Ayn Rand - Anarchist in denial?

[Attritive]

With my posts I was trying to help you in a succinct way to find the right direction. I was not trying to present the encyclopedia of information I would need to fully prove every point I've made. And my recent point was not, "Prove me wrong." My point was, I'm sick of trying to communicate with a patronizing ass who has little knowledge or philosophy, and who ignores most of what I've written. So, if you really want to know the answers to those questions, get the knowledge yourself. I'm done.

[XOmniverse]

@Attritive "With my posts I was trying to help you"

Bullshit. Plain and simple.

[timbosforporn]

property is the first protection of liberty. Money secures our liberty.

[Attritive]

@Xomniverse Ayn Rand was a supporter of laissez-faire capitalism, not of any form of anarchy. I suggest you read Leonard Peikoff's explanation of anarchy in "Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" in order to understand why you should reject that horrific and nearsighted form of statism.

[XOmniverse]

@Attritive Let me first say that I am very familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and that particular book by Peikoff. My advocacy of anarchism is not grounded in a lack of understanding of their ideas but an open rejection of some of their ideas.

That being said, I could point at the current state of our constitutional democracy and say that is why you should reject THAT horrific and nearsighted form of statism,

[XOmniverse]

@Attritive I would also want to add that Peikoff's criticisms of anarchy are generally not very thorough and typically assume a socialist or communist variant of anarchism. It's almost as though he avoids addressing anarcho-capitalist arguments directly, even though anarcho-capitalism is obviously the anarchistic philosophy most likely to draw attention from Objectivists.

[XOmniverse]

@Attritive Rand herself at least did address anarcho-capitalism in her essay "The Nature of Government", albeit with a flawed argument. David Friedman addresses her argument directly in his book The Machinery of Freedom, which is itself a case for anarcho-capitalism and worth your time to read. It would be proper to grasp the essence of a philosophy before rejecting it, which is exactly what I have done with Objectivism (though I've rejected and modified parts, not the whole thing).

[Attritive]

@XOmniverse Nothing about anarchism is worth my time to read, as it is not a political system or a philosophy.

[XOmniverse]

@Attritive You've drawn a conclusion with an overt refusal to analyze the evidence. That's very objective of you. I'm glad you see that you are taking a rational approach to understanding the world.

[Attritive]

You should correct your assertion: it is an overt refusal to analyze the evidence any further; at some point one can draw a conclusion without continuing to analyze ad infinitum. Regarding objectivity, you endorse a political system which ignores the nature of man and the nature of politics at a fundamental level. I believe it's you who needs to stop refusing to analyze the evidence.

[XOmniverse]

@Attritive I don't think one can conclude much without reading even a single book on a subject. Even if someone doesn't think it worthwhile to read about it, it would be arrogant to presume to know enough about it to tell other people (including people well read on the subject) that they are wrong.

[Attritive]

@XOmniverse You assume I've read nothing on the subject. Because I don't jump to the occasion to give you information you already have? Because I don't present an elaborate justification of government itself? How can I write that essay in 500 character YouTube posts? At any rate, go peddle your subjectivism to your viewers. I'm done with your ass.

[XOmniverse]

@Attritive I don't know how I will get by without you.

[XOmniverse]

@Attritive You've given big philosophical platitudes straight from the Ayn Rand handbook but not any actual case. That being said, I don't think you're likely capable of considering the possibility that Rand was wrong about anything (and equally incapable of seeing that this is striking evidence of major issues with your psychology, including a complete lack of individualism in thought), so I doubt any discussion with you on anything would be fruitful.

[Attritive]

@XOmniverse I said those examples were keys to seeing how you're wrong; they are neither the basis nor the total sum of my knowledge regarding the issue. They were meant (by me, to you) to be a lead, or a signpost, to discovering the basis for political philosophy. You have no evidence to indicate anything about my psychology, and your conclusion about my ability to consider Rand incorrect is arbitrary. I had made up my mind about anarchy, and about laissez-faire, long before I read Ayn Rand.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@Attritive

Anarchy is statism? That's some seriously fucking Orwellian stuff. I'm guessing you also think that freedom is slavery, war is peace, and ignorance is strength...

[Attritive]

@vaguelyhumanoid Anarchy is a primitive form statism: gang warfare w/ each gang being it's own primitive government, until some or all of the gangs organize and form an actual government. Essentially anarchy is statism without the advanced organization of what is normally considered a 'state'. But a lack of advancement in methods of the state doesn't change the fact that it's statism, ie., a society where the state controls your life. Anarchy is a society where the gang(s) control your life. 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@Attritive

A state is a monopoly on the initiation of force within a given area. That is the sociological definition of the state. Even if anarchy is statist, is minarchy any less so? Market anarchy would not be criminal gangs controlling your life, but rather independent defense agencies helping you maintain your safety and independent judges helping you secure your rights in a just, common-law system. It is a completely voluntary system, and gives rights to every individual.

[Attritive]

@vaguelyhumanoid An "independent defense agency", in the context of anarchy, is a gang. No, they wouldn't be "criminal" gangs, as there would be no definition in the country of the word 'crime'. They would be gangs whose laws were defined by the gang. That is, a primitive form of government. How is a multiplicity of this phenomenon (however you name it) better than one constitutionally delimited form of governance?

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@Attritive

Apparently, private organizations which cannot initiate aggression or fraud are "gangs" in your worldview. Apparently, people have no rights without a constitution in your worldview. Apparently, humans cannot prosper without a centralized state in your worldview. Your worldview is the epitome of statism, no matter how many feel-good minarchist buzzwords you use to conceal this fact.

[Attritive]

@vaguelyhumanoid I'm not a minarchist; I'm a laissez-faire capitalist. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. Regarding the rest, I agree with the last "apparent" statement: humans cannot prosper in a group without organizing, which involves solving the issue of how to handle the use of force. The solution in this case is centralized government. "Private organizations which cannot initiate aggression or fraud are "gangs" in your worldview". Who decides these entities cannot initiate it?

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@Attritive

1. If you believe in minimal (or at least very small) government, you're a minarchist. Simple as that.

2. Why is the solution centralized government?

3. They can't initiate aggression or fraud because of common law, personal ethics, and the threat of social ostracism. Generally, a society is the most functional if people agree to grant others certain rights, namely a right to not be coerced through the initiation of force or fraud.

[Attritive]

@vaguelyhumanoid I'm a laissez-faire capitalist, not a minarchist. I do not think the government to be inherently evil, but the proper (and only) way for men in a society to deal with the issue of force. This is because some objectively defined and agreed upon delimitation of the use of force is necessary to protect man's rights. If you're saying this is what would occur in anarchy, then you're saying a constitutionally limited government would exist, so it wouldn't be anarchy.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@Attritive

There would be governance, but it would be decentralized and non-monopolistic, as well as having no standing army, borders, prisons, or taxes. Also, how are you not a minarchist? Do you want the government to do things besides run the courts, the police and a non-aggressive defense force?

[Attritive]

@vaguelyhumanoid Minarchism is a philosophical term, not a description of a political view alone. It's also vague, so I'm responding to it as most people who ascribe to the term view it. Which is that government is a necessary evil, and that anarchy would be preferable if you could trust men. It's not an issue of trusting your fellow man; it's an issue of organizing against men who you can't trust, while ridding the use of force from the lives of those who wish to simply live.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@Attritive What you don't get is that the State needs aggression to survive. Taxation, borders, and the monopolization of force all involve using force against innocent people. One cannot have both statism and non-aggression. By believing in the state,

you are necessarily compromising your moral views, unless of course you believe that the initiation of violence against innocent people is justifiable.

[Attritive]

@vaguelyhumanoid The state needs consent and, more importantly, philosophy, to survive. Statism is the control of all life by the state. Government does not necessarily control all of life. Look at the United States. Even in a country where it is viewed as proper for the government to save us all from whatever we need, the government is restricted by a document called the Constitution. If that document were to be properly amended, and a philosophy followed, we would have far fewer problems.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@Attritive

if someone doesn't consent to the state, who would protect them? They'd need private protection, common law courts, etc; thus compromising the state's authority. As for the Constitution, it has binding authority over no one currently living, unless people either 1. vote for politicians who follow it or 2. pay taxes to a government that follows it.

[Attritive]

@vaguelyhumanoid The state would protect anyone as long as they are not initiating the use of force. My statement about consent was vis-a-vis this: "What you don't get is that the State needs aggression to survive." In order to survive, any state needs the consent of the governed to a large extent, and at least philosophically. A constitution delimits what the government can do with this consent, as is seen in America. What is needed is better delimitation, not abandonment of government.

[Attritive]

@vaguelyhumanoid @vaguelyhumanoid The Constitution grants our government its power; it also details what rights we have. And no, I don't believe a government creates rights, but defines them in its constitution in order to properly defend them. A constitution has this authority as long as the society philosophically accepts its legitimacy, both on principle and specific to this particular document. Regarding #2--compulsory taxation is wrong and ineffective, and has no place in laissez-faire.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@Attritive What if no one wants to pay taxes? What if no one supports the current constitution? What if someone tries to immigrate into one state's territory from another without a visa? What if an individual wants to secede?

[Attritive]

@vaguelyhumanoid Figure it out for yourself.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@Attritive I'm an anarchist, so why would I have the burden of proof about issues involving the idea of a minimal state?

[samdalton13]

I wouldn't think she was an anarchist. Because she does discuss the necessity of the courts, the military, and the police. Because the government does hold a monopoly on coercion in her view. If you own The Virtue of Selfishness, I think they discuss the necessity of government in one of the chapters as well as the evils of anarchy in her view. She thinks that a government that doesn't do anything to protect its citizens would not punish criminals but reward them. Honestly, I'm not an anarchist.

[windigo433]

Rand did not support government interference in economics. She strongly promoted the protection of individual rights and that it should be the ONLY role of the government, something a state of anarchy would never endorse.

[XOmniverse]

@windigo433 A state of anarchy can't, per se, endorse anything.

That being said, it seems unlikely that government would ever consistently endorse such a thing either.

[Pi11z3ury]

When I clicked this link I was ready to attack you based on previous videos I have seen of you. I must say that I am shocked and pleased to see you have stopped embracing Ayn Rand Objectivism as consistent with Anarchism.

[XOmniverse]

@Pi11z3ury Why would you attack me? I don't think I say anything particularly offensive in my other videos.

[Pi11z3ury]

@XOmniverse Attack is probably the wrong word. Criticize would be more appropriate I think.

[XOmniverse]

@Pi11z3ury I still agree with Rand on a great deal, so criticize away. I'd ask that you focus on my more recent content though, since my views have changed and sharpened over time.

[Pi11z3ury]

@XOmniverse There is nothing wrong with agreeing with Ayn Rand on certain things. I agree with her on many things like the abolition of morality and the will of humans to act in their own rational self interests. There are many aspects of her ideology that are consistent with Anarchism but I think what sparked such contempt was the suggestion that Objectivism is wholly consistent with Anarchism, which you have come to realize yourself is not logical.

[MrChrisBlizzard]

What you are presenting as contradictions are statements in support of different ideas. In those which you present as contradictory, Rand is describing statism, in order to attack it. She is not describing objectivism.

As for anarchism - how do you propose to maintain objective law without a state?

[XOmniverse]

How do you propose to maintain objective law with a state? And if you say "constitution" I'll point to the current state of the U.S. government.

[MrChrisBlizzard]

Unanimity of rational and ethical truth

Basically, both market anarchism and minarchism rely can only be sustained if the people have a true understanding of the system of government they are choosing.

1. If people had a true understanding of how market anarchism operates, they would recoil in horror

2. With a true understanding of the RIGHT KIND of minarchy, the people will be able to sustain it.

On the example of the US:

3. The minarchy that existed in the US between 1776...

[MrChrisBlizzard]

and whenever it ended (another debate), was NOT a proper minarchy, in that it condoned unequal treatment under the law.

4. Secondly, there are a number of factors affecting why the US slid into statism, but the most influential of these was philosophy. I assume you've read "The Ominous Parallels"?

What did you make of it?

5. Objective law can NOT exist in an anarchist system while it lasts, and anarchism necessarily leads to oligarchy

[MrChrisBlizzard]

The first argument you make is as follows:-

1. I used to be an objectivist

2. I am now an anarchist

3. Contradictions do not exist

Conclusion: there must have been an inconsistency in objectivist thought which drove me to become an anarchist

FAIL

[XOmniverse]

There was an inconsistency.

And why "FAIL" at the end there? Is your intention to make me feel bad or shame me? It doesn't seem conducive to an honest discussion between peers.

[MrChrisBlizzard]

I was merely deconstructing your argument, which FAILed to stand up to objective reality.

PS I am not an 'Objectivist'. Just to make that clear.

[elmachucho]

Intresting!,,,Im anderstand only80% ...Can you put spanish subt.?

[siebelseibel76]

One of the things she pointed to for government was the case of Israel.

I'm not a fan of Rand but thought I should contribute anyways.

[fede2]

that last quote is indeed very disturbing.

[mitchrix31]

very nice video i agree.

[tcarr1989]

These quotes seem anarchist after seeing her interview on the Donahue show I beg to differ. Her defensiveness and child-like behavior when people questioned her ideas she just wanted to shut them up rather than give meaningful answers(she most-likely didnt have any). Not to mention all the comments about concentrating all societies resources on the "smart ones". She is absolutely deplorable, shes not an anarchist but an "intellectual" dictator, favoring whoever she thinks the smart ones are.

[1Griff7]

she doesnt say that all societies recources should be concentrated on the 'the smart ones', she says that society need to get out of the ;smart ones' way

[xXTheProMeisterXx]

No. I watched the aforementioned interview on Donahue, and saw a completely different picture: she attentively listened to each and every guest's questions, patiently and with poise, not interrupting any of them even once. That's quite a feat considering some of those questions were so inane and ludicrous as to render them almost unanswerable. I know I would have lost my patience and snapped.

But not AR - she answered each question brilliantly, cutting through the BS swiftly and sharply.

[Sivels]

You probably wouldn't like her in person then...

[deinse81]

I think I know Ayn Rand's work well enough to not have to resort to out-of-context quotes. More importantly, she knew herself and her world-view better than anyone, and she came to the conclusion that government is necessary.

How could it possibly be valid and proper to argue Ayn Rand's views, using her own quotes in good-faith?

Do you really think you spotted a contradiction she missed, that is so obvious that a couple of out-of-context quotes on youtube will prove it?

[XOmniverse]

Your strange assumption that Ayn Rand was not capable of inner contradiction and that I should accept that my mind is impotent to spot such things in her thinking aside, I don't think any of the quotes were used in a manner to imply that they mean anything other than she intended.

Tell you what; explain to me how a government can exist as a monopoly without initiating force, and I'll eat my hat.

[deinse81]

Oh, I was very careful not to suggest that she's flawless, or that you aren't intelligent. I just said such a contradiction, if it exist, could not be proven with a few quotes, and trying to argue that way is invalid.

You're better off just making an argument yourself, or, if you have found a contradiction, prove it the right way: explaining her context and carefully referencing everything. (Preferably in written form, because it's much easier to follow)

-hat-eating answer coming up:)

[deinse81]

First, I'm not going to go into the details of why anarchy would be bad: it's too time consuming for me, sorry. Let's just say I would use a lot of historical examples.

A laissez-faire capitalist state, in which government is separate from economics:

-would be funded exclusively by voluntary contributions;

-would serve only one purpose: the defense of individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property

-would be elected democratically (this is important, to be explained in part two)

[deinse81]

Such a society could only exist if the culture, and a majority of the people, believed in it: as a result, popular elections would constitute one more safeguard against an over-reaching government(besides a proper constitution which is set in stone)

Why it would be moral?

Because unlike in anarchy, there are objective penalties for every crime: by the gov. stepping in and retaliating in the victim's name, you could ensure that every thief gets the same, objectively chosen punishment.

[deinse81]

In anarchy on the other hand, even if we disregard practical considerations, some thieves would be killed, others forgiven, based on not their actions, but on their choice of victims: Is that moral? Is that proper justice?

I guess now I'm going to eat my hat if you can convince me that objective justice is overrated, and that we should be without it.

Again, I'm putting practical considerations of anarchy aside here, and discussing right and wrong instead.

[nonationsnowars]

Awesome video. I was just surfing and came across it. While I was making my conversion to libertarianism, I looked at Rand quite a bit, and the statements you've drawn out definitely imply anarchism. I think the two things holding her back were her (selfless) desire to be followed by others, and her complete non-originality in economics; she draws almost all of her economics from Mises, and did not want to be connected to Rothbard, so anarcho-capitalism was the plague in her subjective mind.

[IBERJEN]

Fat,gay and stupid is no way to go through life dude.

[XOmniverse]

At least I have better things to do than make completely unwitty insults on people's Youtube videos.

[FreiheitKampfer]

you should review the last few pages of Ayn Rand's book 'Capitalism', which you quote. Ayn explains why she is not anarchist in these last few pages

[georgeme89]

Objectivists should either be anarchist or one world government types. They, for straw men reasons, believe government is the only organization that can protect property rights. They always claim that society would disintegrate into gang warfare. Very unobjective claim.

[elar4563]

So you want a dictator?

[XOmniverse]

No, I'm an anarchist.

[sexdrugsRnR]

states always grow

[XOmniverse]

I'm certainly not aware of a counter-example.

[selti1]

Competing government of the anarchists does not stand to reason. Here is Ayn Rand's example: Suppose Mr Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbour, Mr Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr Jones's house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr Smith's complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

[XOmniverse]

This logic chain has been addressed ad nauseam, and David D. Friedman actually specifically addresses this argument in The Machinery of Freedom.

The short answer is; war is expensive, so there is market pressure to negotiate and arbitrate rather than engage in violent behavior.

[dafatalgigabyte]

Agression is performed by the state. It steals land by creating a border. It gives inexistent rights to citizens and protects those citizens' privileges with a standing army. Now Ayn Rand could have been a market anarchist. But I'm getting the message that she was more like a minarchist, supporting official governance to protect 'rights', and disliking the crazed use of government.

[DJLorenzen]

Could be the case but i don't think so.

She don't seem like a person who is afraid of speaking up.

If humans lived in anarchistic societies before the arrival of the state, why do we then have a state today? Why could the anarchistic society not prevail against the state? How did the state get it's hold on the people?

[asiantiger01]

Great quotes. I consider myself a minarchist, and I think anarchist ideas and minarchist ideas are not really contradictory in essense. We both want the smallest form of government.

[XOmniverse]

Only anarchists want the smallest form of government (none). You want the smallest form of government + 1.

[asiantiger01]

Yes, that's correct.

[FA8T]

If a group of people decide to meet and arrange a party, they are being collectivist and libertarian. No doubt that would be more complicated but there have been periods of history where it has happened. As for defence large scale and small scale democratic militias. Hierarchy actually produces inefficency rather than reducing it, hence the reduction of state power over the last centuries.

[FA8T]

Sorry boys and girls but ayn rand was not an anarchist, actually she even resented the expression libertarian, she was an 'objectivist'.

Also I do not buy the rightwing libertarian view that colllective means coercive. There are collective and also free arrangments all the time.

[MatthewLeee]

Self Ownership leads to Anarcho-Capitalism, Ayn Rand supported Self Ownership, but for some reason, she was in denial. I always asked myself why she refused to accept her own conclusion. Maybe no one would read the works of an anarchist.

[XOmniverse]

I don't think conformity was an issue for her. She openly advocated selfishness, for example.

[MatthewLeee]

That makes it all the more confusing, why would Ayn Rand not embrace the logical conclusion of her own philosophy?

[MiniAmericanFlag]

This is definitely a huge question that I have about Objectivism. My girlfriend is reading an article about market anarchy and is fairly convinced by it. I'll have to look into this further.

[XOmniverse]

Read the article linked in the description.

[atheistcapitalist]

I would also want someone keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of crazy radical terrorists who have the intent to kill me and that could be complicated. That is why I am a minarchist because I believe that the military has to have some powers that others cannot. I am against gun control but I don't want citizens to have WMDs.

[MatthewLeee]

The question is why would citizens want WMD's, and how would they use them, and maintain them (ICBM requires silo and such.) It really wouldn't make much sense of own one, if I threatened someone, I would just be sniped from my window, simple as that.

[atheistcapitalist]

Also what you're saying holds a lot of merit because she mostly disliked socialist communal anarchists the ones that preceded anarcho-capitalists. Her point was that when coercion was concerned it would be better to leave it to a government that could be voluntarily funded. This is because without a government it would be difficult to stop a violent mob or large invading force. Anarcho-capitalism is almost the same thing.

[Bosco20061217]

Of course self defense would be hard in an anarcho-capitalist society. Life is full of challenges.

[atheistcapitalist]

True but the military is wholly different because many countries have forcibly collectivized militaries like north korea or china. They use their citizen's tax money for mostly these purposes disproportionately (especially North Korea where people are starving on a massive scale) and I find it impossible to believe that many small independent militias could be effective in modern conditions. Especially when nuclear weapons are involved that is why I agree with her opinion in this instance.

[atheistcapitalist]

I want to abolish the majority of wasteful departments like the Dept of Defense. These departments are ineffectual and counterproductive during Katrina the decentralized coast guard that was the only entity that was truly efficient.

[atheistcapitalist]

Also I am pissed about 911 as well I am a non-interventionist and I am only for the military protecting us and not aiding one segment of the population in a conflict that we have no part in or building an empire.

[atheistcapitalist]

I consider myself to be an objectivist and a libertarian although I am not just following everything she said I agree with her philosophy as a whole but not everything that she said.

[atheistcapitalist]

For starters I am not against market anarchism I personally believe that the two best systems are either minarchy or market anarchism and I want to research both to a large extent I am currently a minarchist but the only thing that I might be persuaded to at this time is anarcho-capitalism like the maker of the video seems to have been.

[atheistcapitalist]

Besides Ayn Rand is a great mind and I give her a lot of credit for instance I believe her when she said she wasn't anarchist.

[Bosco20061217]

Of course she was not an anarchist. The point is, is her advocacy of reason and objective law *consistent* with minarchism? My short answer; no, minarchism is rooted in subjectivism, the very evil she denounced.

[atheistcapitalist]

Do not try to make it seem as if I am endorsing the Iraq war. This has nothing to do with the Iraq war, Vietnam, or Korea I am talking more about acts of aggression against us. Don't change the subject by bringing up Iraq.

[Bosco20061217]

Ok, fair enough. The US Dept of Defense did a shitty job protecting key military and commerce centers during 9/11 and its parent company effectively prevented people from protecting themselves. Now can I have a refund?

[atheistcapitalist]

It's complicated though when it comes to the military as my previous comment shows some will be stealing the service in my opinion.

[Bosco20061217]

Many great minds, including Ayn Rand, have shown the "free rider" is not a problem in free markets.

[atheistcapitalist]

She is one of my favorite philosophers and I do agree with her and I think many misinterpret her writing.

[atheistcapitalist]

I consider myself a minarchist and I regard Ayn rand as a great philosopher and someone I agree with on more levels than most people. One thing that anarchists must answer in my opinion is if some pay for the military and others don't while the military engages in a nationwide service aren't those not paying receiving a service without paying.

[XOmniverse]

As long as no coercion is involved, does it matter?

[Bosco20061217]

I will gladly do without the "service" the US government is providing in Iraq. Can I have a refund?

[Bosco20061217]

I laugh every time I hear that anarchism would consist of everyone performing their own arrests, enforcing their own justice. Free markets involve specializatin and division of labour, which is why most of us do not churn our own ice cream or perform our own surgery.

[Bosco20061217]

Ayn Rand wrote that there is no "final authority" in ethics beyond the judgement of every sovereign individual. If the principles of justice are objective, then they fall within the scope of human reason. Any government that tries to enforce "mock justuce" is immoral, just as any individual would be. The principles count. "who" enforces them are irrelavant.

[DackBev]

As far as your market anarchism, if market anarchism is not going to provide you with a powerful enough defense force to protect you from invading state armies, are you still going to be a market anarchist? Is anarchism really worth that? What does it matter what is moral or not? If stealing to fund a protective force is necessary to protect yourself, then why not?

[XOmniverse]

"if market anarchism is not going to provide you with a powerful enough defense force to protect you from invading state armies"

How is this any different than if a state doesn't provide that same defense? States get conquered all the time.

[DackBev]

A state is naturally going to be more powerful than private defense. That's because it doesn't have to rely on voluntary payments. It can steal from those who aren't willing to pay for defense. An organization can receive more income and become more powerful through stealing than it can through voluntary trade. If you doubt this, look around.

[XOmniverse]

A state also lacks the market incentive to provide the best product for the lowest price that a private agency would. If one were to follow your argument all the way through, we could say the state is "naturally" better at anything that costs money since it can steal effectively. This isn't true, obviously.

[DackBev]

I'm not saying it's better at "anything," I'm saying it provides more powerful defense (and offense) than private defense. The tremendous amount of wealth at its disposal more than compensates for efficiency foregone due to not having to compete. Anyone who sets up a market anarchist society is foolish. They're just sitting ducks waiting to be invaded by much power powerful armies funded by theft. The state is a necessary evil.

[XOmniverse]

A "necessary evil" is a contradiction in terms.

[DackBev]

It's called an "idiom."

[DackBev]

And exactly my point. Theft is necessary for survival. Taxation is necessary for survival. If no states existed then we wouldn't have to tax to protect ourselves from being invaded by more oppressive states. The fact that thievery exists, requires us to be thieves as well.

[kylben]

If no states existed, then there would be no oppressive states to threaten us. But you're missing XOmni's point, a private defense agency with limited funding could potentially be more powerful than a state army with massive funding. This would be more likely to be true the longer the two co-exist, since economically, the stateless society would leave the rest in the dust. And we know that it is the underlying economy that most differentiates a society's military power, not numbers.

[DackBev]

"a private defense agency with limited funding could potentially be more powerful than a state army with massive funding." "Could" I agree with. But I say highly improbable. Most people choose to free ride whenever possible in any situation, therefore the defense funding would not be as large as it could be. Theft on a massive scale is required in order to maximize freedom.

[kylben]

It might not be as large as it could be, but it might be as large as it needs to be. As with all libertarian scenarios, the transition is the most dangerous. The imbalances would still favor the Democracies. But in a generation or two, Ancapia would be to any remaining democracies what those democracies are now to Buttfuckistan. And remember, the US in WWII, for instance, was woefully behind, but ramped its production up so fast it made the fascists heads spin.

[DackBev]

I don't think she saw "initiation of force" as an absolute rule. I believe she said there could be emergency situations where it would make sense to initiate force. If that's true, then she was simply being sloppy when she said that she opposed initiation of force. I think that was a general rule for her, rather than an absolute one. Preservation of life is the ultimate value, even if that requires initiation of force.

[DackBev]

Isn't self-preservation the ultimate end for Rand? If having a monopoly of force is more conducive toward that end than having an anarchy of force, then it makes sense for an egoist to not be an anarchist. But I do see your point, for I don't think you can have a monopoly on force without initiating force. Rand should have stated that there was self-preservation exception, or did she?

[XOmniverse]

No, she regarded a state as necessary to prevent the initiation of force, and saw no contradiction as a result. Also, market anarchy is more conducive to preventing force than a state.

[AynRandOeuvre]

"A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of conduct in a given geographical area.

Do men need such an institution?...

...Men can derive enormous benefits from dealing with one another. A social environment is most conducive to their siccessful survival- but only on certain conditions...

[AynRandOeuvre]

...If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules...

...This is the task of a government- of a proper government- its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control- ie.,under objectively defined laws. (Cap:TUIdeal/ARetal)

[XOmniverse]

I've read "The Nature of Government." But if such an institution is logically shown to be unnecessary in order to protect human rights, and indeed by its very nature must violate those rights in order to exist, why should we have it?

[Aynology]

Key wORds: Objective Law vs. non-objective law...which I'mplies a mixed-premise-perspective...wh­ich I'mplies arbitrary principles...no rules = anarchy.

Freedom most I'mpORtantly is "the right to disagree". However vehemently this 'disagreement' Manifests itself Objectivity must be recognized and protected.

And in "enfORcement" of Objective Law - There ARe no losers - "One wins : the other leARns"

[AlexAnCapAdvocate]

Okay. That's it. Somebody needs to explain this to me. If Objectivists are so smart, then why does some cult subset of them insist on making themselves look ignorant by randomly capitalizing the leters "O," "A" and "R" in all their comments?

You guys do understand that you don't capitalize letters in the middle of a word, right? [sarcasm]

[Aynology]

Did j'ya ever take a look at your own handle?

[AlexAnCapAdvocate]

In no way is that the same. Nom de plumes do not allow spaces and are limited in length. Capitalizations are thus necessary to delineate the seperation between words.

[AynRandOeuvre]

Just lineating the Metaphysics and mARking a tribute to its desAynOR; no cult accusations justified. 'XO' said in an eARlier vid-on atheism that he didn't feel a theist-biased manipulation in saying the pledge or singing the anthem. Some would like to see the scales begin to balance, that's all. Nothing 'cult' about it- Just Justice you see, Egoïsm granting primacy to one's I and all it comes down to proper recognition of sources. You know, Identification : Integration.

[fr3thinker]

The thing is, in Britain we have signed up for the European Community. Thus, we have no chance of Minarchy. We used to have a Conservative Party that was for less state control and a Labour Party for more state control. Now there is no real choice because both advocate the same thing. Interesting quote from Ben Franklin you gave us. Just maybe anarchy is possible...

[scottferrie]

5 stars

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Awesome. I heard it said by someone a while back that anarcho-capitalism seems to be the logical extreme of Objectivism. Kinda confusing why Rand remained so vigorously opposed to it, when she clearly had no faith in government.

[XOmniverse]

I find the term "logical extreme" kind of peculiar. Either something is logical or it isn't.

Ayn Rand had a very low opinion of "the public" I think. She saw less good in people than there actually was, and concluded that men were not good enough to govern themselves. This of course is directly at odds with the rest of Objectivist philosophy.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

"Logical extreme" -- taken to the fullest extent. But I see what you mean. Is kind of a strange word combination. I can't for the life of me remember who said that. I think it was an article on LewRockwell.

I think Rand was elitist in some ways, but that's a wild statement based only on reading two books and some Internet material. Your videos have gotten me interested in her ideas again.

[zsoakes]

Ayn Rand didn't say that men were not good enough to govern themselves. Her belief was that it, like most activities, needs to be conducted by professionals. The fact that <i>specific</i> people can't be trusted with flying planes doesn't mean nobody can be trusted.

[XOmniverse]

I don't buy into the notion that my life needs to be "conducted by professionals." We're talking about governing people, not flying planes. And your implicit premise (remember, always check them) is that the people in government are professionals at what they do. While this is true, what they do isn't protect human rights.

Have you read the article I linked in the description? It's worth your time.

[zsoakes]

A proper government doesn't conduct your life, it just conducts the protection of your rights. This is an incredibly complex activity that needs objectively-defined rules that everyone is aware of. It can be misused by corrupt people the same way a plane can be flown by suicidal terrorists, but the solution isn't to get rid of planes, it's to hire qualified people to fly them and create checks and balances to ensure safety. (I totally better get brownie points for that analogy.)

[XOmniverse]

Here's something to consider. In every criticism you make of anarchism, think to yourself: Is this any different for the state?

Look at it this way; in a free market, how does a non-expert know which pilots are safe to fly with? Clearly, one would look at reviews, safety records, comments from those who have flown with him, etc. Why should protection be any different?

[zsoakes]

The important thing in any field is that there are rules that govern without overlap. For example, a factory cannot exist with five different safety rule-sets that are mutually exclusive. Similarly, a single geographic region cannot have multiple legal codes governing the same area. I have no problem with the government contracting private companies to help <i>enforce</i> laws, but having multiple legislative bodies with conflicting rule-sets is bad no matter what field we're talking about.

[XOmniverse]

Why couldn't a factory exist with five different safety rule-sets? Why couldn't each employee in a factory choose the level of safety precautions they take, so long as they acknowledge the risk they put themselves at?

Now let's look at standards. CD-ROM did not come about as a result of government edict, but as a result of market forces; everyone benefits from being able to sell software and music in a format that most people can use.

[XOmniverse]

Obviously, there is a genuine market benefit for everyone to have standards regarding rules; it makes arbitration less common (thus saving money), it makes it easier for people to operate freely. Why would this not occur naturally?

[zsoakes]

My dictionary defines arbitration as "the use of an arbitrator to settle a dispute." I think what you're suggesting is that if two legal codes conflict, there will be some kind of process to iron out the disagreement. I've heard this theory before, but I don't think it would happen. Two legal codes are going to conflict constantly, and there's no way to arbitrate that. If you say sodomy is illegal and I say it isn't, there's no way to settle it besides warfare.

[XOmniverse]

Warfare and constant arbitration disputes are expensive. Wouldn't it make more sense to set up a process to handle disputes ahead of time with other protection agencies in the area? Banks and credit card companies already do this, without government intervention, because lawsuits are expensive.

Why would this not occur between protection agencies?

[zsoakes]

Safety rules arent just for your own safety, but the safety of others. There may be a rule that you can't leave a machine running without supervision. That isn't something you want to make optional.

I certainly don't think all rules should be govt-made. The factory makes its own rules. I'm just saying they shouldnt conflict. Even in the case of technology formats, we usually stick with one or two. It's not as important in that area, though, because compatibility conflicts aren't deadly.

[XOmniverse]

Certainly failure to maintain a standard in, say, airplane parts could be deadly. A standard exists in this case because, of course, nobody wants to die; the same reason why nobody with any sense at all would agree on a rule that people can leave machines running unsupervised.

Why would this not be the case with protection agencies? Isn't it in people's best interests to be able to live without coercion? If so, wouldn't they tend to want protection that recognizes this?

[zsoakes]

Even if these protection agencies all shared the same classical liberal philosophy, they would differ on the particulars. For example, when Mr. Smith's window fan fell and landed on a pedestrian, was he being negligent? When Joe's neighbor warned him he was "gonna get it" and his house was burlarized the next day, is it enough evidence to search his neighbor's house? These particulars are the very "stuff" of law. Two agencies can both believe in rights but disagree on these issues.

[XOmniverse]

This is where arbitration comes in. I believe I already explained this.

As far as an individual conducting a search of someone else's property, I don't know if Joe's protection agency would be happy to hear about that. In all likelihood, they have other clients in the area whom they would not want this to happen to, and would likely place restrictions on such foolhardy behavior.

[zsoakes]

Regarding arbitration, like I said, I don't believe it would work. One agency will define negligence differently from the other. If they were able to come to an agreement on everything, there would be no need for separate legal codes - they would essentially be a single government.

[XOmniverse]

They wouldn't be a single government because (A) there would still be variations between them and (B) because you could still choose which one you think will more effectively protect you for the best price.

The key here is that, unlike a state, there actually is genuine consent of the governed. You would be free to choose the agency that most represented your values, or even to not choose an agency at all!

[zsoakes]

We need to draw a distinction between legislation and enforcement. I'm all for having private police forces compete to enforce the same legal code. But you can never have variations in legal codes without conflicts arising.

Remember that a proper gov't does nothing except protect rights, so clearly nobody can be given the "choice" to violate rights. If that's what you mean by consent of the governed, I'm against it. I've understood the term to mean the ability to vote new people into office.

[XOmniverse]

If by choice you mean the ability, then we all always have that choice, state or not. If by choice you mean "without any consequences" then only a state can enable that by providing a means to buy force without any competitors to keep it in check. Only the state can create an artificial right to violate rights.

Remember that natural rights are the premise on which a minimal state is allegedly justified. If it can be shown that a state is not needed, then it loses that justification.

[zsoakes]

What you're essentially saying is that even if a criminal doesn't choose a protection agency for himself, he will still be pursued by the victim's agency. In this case, isn't it true that he has not consented to the laws of that protection agency? That's even more non-consensual, because unlike the present system he didn't even vote for the guys who made the laws in that agency.

[XOmniverse]

That's a risk he took by choosing to not have any legal representation. Would it be right to force someone else to absorb the cost of his decision making process? Wouldn't providing him with free protection be at the cost of someone else without their consent?

[XOmniverse]

Also, I'm going to sleep. Rather than continuing this discussion within the annoying constraints of the Youtube comment system, send me a private message if you wish to continue.

[zsoakes]

No, it's not that he didn't choose to have legal representation (i.e., a defense attorney), it's that he didn't choose to be subject to the laws in the first place. Unless these agencies don't have the power to arrest people (i.e., they're essentially security guards), they would by necessity have to chase people down and prosecute them under a legal system they didn't consent to.

[kylben]

So should we ban private piloting as well? But really, the question isn't whether rights protection should be handled by professionals - in general, it's a very good division of labor - but of who gets to decide *which* professionals will do it. For my rights protection, *only* I can rightly decide.

[ProgressiveMan1]

Why wouldnt private police enforcement just turn into mob rule? Who is going to punish the private police if they violate people's rights?

And in a proper society, force isnt required to fund the gov't. It would be based on voluntary funds by the individuals. Why wouldnt people WANT to pay for a gov't that essentially protects their lives and rights?

[DackBev]

Because they don't have to. Why pay for something you can steal or free-ride on?

[ProgressiveMan1]

The point is that a society would raise enough money without force. This is because most people would realize they need a protector of rights in order to live in a free society.

[AlexAnCapAdvocate]

This will come in handy for my videos on this subject. I'll have to get your sources.