific area (like the US) can choose their laws, courts and police themselves; why can't the individual?

[marneedear]

"Supporting many goverments living side by side (e.g. US, Canada), is supporting anarchy between those states."

This is not necessarily true. You have dropped context.

[BinaryT]

Well, if the US has its "supreme court" and Canada its, they both have final arbitraters.

'Group US' has it's final arbitrater on "their" land, and 'Group Canada' has its on "their" land.

There is anarchy between the states, since the two supreme courts have no final arbitrater.

Anarchism is about realizing that each individual has the right to have his own arbitrater on his own land.

You don't think Canadians should have anything to do with Americans, so why should other individuals?

[PaulMcKeever]

The only problem with a single, rational government for the entire globe is this: if it ever were to become irrational, there would be no free jurisdiction to live in/oppose it.

There's something to be said for redundancy.

[BinaryT]

Does the individual not have the right to decide these things? Is it not his property?

Why can a collective decide over the individual's land? What right does the collective have to impose courts and legal systems on an innocent individual?

Also, if it turns out that having loads of different courts is bad, won't the market make sure there are few (or a single one, maybe)?

If people are too stupid to decide this for themselves, aren't they too stupid to decide this collectively?

[PaulMcKeever]

It is right to seek the restoration of ones values when one has been deprived of them non-consensually. That restoration must be done only after it is objectively proven that one has so been deprived, and only after the nature and extent of the restoration has been objectively determined. The alternative is the non-objective determination of guilt, and the non-objective assessment of restoration. The rightness of objective courts is founded on morality, which is founded...(cont'd)

[PaulMcKeever]

(cont'd)...on the facts of reality. Ask the reverse: what right does a mugged person have to non-objectively determine the guilt and non-objectively assess the penalty? Answer: none.

There are "loads of different [non-objective] courts" right now: those are the ones assessing guilt and penalties amongst gangs. To date, the various crime families have not decided, on the basis of market forces, that one court is best for them all. Each prefers to be cop, judge, jury, and executioner...

[PaulMcKeever]

...each has their own code of alleged ethics, and their own system of laws. They choose to ignore our laws, police, courts etc. They choose to live in an anarchistic system, which is why it is right to give them the ultimate conclusion of what they want: expel them from civilized society, and let them live amongst their fellow animals.

The fact that we have one legal system, and one system of courts, and one recognized police force is a testament to man's competency to live on this earth.

[BinaryT]

But we don't have "one system". There are systems all over the world!

Howcome the US citizens in your society have the right to ignore decisions from Canadian courts (if a US court decides something, a Canadian court can't overturn that ruling), while I as an individual cannot ignore decisions from courts that have nothing to do with my property?

Why can't I create my own "state"?

Why do I automatically belong to some government, without giving my consent?

Utalitarian arguments unvalid.

[PaulMcKeever]

Clearly, I was not saying that the world has one government. I was saying that each of our countries has a single legal system.

I can't make sense of your second paragraph. That said, there are agreements between our countries with respect to the enforcement of orders made in the other jurisdiction.

The only thing stopping anyone from forming a "state" is an insufficiency of persuasive argument or coercive force...

[PaulMcKeever]

...But creating a state the existence of which is righteous requires you to establish civility (i.e., a system of governance in accordance with objective laws) where it does not already exist.

Nobody "belongs" to a government. Government" is merely a number of individuals who use force objectively to defend every individual's control over their own life, liberty and property.

I oppose utilitarianism.

[BinaryT]

But surely, I have the right to secede if I wish, right? (Maybe because the courts are ineffective, or whatever.)

As in, if I would like my property to be its own country, with its own governemnt (as in me deciding who should be the court and police), then I would not be stopped.

If a government stopped me from seceding, would that not mean that a group ("the government") have rights that I as an individual don't? D

o they not decide over my property?

Voluntary government is fine. Coersed not

[PaulMcKeever]

If you want to secede so as to set up a state in which your government will violate individuals' life, liberty or property, then, no, you have no right to secede: it is not right to violate a person's life, liberty or property.

If, in contrast, you want to set up a free country - the government of which defends everyone's life, liberty and property - so as to end oppressive rule, see my answer re: persuasion/coercive force.

[BinaryT]

Scenario: My current government sucks. It's inefficient and costs too much, and has incompetent workers in it. I do not want it do rule me.

Do I not now have the right to leave the government (as in, secede with my property to create my own "state"), without asking anyone?

Of course my new state has no right to violate others' rights, but I violate noone's rights by just seceding.

On the contrary, 'my current state' violates my right to secede if it does not let me leave it with my property.

[MillionthUsername]

You're thinking like me on this stuff. I'm keeping an open mind, looking for the bottom line of these arguments and why they differ. Anarchists believe the individual is sovereign, so what right does ANYONE have to make them do anything unless they initiate force, right? Paul is saying that man can't live in that state, that the individual must yield to society on this one point for the sake of everyone. Would he object if it actually worked? Would we adopt his view if it didn't?

[4AMae]

If people without government will be irrational, why are the individuals who make up government an exception! What are "objective laws"? What would ensure that these "objective laws" stay "objective"? To me, the "Objectivist Government" makes as much sense as giving a known criminal a gun, voluntarily giving him the task of protecting my rights and property, and hoping that he does based on a piece of paper that tells him he's not allowed to do anything that violates the content in it.

[davidngo4415]

wow. this is amazing. thank you so much Keever for doing this video. It completely answered to my question about libertarians' defense of anarchism and the abolishment of all states. (see "stefbot" on youtube)

[D4rkReaver13]

Great video. Did't Childs later renounce Anarcho-Capitalism?

[PaulMcKeever]

That is my understanding, although I've not read his renunciation.

[horvay]

Another thing to think about is this: Businesses gain physical power only by the use of governmental force. So what happens when there is a Bill Gates of the policing firms?-- when many firms merge under one. If you don't see that turning into a Mob, then think about this:

Bill Gates used to be a advocate of Capitalism, now he is a advocate of Altruism. People change, and this is an example of why businesses should never have physical power over another. Anarchism is indeed doomed to fail.

[MillionthUsername]

But that company would lose all its money if it became an aggressor in a market system. What benefit would it derive from abusing power when it is DIRECTLY dependent upon subscribers (not coerced citizens) for its income? If people pull the plug on them and fund someone else, what are they going to do - start a war? Why? Instead of citizens fearing the state, defense companies would fear lost subscribers. A heavy-handed mob strategy severely limits their income potential! It's self-defeating.

[horvay]

Your assuming their motive is money.

What if it was power? If they were the biggest, the smartest, the most innovative, then they could take out everyone else. They could control.

Free to force others is not freedom.

Also, even if there was two rational laws being enforced, it still couldn't work. Just minor things would have to create conflicts.

[horvay]

If I created a enforcement firm, and Paul did, if we just disagree on how much space one owns above their house, this could create conflict. If you say that we could come to an agreement, and avoid conflict, then your saying morals are relative to what people want.

Its a rationalization.

[MillionthUsername]

Horvay -"then you're saying morals are relative to what people want. It's a rationalization."

You're saying that the moral thing won't be done because the only mechanism for law is the will of the people expressed thru their economic support for a system, and compromise?

How does that differ from representative democracy? Legislatures supposedly reflect the will of the people. Yet the only cure for faulty compromising law is persuasion in the marketplace of ideas in either case, right?

[MillionthUsername]

Horvay -"What if it was power?"

That kind of power is expensive where there is no gov't! Criminal gangs deal in drugs and guns and prostitution for big bucks because of gov't-created black markets. Without that, they'd have to compete in the market or be a roving gang of bandits. It's a very dangerous choice and a stupid one because people will just shoot to kill - unlike now where people fear gov't AS WELL AS criminals if they defend themselves with violence from such mobs.

[glennyh]

aaron, after reading your comment, I don't believe you actually watched this video.

[aaron0883]

Thanks for the response again. This still seems like it is saying essentially ... We must use force because people can't live under a system without force. I fully understand and used to agree with Rand's sentiments here. I believe all laws in all governments at to some level are a reflection of it's peoples values, and in an anarchist society it would not be different. If liberty can not survive in anarchy, than it can not survive with government.

[aaron0883]

If a society with a government can not have a somewhat common agreement on what is wrong, than government will follow suit and will not be consistent and tyrannize over the people. Therefore the argument you are using here about not having common agreement works just as effectively against a minarchist government. However, with a government it would be much harder to oppose those who wish to use force against you.

[NateIsOnYT]

"However, if the vast majority of people don't believe in the NAP than government would tyrannize anyway."

"If a society with a government can not have a somewhat common agreement on what is wrong, than government will follow suit and will not be consistent and tyrannize over the people."

??? Translation ???

[aaron0883]

I disagree with Roy Childs, and I have never read his essay. I do not claim that people would automatically follow the NAP. However, if the vast majority of people don't believe in the NAP than government would tyrannize anyway. If the vast majority of the people believe in the NAP in an anarchistic society than the police and courts must conform otherwise they would lose their job, or possibly be tried themselves.

[Youhavethebody]

The whole problem with anarchy is that it doesn't secure individual rights; it doesn't secure liberty.

The securing of rights by a proper government is not an "initiation of force" because other "agencies" do not have the legal ability to use force on others; they have no valid reason for attempting to "compete" with a government. Legally and politically, they are no different than a band of thugs who want to exercise what they think is "right."

[aaron0883]

The "if you woke up tomorrow" scenario is also flawed. If I woke up tomorrow and drug use was legal, there was no border enforcement, social security was abolished, government regulations were gone, etc ... I truely believe all hell would break lose. However these are things Ayn Rand (and I) would support getting rid of. I am not trying to make the argument of how to do it.

[aaron0883]

Overall, I do not find anything Rand said or anything you put forth to address the moral claim I was making. If it is wrong to initiate force than a government can not exist. Ayn Rand, and you seem to just argue from the argument from effect and do not address the moral qualms. However, thank you for making a response. i watch all of your videos, and even though I don't fully agree here I have profound respect for your videos, demeanor and intellect.

[horvay]

One must induce reality (metaphysics) before talking about morals (ethics). The statement "if it is wrong to initiate force, than a government can not exist." seems to me like a rationalization--not a realization of reality.

One could easily go to a civil court house for a day and see that two rational people can come to a heated disagreement. All it would take is two defense agencies that are passionate about their morality, to enforce their own laws on each other. Then it becomes law by brute

[horvay]

In fact, your argument seems to attack everything Paul said except one argument: that two rational, moral people can come to a disagreement.

The NAP is not a induced fact, and it can only be rationalized to say "if it is wrong to initiate force, than a government can not exist" when one doesn't take into account the facts (induction).

Take the founding of America: a constitution that was "pretty good" lasted over 100 years and that was with a increase in Christian values over time!

[NateIsOnYT]

You are equivocating on force.

Your argument, I think, is as follows:

Governments initiate force.

The initiation of force is immoral.

Governments are immoral.

I assume you meant "a MORAL gov't can't exist" rather than one you said, which is clearly ridiculous.

Objectivists counter that a rational gov't does not INITIATE force, but uses retaliatory force.

Anarchists then disagree in the hypothetical special case that this video addresses: "private police" or whatever you want to call it.

[NateIsOnYT]

My post starting with "You are equivocating on force." is addressed to Aaron. For some reason none of my comments are showing up as replies.

[MillionthUsername]

Natels - "Objectivists counter that a rational gov't does not INITIATE force, but uses retaliatory force."

But I MUST accept this gov't, right? Will they leave me alone if I don't pay their taxes (which pay for things I never asked for)? Will they invade my town if the townies get together and secede because we have a better idea? Will they persecute us for handling our own local disputes in our court with our police? I think the answer is yes, right? So they do INITIATE force, it seems.

[NateIsOnYT]

Taxes? In an Objectivist gov't? I don't think so.

Invading your town because you started some rouge police force isn't initiation, it is retaliatory. There is no such thing as "free market police (read force)", its just a huge stolen concept. There is no "free market" until force has been excluded.

[MillionthUsername]

If I saw any "rouge police", I'd retaliate too! Just kidding. But what principle prevents secession or establishes one government's right to claim extensive lands? Isn't it arbitrary that the US decides it owns half of North America? What would you have done with Native American tribes?

[NateIsOnYT]

A lot to answer here, in short:

1) Only INDIVIDUALS can own property, not groups of people.

2) Ownership can be had in two ways that I know of: original use / improvement and by transfer via contract, gift, etc.

You could argue that Native American individuals were deprived of SOME land (a small fraction) that, although they weren't explicitly aware of it, they owned as evidenced by their use of it... but they are all dead now.

[MillionthUsername]

By saying "the US decides it owns half of North America", I meant that they claim jurisdiction over that territory. The question was: Isn't that arbitrary? Does the group called "gov't" simply have the right to claim jurisdiction wherever it wants? And yes, they do have a lot of land that they hold which no individual can claim. The Bureau of Land Management holds "virgin land" if you will which no one can settle.

[NateIsOnYT]

"Does the group called 'gov't' simply have the right to claim jurisdiction wherever it wants?"

No. You have to examine the basis of their claim to that territory and the morality of the government making it. (That's not to say it is necessarily in our self-interest to go annexing territories governed by immoral gov'ts ...)

The proper role the government is to defend the rights of its individual citizens. The morality of each government action should be judged by this standard.

[NateIsOnYT]

"And yes, they do have a lot of land that they hold which no individual can claim."

They shouldn't... only what is required to complete their ONE proper function.

[NateIsOnYT]

MU's comment was a response to my statement that

"The US gov't doesn't 'own' half of North America, individuals governed by the US do."

[D4rkReaver13]

A government can exist which doesn't initiate force; by being funded strictly voluntarily. The only difference between anarcho-capitalism and Objectivist-capitalism is that Objectivism demands a PARTICULAR set of objective laws be enforced, rather than a random assortment of whatever people want. Anarchism means people can simply purchase any laws that suit them, whereas an Objectivis system would prohibit this.

[Youhavethebody]

I know you've already covered this, but good work with further clarifying it.

[PaulMcKeever]

Ah, yes. Thus the title.

You're quite welcome. Actually, this one gave me the chance to address some points neglected in those of my earlier videos that discussed/mentioned anarchism.