According to Objectivists, you do not have the right to chose your court because you might chose a court which will not give you the right to chose your court.
Or in other words, you cannot be free because you might use the freedom to be unfree. Makes sense to me.
@prashantpawar No, it's that you might use the freedom to make *someone else* unfree. Force and law needs to be defined objectively and centrally, not democratically as in a so-called "market".
Anarcho-capitalists think objective law will just naturally arise from the void according to the demand of the people.. well.. we're still waiting.
In a society where force is undefined and open to interpretation, you get what we have now. A mess.
@Darkademic I said you might use the freedom to make *yourself* unfree. Freedom to make others unfree isn't freedom. According to you people cannot have freedom to choose their courts or defense organizations because otherwise they might use it chose a court or defense organization which will take away your freedom. Am I right? This means you cannot be free because you might use the freedom to be unfree.
"I don't want to be an Economic Dictator, not even long enough to issue that order for people to be free--which any rational human being would throw back in my face, because he'd know that his rights are not to be held, given or received by your permission or mine."
I'm glad you made this video because it's an important topic, but I disagree.
A consistent Objectivist is a market-anarchist, and the market-anarchists who have the most philosophically sound defense of their position are also Objectivists.
It's one thing if you want to make the claim that some aggression is necessary (it's not of course), but you can't deny that what defines a "state" is aggression.
If it doesn't collect taxes, or stop customers from using its competitors, it's not a state.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I'm still not convinced by this video. You say that competition might be a good thing in law enforcement, yet you refuse to allow it. Objectivists are, by definition, statists as they DESIRE the need of a legislative branch to protect such imaginary concepts as IP.
im an objectivist , can all you anarcaps get ur security teams to whipe out all the collectivists ? they are using force to steal my money, then we can debate the best way to police our selfs !! :)
You say multiple competing agencies will necessarily conflict, with no evidence or logic to back that up. Empirically it is false, polycentric law has existed in stateless societies before.
Just remember that you as the statist are making the positive claim that there must be an entity with the monopoly on force to enforce law. The burden of proof is on you. You can't just say 'I can't see how that's going to work' - especially when the fact is that it has worked.
An advanced civilization considers ALL options to achieve ALL goals, essentially it is advanced because it sets no moral limitations. It should not rule out the option of initiating force, so long as it would serve the self interest(s) of that civilization. Of course it would be only if diplomacy failed (e.g securing another country's resources) This is why Germany's invasion of Poland was just because it was in their self interest. In the end it simply depends on what side you are on.
@ancestoralmemory From the sounds of things you'd be willing to kill your neighbour if it helped you if you wanted to be considered an 'advanced' being. Whether an action is morally right does not depend on whether or not it is done by a collective group or not. So if you want to abandon morality at the civilization level, you must do it at the individual level as well. Mob violence is still violence, no matter how big or small the mob.
@cincofone I never stated that an action was right if more people did it. If you look at the most advanced civilizations past and present you will see that they didn't/don't limit themselves "morally". In other words, its not about abandoning "morality" at the civilization level, since you will only GET to the civilization level if you are willing to consider ALL options. Aggression is a last resort and not ideal, but foolish to ignore it all together...
Again, from what I understand, under Anarcho-capitalism, everyone can reserve the right to defend the self and/or society, as well as the right not to defend the self and/or society.
Under Anarcho-capitalism, there is the voluntary support for the monopoly of force. Under Objectivism, that support is not voluntary.
From what I understand of anarcho-capitalism, the non-aggression principle reserves the monopoly on retaliatory force for the individual, and not for the society as a whole. The society cannot force me to either support or resist its monopoly on retaliatory force, nor can I force society to do the same for my own right to defend my own self.
That would be like telling a pacifist he is obliged to defend himself and the society (or move to North Korea/Somalia).
"Market" is a collective noun for all the choices made by the people; governmental policy provides, at best, a murky reflection of these choices.
If there is one "objective" law (there isn't), then our best hope of actually finding it is to allow it to emerge from the market.
State defined/enforced law has a poor record on upholding the no-coercion rule. The free market will always do so, as it will always be worth more to Mr. A. to not be coerced than it is to Mr. B. to be able to coerce.
@JohnColt Allowing a free-market to determine how coercion is defined is subjectivism at best, and its political equivalent is democracy, which is rule by the majority and no better than rule by the minority.
The poor record of states upholding the non-coercion rule is non-argument. Just because X happened in the past doesn't mean X will always happen, especially when talking about human decisions.
Your last sentence is circular logic. A free-market cannot be a prerequesite of itself.
@Darkademic When did I say anything about "allowing a free market to determine how coercion is defined"? ...and I have no idea what you mean by "A free-market cannot be a prerequisite of itself" - a never suggested that it is.
And my point about the history is not a "non-argument". Yes, it is hypothetically possible for government to be non-coercive, but I think it's a tad naive to ignore 6000 years of history. Even if we were somehow to create one, it wouldn't last. Read D. Friedman for more.
@JohnColt The law is a codification of the non-aggression principle. You said the market should determine the law. It shouldn't, because that is democracy.
You suggest that market forces will create a free-market based on non-aggression, but market forces assume a free-market already exists. That's circular logic.
6000 years of history would also suggest that humans are incapable of creating any lasting free society, which I don't believe is the case.
@JohnColt I appreciate the comments btw, and I understand where you're coming from. My main issue with anarchism is that I think it's democracy in disguise. I believe law is objective and scientific, and cannot be decided arbitrarily by markets. Markets don't always lead to what is right or correct, and the popularity of things like religion demonstrates that quite clearly.
@Darkademic 1. The principles of aerodynamics are objective; yet evolution has produced many kinds of flight. Similarly, the market can give rise to many competing legal systems, all based on the N.A.P. Nobody can disobey the N.A.P any more than a bird can disobey aerodynamics, as no legal system permitting coercion could ever compete - a law that permits you to coerce others, permits others to coerce you, and nobody is going to pay to subscribe to a law that permits their own persecution!
@Darkademic 2. Also, market forces are not the product of a free market; they are objective principles of economic science - that's why socialism doesn't work!
As for the record of history, society on the whole has been getting freer over the centuries, wherever central authority has diminished. The future is Anarchism.
Okay.. watched your video. How can you get "monopoly on retaliatory force" from "non-initiation of force"?
Competition in providing retaliatory force is not competition in principles of justice.
HOWEVER, since there are many SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS of NAP that divides libertarian philosophers... or ones that there still is no consensus... than it will be valid to derive different specific laws from the same principles.
Just do everyone a favor and read "anarchism as constitutionalism"
I think the key is that objective law can exist without government. Look up "Xeer" law (African natural law implemented in stateless Somalia) Law doesn't have to be a top-down "taxis" order, but can be a bottom-up "kosmos" order.
@labrusca10 It doesn't matter who comes up with the law, that isn't the point. The point is that there is only one objective interpretation of force which must be implemented unilaterally, no matter who disagrees with it.
@labrusca10 It doesn't matter, as long as it's correct. That's a bit like asking "who gets to decide how gravity works?" If it's objective, it's scientific, and it's discovered not invented.
There is objectively only one clean water principle (H2O) and only one electricity principle (the one described by physics), therefore an objectivis must propose that only one agency may sell water and only one agency may sell electricity. Guess what happens when one agency is given the control of all the water... Who watches the watchers?
@Darkademic the analogy is perfectly relevant as it applies to multiple arguments entertained by the video. Not all arguments in the vid require the article of the monopoly to be a necessity for the existence of a free market. By the way, water IS a necessity for a free market, because it is a necessity for life itself :) My analogy shows that existing real life examples of competition do not lead to the alleged consequences claimed in the vid. Also, who watches the monopolistic watchers?
@charonme Erm no, if water was a prerequesite for a free market in the same way that individual rights are, then water, like individual rights, would have to be provided BY right, which is an obvious contradiction.
The argument for a single unified agency applies only to the interpretation and codification of law and the use of retaliatory force, so you analogy is invalid.
... The monopolistic watchers watch each other - in exactly the same way that anarchistic agencies would. A government is, after all, a group of "agents". People do not somehow become more objective or vigilant by being part of a private defense agency.
@Darkademic You're arguing against yourself. People truly are not more vigilant by being part of an agency (monopolistic or competitive), and so the monopolistic watcher could not watch himself in a better way than any citizen would watch himself. Competing watchers however WOULD be more vigilant, because they would compete with each other. If you remove the competition, you remove the only reason why they would bother at all. Please study the known and well understood effects of monopoly
@charonme Who said anything about removing competition? What makes competition within a single agency fundamentally different to competition between multiple agencies? Nothing: People are people.
@charonme ... Put another way, two companies can provide water with slightly different ingredients without initiating force. Two companies CANNOT provide two differering legal codes without one (or both) of them NECESSARILY initiating force.
@Darkademic "...water with slightly different..." I was not talking about differing waters, I was attacking the argument that ONE water (or one legal code) necessarily needs ONE provider. This is false since we know from experience that multiple competing providers of the SAME good/service (eg. water) can exist on a peaceful market.
But even your modified argument is unsound. There ARE multiple legal codes in effect (eg. canadian and usa's) without them having necessary violent conflicts
@charonme False. There is only one correct interpretation of what constitutes an initiation of force and there are NOT multiple legal codes in effect which DO NOT initiate force to some extent, so your point is invalid.
@Darkademic the interpretation of violence is relative to the wishes of an individual. If I agree with the water company that they will charge my account for their services, then charging my account is not violence, however if my neighbor didn't agree with them, doing THE SAME THING to him would be violence.
Yes there truly are multiple legal codes in effect without force initiation. Eg. my church and my neighbors different church. Your inability to see them doesn't mean they don't exist.
@charonme You are incorrectly equivocating the law itself (i.e. the defense of individual rights) with all other types of goods and services.
Yes, multiple companies could sell exactly the same product (e.g. water) without conflict - WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT. What they CANNOT do however, with regards to the law, is pass off a subjective/false interpretation of the law AS objective law. My point is that they MUST all uphold OBJECTIVE law or they are initiating force.
@Darkademic no, I'm not equivocating "the law itself", I'm correctly equivocating the protection service and conflict resolution service with all other types of products and services.
"What makes competition within a single agency fundamentally different to competition between multiple agencies?" - The fact that they are competing for the patronage of outside customers. "competition within a single agency" (whatever that may mean) is nonsense because the customers view it as a single agency
@charonme To clarify further - there isn't one morally right thing to drink, so it's fine to sell products other than water, wheras there IS a morally right LAW, so it's NOT fine to sell "alternative laws" - which makes it distinct from all other "products".
@Darkademic Donation is not taxation. If it is donation, it is not a government. Taxation is defined by the use of coercive force. Government is defined by the use of coercive force.
@godofreudson Haha. Do you even know what "semantics" means? It is the study of words or symbols, and the meaning behind them, therefore it IS semantics and whether you disagree with my choice of words is utterly irrelevant and has no bearing on the validity of the MEANING of the arguments presented in the video.
1. Semantics is relevant. We have to know the meaning of the words we use, otherwise we won't even make sense. I know it was semantics... that's why I put the (") in 'It's not "semantics"'.
2. To be fair to you, I didn't really took the time and watched your video, so I don't know if your arguments are unaffected. You can present your argument in written language if you want me to answer.
3. You should really read the paper by Roderick Long.
And how will this monopoly be funded? Taxation is by its very nature coercive. Voluntary taxation would be nice, but it would necesarily result in much more localized governments (people would become less and less willing to give away large portions of their paycheck to some agency hundreds of miles away when they could recieve adequate protection down the street)..this downfall of centralized government would end up so similar to anarchy it would be pointless to make a distinction
@theInversion99 Funded voluntarily by donations. It is irrelevant how localised the government becomes, what matters is the singular, objective law, and the objective framework which allows cross-validation of the use of retaliatory or defensive force.
The flaw in this analysis is that a "monopoly on retaliatory force" is an abstraction that can never exist. It's floating. The very act of preventing others -by force -from using retaliatory force is an act of aggression. Even Rand admitted that taxation should be voluntary. Well, if you endorse voluntary taxation, you are really an anarcho-capitalist in disguise. Might as well come out of the closet!
@ORIGINALUSRNM Wrong. The framework and rules laid down by government are required to determine whether someone is using retaliatory force legitimately or not.
If someone murders your wife, and you track the murderer down and kill him, it could be called retaliatory force. The problem arises when nobody else can distinguish your retaliation from initiation. Without an objective set of procedures and rules used to validate force, no distinction can be made.
@Darkademic Yes, we have a need for objective law. This need can be satisfied by voluntary human interaction and does not need to be forced on to people by a State any more than a postal service. I can agree to use a private law firm and also agree to allow them to pronounce a verdict on whether or not "retaliation" is justified. I can further agree that if I violate this contract that a private enforcement agency has the right to come after me with force.
@ORIGINALUSRNM If distinct defense agencies were to all operate according to a singular law and set of procedures (i.e. those which objectively reflect the non-aggression principle), what is the practical difference between them and a government composed of multiple departments (given that I said in the video that agencies can be funded as a distinct entity based on how effectively they operate)?
@Darkademic - Good question. The difference is that private defense agencies would be funded voluntarily and people could stop paying for them if they acted up. Also, they would not enforce a monopoly on law or defense by violently preventing other people from starting such businesses. It is possible that some individuals may want to hire people that reject the non-aggression principle , but then all you would do is establish another government. the same situation as we have now.
@ORIGINALUSRNM Well I'd argue that government departments can be funded voluntarily as well. I advocate a monopoly on law because only one interpretation of the non-aggression principle can be correct, and law is simply a reflection of this principle. Imagine 99% of people were Marxists who thought paying wages below $X constituted an initiation of force. They'd be wrong, as would any less extreme examples.
... The point of a government is to take law out of the market, because it is not something that should be open to people's potentially wrong interpretations of what is right/wrong, or what constitutes an initiation of force.
@ORIGINALUSRNM Aye, but a particular interpretation will be the correct one. Law should be treated like a science, not like an arbitrary pick n mix of public opinion (like it is now). Do you agree?
@Darkademic Yes, but I don't believe the State is able to do that. Precisely b/c it is a coercive monopoly on force it prevents law from being treated like it should. I would argue that the market is what would allow it to be treated objectively. Good law would always out-compete bad law just good cell phones out sell bad ones. You don't have to do business with people that subscribe to insane law providers. The incentive is for people to choose good providers if they want to trade.
@Darkademic But if it is being funded voluntarily, I couldn't be forced to pay for it not could I be prevented from paying for a different provider. How will this voluntary State that you propose keep its monopoly if not by force, which means that those who don't want to support it are forced to - hardly a "voluntary" situation. If 99% of the poeple were Marxists all they would do is support a Marxist government. At least w/o a State the non-Marxists have a change to support something better.
@ORIGINALUSRNM You can pay for whatever you want, sure. The question "how will the monopoly be maintained?" isn't really relevant, because we have to assume that the people in the society are already philosophically in agreement with the non-aggression principle, and so the question becomes "how do we determine whether government agencies are doing their job properly, and what should happen if they aren't?"
... My ideal system is very close to anarcho-capitalism in all honesty, but it simply adds a more strict and explicit framework that binds the various defense agencies together, effectively making them a government. The reason being that a free market cannot and does not exist without objective law, therefore you cannot use a free market to determine said law. You can't set up an agency and go hunting "criminals" without first defining what constitues a criminal.
@Darkademic Also, I just want to add, that if people en masse would want to hire law agencies that rejected the non-aggression principle, they you are dealing with some really dumb people and having a government will only allow those dumb people to support and elect a politicians that also reject the non-aggression principle. The difference is that with a government the poeple that believe in non-aggression have no way to take away the dumb peoples power except violent revolution.
@ORIGINALUSRNM I don't think you can use the status quo as an argument for either system. If most people are dumb, any system of retaliatory force, be it government or private defense agencies, will reflect that and be open to misuse.
Black and white thinking is a mental disorder, you have to be adaptable or perish. Mix and match isms as needed. The idea of a less coercive government, more involvement of people in the government, freedom of the airways, rights go to the highest bidder now and transparency in government and business. We don't need a law for business. Just stop doing business or working with them. We can do all that now, so who is to blame?
Hmm..we need choice..so there can be no choice? The initiation of violence is wrong, so we need people tasked calling themselves the Goverment to monopolise it's use to stop the initiation of force..and so on..this is exactly the madness which continues violence. Infinite regress, circular Bullshit.
Ok..I choose not to have a goverment then..oh can't I choose that? If i decide to choose that, I die in the woods..or get shot, by the goverment. The non initiation of force is what we are initiatating right now..ie NEGOTIATION,. I can choose not to shoot people..I'm sure you know that by now!
Since a proper government only retaliates against the initiation of force, choosing "not to have a government" is choosing to be free to initiate force. So long as you don't initiate force, the government leaves you alone.
@D4rkReaver13 - So if I own property and mind my own business, and make voluntary exchanges with consenting individuals and just want to be left alone (not taxed and told what to do) and I'm not hurting anybody, the government is going to leave me alone and not threaten me with or use violence against me to collect their extortion money, I mean taxes?
@D4rkReaver13 Tell that to the people who have their doors kicked in, get tazed or shot, and then thrown in a cage because they didn't pay up to the government.
@D4rkReaver13 The belief that a government with a monopoly on coercive force is going to use it solely for retaliatory purposes seems illogical. (Have you met any humans?) Besides, that government will have to be funded, and by necessity this funding will have to be coercive and not voluntary, which is itself an INITIATION of force. You can't have government without initiation of force.
I don't hold that some may create a state while others may not etc.
Basically I mean there can only be one objective law, therefore *it* has a "monopoly" - in quotes because it's a monopoly of ideas rather than of a group of people.
There can only be one interpretation of what constitutes an initiation of force, and any individual who wants to perform governmental actions (i.e. use retaliatory force) must abide by a code of conduct which allows their actions to be judged accordingly.
No, there cannot be "equally valid" interpretations. That's why there's a need for courts and other institutions to resolve disputes. The market provides that the highest quality and lowest cost mechanisms for this will be selected.
What you claim is that you and you alone (or your approved group and it alone) may defend people's rights and resolve disputes, as if human beings are not capable of self-government except that they be dominated by a monopoly not of their choosing.
Then you're misunderstanding me. Anyone can defend people's rights and resolve disputes; but anyone who does so must abide by a single objective interpretation of the non agression principle. I.e. there can be no competing codes of laws - the law has a monopoly.
I even stated in the video that it's "not because those in government are somehow more objective than private individuals, but simply because there can be only one objective law."
"Anyone can defend people's rights and resolve disputes" and "there can be no competing codes of laws" are contradictory.
Do you acknowledge that "competing codes of law" exist and have always existed? Are you claiming that people are not sovereign and may not be sovereign, that everyone must be under one world gov't?
You just said there can't be equally valid interpretations. Law is an interpretation of a set of principles applied to society.
There is no contradiction. People can only be sovereign IF certain things (the initiation of violence) are prohibited. Such prohibition needs no consensus to be rightly enforced.
If "such prohibition needs no consensus to be rightly enforced" then why are you saying people can't defend themselves based on the non-aggression principle?
If non-aggression is a valid universal rule, why do you insist on monopoly?
It seems you have other rules besides non-aggression: monopoly provision for one. But this can't be applied universally since monopoly necessarily excludes others. You must have one world gov't or nothing apparently.
Imagine for a moment if Intel processors were somehow MORALLY right, and all others were, to varying extents, morally wrong. That would mean all processors should rightly be Intel processors. They would rightly hold a monopoly.
Simply think of "non-aggression" as the product (and assume that it is not "ownable" like a processor or an invention). It means that all agencies.. "non-aggression companies" have to produce the same thing, by the same standards.
I think you may be idealizing law too much if by "the same standards" you mean sameness. There simply isn't complete agreement, but the market can produce a close approximation to justice which satisfies most. If law is subject to economy then the incentive is toward essentials.
Competition in providing vital services to society is necessary to allow for the best outcome. There's simply no justification for
monopoly provision. Such can only come by force, contradicting the underlying ethic.
"any agency which enforces said standard is part of the government."
You keep introducing new ideas. Is this how you get out of calling yourself an anarchist - that any agency is now part of gov't?
So you don't follow Rand then in proposing a territorial monopoly - an actual state? You are saying that the NAP is the monopoly because it's the only valid principle for law?
Ok, but that isn't what monopoly means. Seems you're trying to harmonize Rand with an anarchist view, which is confusing.
... "Ok, but that isn't what monopoly means. Seems you're trying to harmonize Rand with an anarchist view, which is confusing."
It's not confusing. The monopoly is held by those who follow objective procedures and enforce objective principles as law.
I am trying to harmonise the ideas yes, because I agree that nobody has more right to be in government more than anyone else, but I also accept that you can't let the market arbitrarily decide what aggression means or what laws should be.
There is no right to monopoly. Since such a "right" could not be applied universally, no one could ever establish a STATE ethically. Objectivists should be able to grasp this in two seconds.
You are claiming that some men may do what others may not - a self-evident contradiction.
The other objections can be addressed after the special pleading of a monopoly right
is dispensed with.
Read Roy Childs' Open Letter to Ayn Rand called Objectivism and the State.
Another thought is that objectivists will say we have the right to revolt against tyranny like the founding fathers, but why are revolutions more "objective" or rational than providing competing services?
Who are these people who establish a monopoly state? Do they have my consent? Who judges how "objective" they are?
And then a non-taxing minimal objectivist state simply won't have the power to shut down peaceful competitors, so it just seems moot anyway.
Here is a simple question which exposes the self-contradictory nature of Objectivist "government": If I decide to hire a guy to protect my rights, what do you do? If you let me do it, there goes your monopoly on the use of defensive force. If you forcibly interfere, there goes your claim to believing in non-aggression. "Government" and the defense of rights are mutually exclusive. Either the thing has rights that I don't, or it's not "government." It can't be the same as me AND be above me.
And if a bunch of people in a neighborhood do it? Exactly WHICH "defensive force" is your Objectivist "government" going to have a monopoly on? And what if some peoplem including me, want to hire someone ELSE to use such force? Will I be allowed (there goes your monopoly) or will I be forcibly prevented (there goes your non-aggression)?
You're missing the point - as all anarchists do. The question is not WHO does it, it's HOW they do it - i.e. by what methods and adhering to which principles / rights.
A government is not defined by the individuals which comprise it, but by its adherence to objective principles.
If you hire someone to defend you, and they abide by objective principles, then good for you.
... A government is a structure, not a specific group of people. The point of this structure is to provide a framework within which individual rights can be protected.
There's nothing wrong with police forces competing by being more efficient / effective, there IS something wrong with agencies with competing (and therefore contradictary) laws based on conflicting principles.
If it's not WHO does it, but HOW they do it, how could it be a "monopoly"--which means ONE EXCLUSIVE GROUP doing something? And to say that government isn't a specific group of people is bizarre. Depending upon my behavior today, I might be "government" today? And you might be it tomorrow? You use "creative semantics" to try to escape the obvious contradiction in the Objectivist notion of "government." Despite your attempts to rationalize the irrational, you proved my point, so I'm done here.
The one exclusive group is not defined by the individuals within it, but by their methods and principles. Simple. If that sounds like "creative semantics" to you then you need to brush up on your language skills.
And yes, of course someone might legitimately be government one moment and not the next. If they use force, they are no longer performing the proper function of government and can rightly be opposed/overthrown. That's the difference between a government and a mafia.
There is no contradiction. Anarchism proposes a wishy-washy "do whatever you want" approach; it doesn't dare suggest a particular principle should be rigidly enforced. The non-initiation of force is not optional and should not be treated as such.
No private monopoly would engage in oppressing the masses, because the consumer decides which monopoly occurs. Wealth isn't power. How many rich people do you know that engage in wars? Wealth is a accumulation of riches. Rich people make money based on services, and goods, which the consumer decides. Only those in favor of the state, are those who want to force tyranny upon the people's liberty. Anybody who lives in a modern country knows how the state thinks what is best for everyone.
Anarcho-capitalists advocate EXTREME tyranny, they just don't see economic fascism. When you give all power to unaccountable private hands, you're screwing the people over even more than State Capitalism, where at least the people have some say in what's going on.
Interesting. I think the problem I have with the one philosophy is that not everyone is going to agree on one philosophy; even if you call it non-aggression, who decides what is or isn't aggression? That's the problem I see.
You cannot eliminate the use of force. You are envisioning a Utopia, in which no man ever tries to victimize another. As long as men are human, they will be free to choose to act in an irrational and immoral manner against their fellows and there will always be some who act as brutes, inflicting their will upon others by force. You cannot achieve the truly Utopian goal of a mental evolution of all mankind, where no one will even commit crimes, only a superior market based way of dealing with it.
I liked your video very much as it relates to the telos of monetary system(s). I've added this video as a wrap up to a short playlist on my channel.
As a side note: I will say that I do not subscribe nor disavow objectivism as a philosophical school. It seems obvious and hence obviously rhetorical. It also seems limited at the border of the will of (a) subject(ivity).
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist but I find your argument strange. Your position appears to include the position that if the existing government initiates force against me then I shouldn't resist. Is that your position? Do you oppose the creation of a government that competes with the government that initiates force?
I acknowledge your arguements for an anarchy system, and see the validity of your supporting reasons, however, I still feel that I am more comfortable in a society governed by SOME kind of federal power. Government should not be seen as an obstruction to humanity in anyway (although it has become that way in many instances), on the contrary, it should be viewed as a tool of population that should be used to promote the well being and comfort of its citizens.
But isn't a private business an organization of employees and executibes? It may not have "governing" power over the population in general, but it does have said powers over its employees. Unfortunantly, government is a real part of human nature, and people will find ways to build a hierarchical government body to support their needs -- whether that body is a privately owned business making the best economic desicions for the company, or a federal government making the best choices 4 the people.
Equating the two mixes many incompatible elements, namely that of voluntary membership, consent, and the respect for rights. The owner of a private company cannot dispose of the property and lives of others without their consent; he must offer value for offer. The state imposes its will by the use of force and finances its activities through the seizure of property and income (taxation).
In addition, a pricately owned business is a form of government in itself. It would seek to gain more power -- humans do crave power in general. So it's not unreasonable to see that a privately owned PDA would assert itself to rule the free market , and eventaully the population running that market. What I'm trying to say is, getting rid of a government body would only be replacing one potential tyrant with another. What I would purpose is some kind of balance between federal and private power.
I don't consider a private business a government, precisely the opposite. Morever, I would rather live in a system where we are replacing *potential tyrants* instead of real ones.
I acknowledge your arguements for an anarchy system, and see the validity of your supporting reasons, however, I still feel that I am more comfortable in a society governed by SOME kind of federal power. Government should not be seen as an obstruction to humanity in anyway (although it has become that way in many instances), on the contrary, it should be viewed as a tool of population that should be used to promote the well being and comfort of its citizens.
My only concern with privately owned defense and security agencies is what happens when one agency BECOMES a monopoly and asserts control over individuals and there markets through use of force. It's certaintly true that the population would favor one PDA over others (because it would supply better quality defense). So then without a government body with the power to dissolve said monopolized PDA, how would the general population combat the threat?
The outcome u describe is what we already have, the only difference is that it did not emerge as a result of consumer choice, but through violence & conquest.
It makes no sense to argue that a minimal state is preferable to a free market because private defense agencies *might* do what governments have *always* done.
And if your minimal government becomes tyrannical, can it be legitimately "dissolved* by a rival agency that is not tyrannical? If yes, welcome to anarchism.
But a private defense agency *would* become monopolized -- especially in a capitalist society where competition is encouraged for the profit of the business. Think of Wal-Mart and Microsoft, both of which are well known examples of private businesses becoming monopolized. The only reason they don't overpower other bussnisses in the U.S is because the federal government is limiting them. The U.S has been trying to break Microsoft into many sub-companies for years.
I don't deny monopolies are *possible* in a free market, and if Microsoft and Walmart are examples, they are of the benign kind, firms that offer products and services that most find satisfying enough that it's unprofitable to compete. Give some credit to the role of consumer choice as a check on corporate arrogance.
I do see your point on trusting in the desicion of the people to limit the power of "corperate arrogance". And to clear my statement, I don't see anything wrong in the development of monopolies (if that's what the consumers choose to promote). I'm only saying that there should be some kind of organization (whether it be federal or private) to limit the power of monopolies, should one decide to become oppressive.
The only monopoly I fear is the one that enforces its will through violence or the threat of violence. And the state is the only institution I know of that does this consistently.
Yamato, monopolies in a anarchy are by consumer choice. If the monopoly is oppressive, the consumer would simply stop supporting such monopoly. Simple as that. Wealth isn't power. People with guns, and like control others are the ones who want power. I don't see any ketchup company, or anything private oppressing people. That's just absurd. Federal power is a power legitimately, because they literally use their their guns against you to control you. Don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. Absurd.
I'll have to pick up on this later. I recommend an excellent article that addresses the very points you are making about Objectivist minarchism and objective procedures. It is "In Defense of Rational Anarchism" By George Smith. I cannot post a link on youtube, but you can google it. If you have not already read it, it is well worth looking at, IMHO.
Because humans are fallible, force must be strictly controlled. People can't be just free to use retaliation unilaterally without any kind of process by which their actions are validated. The general population cannot be free from force if there is no objective methodology for ascertaining what force is, and a system for carrying this methodology out. This is a function of government.
It doesn't matter WHO in particular is providing such services - what matters is they are subordinate to an objective system of validation - the government.
Who will control the controller? I imagine you will say that ultimately, it boils down to philosophical consensus and public vigilance. Fine, but if this is an effective check on abuse of governmental power, why can it not be assumed that the same philosophical consensus and public vigilance will counteract and minimize the abuse among judicial institutions in a free market?
There's nothing about justice and the use of force, that makes a state the only reliable judge or enforcing mechanism.
I'd agree with that I think, but anarcho-capitalism does not suggest a singular legal framework which must be explicitly followed by any agencies to be legimitate. An objective use of retaliatory force requires objective validation by an objective process - so those wishing to perform governmental functions must go through such a process before they can fill such a position. Still, I think it's correct that it's not a question of who in particular is in these positions.
An analogy; is medicine a discipline that requires objective validation by an objective process? Do you advocate a single provider of medicine and health services on the grounds of the need for objective procedures?
Ultimately, the question of what will keep free market DRO's honest and objective, is no different than the question of what will allegedly keep an Objectivist government from abusing *it's* power. Public vigilance and a cultural inclination towards reason and respect for rights.
No, only force needs to be objectively validated and controlled.
Yes, public vigilance and a public philosophical consensus which respects rights is (at least partly) what will keep governmental powers in check.
If all agencies are binded by a singular code, they are essentially a government. They have a monopoly over the definition of force and the proper way to retaliate against it.
The NYPD and LAPD are separate, largely autonomous entities, and are funded as such, but are still part of the government. They are subordinate to upholding a specific code of laws. The same would be so in an Objectivist system, except the law would be based on the non-initiation of force; on individual rights. There is no competition possible other than competition over jobs in government positions.
The NYPD and LAPD uphold different legal codes, and as a result they violate the consistency rule of Objectivist minarchism, which in effect would have to advocate one world government. As you said, "If all agencies are binded by a singular code, they are essentially a government.". Note the singular "government".
Your post above this one also refers to a "monopoly of definitions". Is that phrase not alien to Objectivist terminology?
Well yeah I was just using the NYPD/LAPD as examples - obviously the actual law they uphold is non-objective.
The "monopoly of definitions" is my own interpretation of Objectivism, and is not explicitly part of the philosophy, although I think it is consistent with it.
I think you are equating *objective* with *exclusive". The first does not require the second.
If the principles of justice are objective, then they can be derived by using the faculty of reason, which is a capacity possessed by every individual. His use of force does not cease to be objective, from the mere fact that he has implemented it apart from the state, nor does it assume the status of objective, from the mere fact that he is a member of the state.
The first does require the second. This is my whole point: I'm separating people from principles. Objectivity isn't exclusive to certain individuals - but objectivity must have an exclusive "authority" so to speak - so non-objective codes and rules are not legitimate.
The state is DEFINED by its objective use of force, and not by the the particular individuals which it is composed of. The government IS the structural component which provides a method for objectivity.
Objectivist minarchism *does not* separate people from principles, because it is primarily concerned with *who* enforces the rules of justice, and only secondarily at best, *what rules* are enforced. Ayn Rand implicitly argued against this approach in her article "Who is the Final Authority in Ethics?" Applied to political theory, this is an endorsement of rational anarchism.
Morevover, what attribute of a government inclines towards objectivity, in theory or historical fact?
prashantpawar above - I even said in my video that a government is not "inclined towards objectivity" - that is beside the point. It is merely the fact that that there cannot be multiple equally correct interpretations/definitions of what constitutes force which legitimises a government.
Forget particular individuals, government is not a representation of a particular group of people or their views; government is a STRUCTURE which facilitates the objective validation of the use of retaliatory force.
And without employing circular definitions or reasoning, what are those "structural features" that facilitate such objective validation, that are either unknowable or logically impossible to actors in a market system?
I don't claim to know the specific structures - but suffice it to say they are based on logic and natural rights.
Again, as the video stated, it's not that people are incapable of being objective - it's that there has to be a strict system to control force. A market is too open to subjective desire; it provides no structure or procedure for dealing with ambiguity or disagreement.
I agree & would expand that to say that such objective validation is required in any field.
The mechanism for dealing with ambiguity or disagreement in a free market is arbitration. Arbitration, defense & other judicial institutions in a free market have to earn their keep by developing procedures and conducting themselves in ways that are generally perceived as fair & balanced by subscribers & observers. There's no equivalent for an agency whose monopoly on force is acquired by force itself.
Also, weak minds fail to mount adquate criticism, and at times the philosophy will dominate weak minds.
Adeikov 1 month ago
I don't trust an ideology/political philosophy or anything, unless it undergoes rigorous criticism.
Adeikov 1 month ago
According to Objectivists, you do not have the right to chose your court because you might chose a court which will not give you the right to chose your court.
Or in other words, you cannot be free because you might use the freedom to be unfree. Makes sense to me.
prashantpawar 1 month ago
@prashantpawar No, it's that you might use the freedom to make *someone else* unfree. Force and law needs to be defined objectively and centrally, not democratically as in a so-called "market".
Anarcho-capitalists think objective law will just naturally arise from the void according to the demand of the people.. well.. we're still waiting.
In a society where force is undefined and open to interpretation, you get what we have now. A mess.
Darkademic 1 month ago
@Darkademic I said you might use the freedom to make *yourself* unfree. Freedom to make others unfree isn't freedom. According to you people cannot have freedom to choose their courts or defense organizations because otherwise they might use it chose a court or defense organization which will take away your freedom. Am I right? This means you cannot be free because you might use the freedom to be unfree.
prashantpawar 1 month ago
"I don't want to be an Economic Dictator, not even long enough to issue that order for people to be free--which any rational human being would throw back in my face, because he'd know that his rights are not to be held, given or received by your permission or mine."
--John Galt
JesseForgione 1 month ago
I'm glad you made this video because it's an important topic, but I disagree.
A consistent Objectivist is a market-anarchist, and the market-anarchists who have the most philosophically sound defense of their position are also Objectivists.
It's one thing if you want to make the claim that some aggression is necessary (it's not of course), but you can't deny that what defines a "state" is aggression.
If it doesn't collect taxes, or stop customers from using its competitors, it's not a state.
JesseForgione 1 month ago
I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I'm still not convinced by this video. You say that competition might be a good thing in law enforcement, yet you refuse to allow it. Objectivists are, by definition, statists as they DESIRE the need of a legislative branch to protect such imaginary concepts as IP.
Frenchyification 2 months ago
im an objectivist , can all you anarcaps get ur security teams to whipe out all the collectivists ? they are using force to steal my money, then we can debate the best way to police our selfs !! :)
plasticspine 3 months ago
Video is not a valid criticism.
SlickExecutiveType 6 months ago 2
You say multiple competing agencies will necessarily conflict, with no evidence or logic to back that up. Empirically it is false, polycentric law has existed in stateless societies before.
Just remember that you as the statist are making the positive claim that there must be an entity with the monopoly on force to enforce law. The burden of proof is on you. You can't just say 'I can't see how that's going to work' - especially when the fact is that it has worked.
cincofone 8 months ago
An advanced civilization considers ALL options to achieve ALL goals, essentially it is advanced because it sets no moral limitations. It should not rule out the option of initiating force, so long as it would serve the self interest(s) of that civilization. Of course it would be only if diplomacy failed (e.g securing another country's resources) This is why Germany's invasion of Poland was just because it was in their self interest. In the end it simply depends on what side you are on.
ancestoralmemory 8 months ago
@ancestoralmemory From the sounds of things you'd be willing to kill your neighbour if it helped you if you wanted to be considered an 'advanced' being. Whether an action is morally right does not depend on whether or not it is done by a collective group or not. So if you want to abandon morality at the civilization level, you must do it at the individual level as well. Mob violence is still violence, no matter how big or small the mob.
cincofone 8 months ago
@cincofone I never stated that an action was right if more people did it. If you look at the most advanced civilizations past and present you will see that they didn't/don't limit themselves "morally". In other words, its not about abandoning "morality" at the civilization level, since you will only GET to the civilization level if you are willing to consider ALL options. Aggression is a last resort and not ideal, but foolish to ignore it all together...
ancestoralmemory 7 months ago
Comment removed
ancestoralmemory 8 months ago
Again, from what I understand, under Anarcho-capitalism, everyone can reserve the right to defend the self and/or society, as well as the right not to defend the self and/or society.
Under Anarcho-capitalism, there is the voluntary support for the monopoly of force. Under Objectivism, that support is not voluntary.
Correct me if I'm wrong
mad11red 9 months ago
From what I understand of anarcho-capitalism, the non-aggression principle reserves the monopoly on retaliatory force for the individual, and not for the society as a whole. The society cannot force me to either support or resist its monopoly on retaliatory force, nor can I force society to do the same for my own right to defend my own self.
That would be like telling a pacifist he is obliged to defend himself and the society (or move to North Korea/Somalia).
mad11red 9 months ago
Anyone that violates the Non-Coercion Principle should be charged as such.
qwertypoiu4321 9 months ago
"Market" is a collective noun for all the choices made by the people; governmental policy provides, at best, a murky reflection of these choices.
If there is one "objective" law (there isn't), then our best hope of actually finding it is to allow it to emerge from the market.
State defined/enforced law has a poor record on upholding the no-coercion rule. The free market will always do so, as it will always be worth more to Mr. A. to not be coerced than it is to Mr. B. to be able to coerce.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt Allowing a free-market to determine how coercion is defined is subjectivism at best, and its political equivalent is democracy, which is rule by the majority and no better than rule by the minority.
The poor record of states upholding the non-coercion rule is non-argument. Just because X happened in the past doesn't mean X will always happen, especially when talking about human decisions.
Your last sentence is circular logic. A free-market cannot be a prerequesite of itself.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic When did I say anything about "allowing a free market to determine how coercion is defined"? ...and I have no idea what you mean by "A free-market cannot be a prerequisite of itself" - a never suggested that it is.
And my point about the history is not a "non-argument". Yes, it is hypothetically possible for government to be non-coercive, but I think it's a tad naive to ignore 6000 years of history. Even if we were somehow to create one, it wouldn't last. Read D. Friedman for more.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt The law is a codification of the non-aggression principle. You said the market should determine the law. It shouldn't, because that is democracy.
You suggest that market forces will create a free-market based on non-aggression, but market forces assume a free-market already exists. That's circular logic.
6000 years of history would also suggest that humans are incapable of creating any lasting free society, which I don't believe is the case.
Darkademic 1 year ago
Comment removed
Darkademic 1 year ago
@JohnColt I appreciate the comments btw, and I understand where you're coming from. My main issue with anarchism is that I think it's democracy in disguise. I believe law is objective and scientific, and cannot be decided arbitrarily by markets. Markets don't always lead to what is right or correct, and the popularity of things like religion demonstrates that quite clearly.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic 1. The principles of aerodynamics are objective; yet evolution has produced many kinds of flight. Similarly, the market can give rise to many competing legal systems, all based on the N.A.P. Nobody can disobey the N.A.P any more than a bird can disobey aerodynamics, as no legal system permitting coercion could ever compete - a law that permits you to coerce others, permits others to coerce you, and nobody is going to pay to subscribe to a law that permits their own persecution!
JohnColt 1 year ago
@Darkademic 2. Also, market forces are not the product of a free market; they are objective principles of economic science - that's why socialism doesn't work!
As for the record of history, society on the whole has been getting freer over the centuries, wherever central authority has diminished. The future is Anarchism.
JohnColt 1 year ago
Actually.. I think this one would be better: mises.org/etexts/longanarchism . pdf
Bidinotto's critique (which is similar to yours) is addressed more briefly in this one.
godofreudson 1 year ago
Okay.. watched your video. How can you get "monopoly on retaliatory force" from "non-initiation of force"?
Competition in providing retaliatory force is not competition in principles of justice.
HOWEVER, since there are many SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS of NAP that divides libertarian philosophers... or ones that there still is no consensus... than it will be valid to derive different specific laws from the same principles.
Just do everyone a favor and read "anarchism as constitutionalism"
godofreudson 1 year ago
PROTIP: "Anarchism as Constitutionalism" by Roderick T. Long
godofreudson 1 year ago
I think the key is that objective law can exist without government. Look up "Xeer" law (African natural law implemented in stateless Somalia) Law doesn't have to be a top-down "taxis" order, but can be a bottom-up "kosmos" order.
labrusca10 1 year ago
@labrusca10 It doesn't matter who comes up with the law, that isn't the point. The point is that there is only one objective interpretation of force which must be implemented unilaterally, no matter who disagrees with it.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic And who gets to decide what the law is?
labrusca10 1 year ago
@labrusca10 It doesn't matter, as long as it's correct. That's a bit like asking "who gets to decide how gravity works?" If it's objective, it's scientific, and it's discovered not invented.
Darkademic 1 year ago
There is objectively only one clean water principle (H2O) and only one electricity principle (the one described by physics), therefore an objectivis must propose that only one agency may sell water and only one agency may sell electricity. Guess what happens when one agency is given the control of all the water... Who watches the watchers?
charonme 1 year ago
@charonme False analogy. Water and electricity are not prerequesites of a free market, nor are they necessary for the defense of individual rights.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic the analogy is perfectly relevant as it applies to multiple arguments entertained by the video. Not all arguments in the vid require the article of the monopoly to be a necessity for the existence of a free market. By the way, water IS a necessity for a free market, because it is a necessity for life itself :) My analogy shows that existing real life examples of competition do not lead to the alleged consequences claimed in the vid. Also, who watches the monopolistic watchers?
charonme 1 year ago
Comment removed
Darkademic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@charonme Erm no, if water was a prerequesite for a free market in the same way that individual rights are, then water, like individual rights, would have to be provided BY right, which is an obvious contradiction.
The argument for a single unified agency applies only to the interpretation and codification of law and the use of retaliatory force, so you analogy is invalid.
Darkademic 1 year ago
... The monopolistic watchers watch each other - in exactly the same way that anarchistic agencies would. A government is, after all, a group of "agents". People do not somehow become more objective or vigilant by being part of a private defense agency.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic You're arguing against yourself. People truly are not more vigilant by being part of an agency (monopolistic or competitive), and so the monopolistic watcher could not watch himself in a better way than any citizen would watch himself. Competing watchers however WOULD be more vigilant, because they would compete with each other. If you remove the competition, you remove the only reason why they would bother at all. Please study the known and well understood effects of monopoly
charonme 1 year ago
@charonme Who said anything about removing competition? What makes competition within a single agency fundamentally different to competition between multiple agencies? Nothing: People are people.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@charonme ... Put another way, two companies can provide water with slightly different ingredients without initiating force. Two companies CANNOT provide two differering legal codes without one (or both) of them NECESSARILY initiating force.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic "...water with slightly different..." I was not talking about differing waters, I was attacking the argument that ONE water (or one legal code) necessarily needs ONE provider. This is false since we know from experience that multiple competing providers of the SAME good/service (eg. water) can exist on a peaceful market.
But even your modified argument is unsound. There ARE multiple legal codes in effect (eg. canadian and usa's) without them having necessary violent conflicts
charonme 1 year ago
@charonme False. There is only one correct interpretation of what constitutes an initiation of force and there are NOT multiple legal codes in effect which DO NOT initiate force to some extent, so your point is invalid.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic the interpretation of violence is relative to the wishes of an individual. If I agree with the water company that they will charge my account for their services, then charging my account is not violence, however if my neighbor didn't agree with them, doing THE SAME THING to him would be violence.
Yes there truly are multiple legal codes in effect without force initiation. Eg. my church and my neighbors different church. Your inability to see them doesn't mean they don't exist.
charonme 1 year ago
@charonme You are incorrectly equivocating the law itself (i.e. the defense of individual rights) with all other types of goods and services.
Yes, multiple companies could sell exactly the same product (e.g. water) without conflict - WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT. What they CANNOT do however, with regards to the law, is pass off a subjective/false interpretation of the law AS objective law. My point is that they MUST all uphold OBJECTIVE law or they are initiating force.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic no, I'm not equivocating "the law itself", I'm correctly equivocating the protection service and conflict resolution service with all other types of products and services.
"What makes competition within a single agency fundamentally different to competition between multiple agencies?" - The fact that they are competing for the patronage of outside customers. "competition within a single agency" (whatever that may mean) is nonsense because the customers view it as a single agency
charonme 1 year ago
@charonme To clarify further - there isn't one morally right thing to drink, so it's fine to sell products other than water, wheras there IS a morally right LAW, so it's NOT fine to sell "alternative laws" - which makes it distinct from all other "products".
Darkademic 1 year ago
Complete Garbage. There are more holes in this critique then in the swish cheese.
armsandro 1 year ago
@armsandro Complete garbage. Criticism without content is worthless.
Darkademic 1 year ago
Force is only legitimate when it protects persons and property from harm.
soyuski 1 year ago
@soyuski Correct.
Darkademic 1 year ago
Intriguing... Worthy of more thought.
01t0by01 1 year ago
Btw, "voluntary taxation" is a contradiction. Nonexistent.
godofreudson 1 year ago
@godofreudson Semantics. Just use "donations" instead.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic Donation is not taxation. If it is donation, it is not a government. Taxation is defined by the use of coercive force. Government is defined by the use of coercive force.
godofreudson 1 year ago
@godofreudson Semantics. It's completely irrelevant what words you use, the concepts remain.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic WTF are you talking about? It's not "semantics"... you're just plainly using wrong words just so you can still say it's a state.
I've got news for you: If it is donation, it is NOT A STATE.
godofreudson 1 year ago
@godofreudson Haha. Do you even know what "semantics" means? It is the study of words or symbols, and the meaning behind them, therefore it IS semantics and whether you disagree with my choice of words is utterly irrelevant and has no bearing on the validity of the MEANING of the arguments presented in the video.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic I'll be brief.
1. Semantics is relevant. We have to know the meaning of the words we use, otherwise we won't even make sense. I know it was semantics... that's why I put the (") in 'It's not "semantics"'.
2. To be fair to you, I didn't really took the time and watched your video, so I don't know if your arguments are unaffected. You can present your argument in written language if you want me to answer.
3. You should really read the paper by Roderick Long.
godofreudson 1 year ago
And how will this monopoly be funded? Taxation is by its very nature coercive. Voluntary taxation would be nice, but it would necesarily result in much more localized governments (people would become less and less willing to give away large portions of their paycheck to some agency hundreds of miles away when they could recieve adequate protection down the street)..this downfall of centralized government would end up so similar to anarchy it would be pointless to make a distinction
theInversion99 1 year ago
@theInversion99 Funded voluntarily by donations. It is irrelevant how localised the government becomes, what matters is the singular, objective law, and the objective framework which allows cross-validation of the use of retaliatory or defensive force.
Darkademic 1 year ago
The flaw in this analysis is that a "monopoly on retaliatory force" is an abstraction that can never exist. It's floating. The very act of preventing others -by force -from using retaliatory force is an act of aggression. Even Rand admitted that taxation should be voluntary. Well, if you endorse voluntary taxation, you are really an anarcho-capitalist in disguise. Might as well come out of the closet!
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago
@ORIGINALUSRNM Wrong. The framework and rules laid down by government are required to determine whether someone is using retaliatory force legitimately or not.
If someone murders your wife, and you track the murderer down and kill him, it could be called retaliatory force. The problem arises when nobody else can distinguish your retaliation from initiation. Without an objective set of procedures and rules used to validate force, no distinction can be made.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic Yes, we have a need for objective law. This need can be satisfied by voluntary human interaction and does not need to be forced on to people by a State any more than a postal service. I can agree to use a private law firm and also agree to allow them to pronounce a verdict on whether or not "retaliation" is justified. I can further agree that if I violate this contract that a private enforcement agency has the right to come after me with force.
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago
@ORIGINALUSRNM If distinct defense agencies were to all operate according to a singular law and set of procedures (i.e. those which objectively reflect the non-aggression principle), what is the practical difference between them and a government composed of multiple departments (given that I said in the video that agencies can be funded as a distinct entity based on how effectively they operate)?
Darkademic 1 year ago
Comment removed
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago
@Darkademic - Good question. The difference is that private defense agencies would be funded voluntarily and people could stop paying for them if they acted up. Also, they would not enforce a monopoly on law or defense by violently preventing other people from starting such businesses. It is possible that some individuals may want to hire people that reject the non-aggression principle , but then all you would do is establish another government. the same situation as we have now.
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago
@ORIGINALUSRNM Well I'd argue that government departments can be funded voluntarily as well. I advocate a monopoly on law because only one interpretation of the non-aggression principle can be correct, and law is simply a reflection of this principle. Imagine 99% of people were Marxists who thought paying wages below $X constituted an initiation of force. They'd be wrong, as would any less extreme examples.
Darkademic 1 year ago
... The point of a government is to take law out of the market, because it is not something that should be open to people's potentially wrong interpretations of what is right/wrong, or what constitutes an initiation of force.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic But law, even by a government is always interpreted by "people". No constitution will interpret itself.
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago
@ORIGINALUSRNM Aye, but a particular interpretation will be the correct one. Law should be treated like a science, not like an arbitrary pick n mix of public opinion (like it is now). Do you agree?
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic Yes, but I don't believe the State is able to do that. Precisely b/c it is a coercive monopoly on force it prevents law from being treated like it should. I would argue that the market is what would allow it to be treated objectively. Good law would always out-compete bad law just good cell phones out sell bad ones. You don't have to do business with people that subscribe to insane law providers. The incentive is for people to choose good providers if they want to trade.
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darkademic "because it is not something that should be open to people's potentially wrong interpretations of what is right/wrong"
Wow. The state is not people?
Can you point to any state in history whose interpretations
of right and wrong were NOT demonstrably wrong?
MillionthUsername 1 year ago
@Darkademic But if it is being funded voluntarily, I couldn't be forced to pay for it not could I be prevented from paying for a different provider. How will this voluntary State that you propose keep its monopoly if not by force, which means that those who don't want to support it are forced to - hardly a "voluntary" situation. If 99% of the poeple were Marxists all they would do is support a Marxist government. At least w/o a State the non-Marxists have a change to support something better.
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago
@ORIGINALUSRNM You can pay for whatever you want, sure. The question "how will the monopoly be maintained?" isn't really relevant, because we have to assume that the people in the society are already philosophically in agreement with the non-aggression principle, and so the question becomes "how do we determine whether government agencies are doing their job properly, and what should happen if they aren't?"
Darkademic 1 year ago
... My ideal system is very close to anarcho-capitalism in all honesty, but it simply adds a more strict and explicit framework that binds the various defense agencies together, effectively making them a government. The reason being that a free market cannot and does not exist without objective law, therefore you cannot use a free market to determine said law. You can't set up an agency and go hunting "criminals" without first defining what constitues a criminal.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic "a free market cannot and does not exist without objective law,"
Law is something built into the structure of reality. You seem
to be referring to law here merely as positive law (legislation) issued
unilaterally as edicts.
Clearly, society exists and is able to produce and carry
out peaceful exchange prior to any legislature. Hobbes was
absolutely wrong. The production of a surplus in free markets
is what leads to the incentive of conquest among the parasite
class of statists.
MillionthUsername 1 year ago
@Darkademic Also, I just want to add, that if people en masse would want to hire law agencies that rejected the non-aggression principle, they you are dealing with some really dumb people and having a government will only allow those dumb people to support and elect a politicians that also reject the non-aggression principle. The difference is that with a government the poeple that believe in non-aggression have no way to take away the dumb peoples power except violent revolution.
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago
@ORIGINALUSRNM I don't think you can use the status quo as an argument for either system. If most people are dumb, any system of retaliatory force, be it government or private defense agencies, will reflect that and be open to misuse.
Darkademic 1 year ago
Black and white thinking is a mental disorder, you have to be adaptable or perish. Mix and match isms as needed. The idea of a less coercive government, more involvement of people in the government, freedom of the airways, rights go to the highest bidder now and transparency in government and business. We don't need a law for business. Just stop doing business or working with them. We can do all that now, so who is to blame?
hbar1212 1 year ago
Banning would imply we're outlawing it. Anarcho-Capitalists seek to LIVE force/coercion free lives and abide by the non-aggression principle.
Thanks for playing.
StatelessCapitalist 1 year ago
@StatelessCapitalist What does that even mean?
Darkademic 1 year ago
Hmm..we need choice..so there can be no choice? The initiation of violence is wrong, so we need people tasked calling themselves the Goverment to monopolise it's use to stop the initiation of force..and so on..this is exactly the madness which continues violence. Infinite regress, circular Bullshit.
DecassyJake 1 year ago 5
Wrong.
We need choice, so you can't choose a denial of choice. I.e. the non-initiation of force is NOT optional.
The freedom to choose cannot apply to itself.
D4rkReaver13 1 year ago
Ok..I choose not to have a goverment then..oh can't I choose that? If i decide to choose that, I die in the woods..or get shot, by the goverment. The non initiation of force is what we are initiatating right now..ie NEGOTIATION,. I can choose not to shoot people..I'm sure you know that by now!
DecassyJake 1 year ago
Er..
Since a proper government only retaliates against the initiation of force, choosing "not to have a government" is choosing to be free to initiate force. So long as you don't initiate force, the government leaves you alone.
D4rkReaver13 1 year ago
@D4rkReaver13 - So if I own property and mind my own business, and make voluntary exchanges with consenting individuals and just want to be left alone (not taxed and told what to do) and I'm not hurting anybody, the government is going to leave me alone and not threaten me with or use violence against me to collect their extortion money, I mean taxes?
readthepaper 1 year ago
@readthepaper Correct.
D4rkReaver13 1 year ago
@D4rkReaver13 Tell that to the people who have their doors kicked in, get tazed or shot, and then thrown in a cage because they didn't pay up to the government.
readthepaper 1 year ago
@D4rkReaver13 The belief that a government with a monopoly on coercive force is going to use it solely for retaliatory purposes seems illogical. (Have you met any humans?) Besides, that government will have to be funded, and by necessity this funding will have to be coercive and not voluntary, which is itself an INITIATION of force. You can't have government without initiation of force.
labrusca10 1 year ago
YT sent me your reply, but it does not appear here, so:
"I did not say some men may do what others may not"
You hold that some people may create a state; others may not. Some may create law; others may not.
"the 'monopoly' is not of people, but of law, therefore there is no contradiction."
Oh, so "the law" creates and enforces itself?
Why do you put monopoly in quotes? Is a monopoly not a monopoly?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
I don't hold that some may create a state while others may not etc.
Basically I mean there can only be one objective law, therefore *it* has a "monopoly" - in quotes because it's a monopoly of ideas rather than of a group of people.
There can only be one interpretation of what constitutes an initiation of force, and any individual who wants to perform governmental actions (i.e. use retaliatory force) must abide by a code of conduct which allows their actions to be judged accordingly.
D4rkReaver13 2 years ago
"I don't hold that some may create a state while others may not etc."
Then how is a territorial monopoly even possible?
"it's a monopoly of ideas rather than of a group of people."
Ideas have no independent existence.
"There can only be one interpretation..."
and "one objective law" "One law" necessitates one world gov't.
I don't know what the other one means.
Are these premises or conclusions? What are they based on?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Well, do you think there can be multiple, equally valid interpretations of the non aggression principle?
D4rkReaver13 2 years ago
No, there cannot be "equally valid" interpretations. That's why there's a need for courts and other institutions to resolve disputes. The market provides that the highest quality and lowest cost mechanisms for this will be selected.
What you claim is that you and you alone (or your approved group and it alone) may defend people's rights and resolve disputes, as if human beings are not capable of self-government except that they be dominated by a monopoly not of their choosing.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Then you're misunderstanding me. Anyone can defend people's rights and resolve disputes; but anyone who does so must abide by a single objective interpretation of the non agression principle. I.e. there can be no competing codes of laws - the law has a monopoly.
D4rkReaver13 2 years ago
I even stated in the video that it's "not because those in government are somehow more objective than private individuals, but simply because there can be only one objective law."
D4rkReaver13 2 years ago
"Anyone can defend people's rights and resolve disputes" and "there can be no competing codes of laws" are contradictory.
Do you acknowledge that "competing codes of law" exist and have always existed? Are you claiming that people are not sovereign and may not be sovereign, that everyone must be under one world gov't?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
You just said there can't be equally valid interpretations. Law is an interpretation of a set of principles applied to society.
There is no contradiction. People can only be sovereign IF certain things (the initiation of violence) are prohibited. Such prohibition needs no consensus to be rightly enforced.
D4rkReaver13 2 years ago
You're talking in circles!
If "such prohibition needs no consensus to be rightly enforced" then why are you saying people can't defend themselves based on the non-aggression principle?
If non-aggression is a valid universal rule, why do you insist on monopoly?
It seems you have other rules besides non-aggression: monopoly provision for one. But this can't be applied universally since monopoly necessarily excludes others. You must have one world gov't or nothing apparently.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Am not!
People CAN defend themselves.
People CAN'T make up their own laws based on arbitrary standards.
There is ONE objective standard, and any agency which enforces said standard is part of the government.
It's so simple.
It doesn't matter how many governments there are, so long as they all follow the same objective principles - that's what I mean by a monopoly.
D4rkReaver13 2 years ago
Imagine for a moment if Intel processors were somehow MORALLY right, and all others were, to varying extents, morally wrong. That would mean all processors should rightly be Intel processors. They would rightly hold a monopoly.
Simply think of "non-aggression" as the product (and assume that it is not "ownable" like a processor or an invention). It means that all agencies.. "non-aggression companies" have to produce the same thing, by the same standards.
D4rkReaver13 2 years ago
I think you may be idealizing law too much if by "the same standards" you mean sameness. There simply isn't complete agreement, but the market can produce a close approximation to justice which satisfies most. If law is subject to economy then the incentive is toward essentials.
Competition in providing vital services to society is necessary to allow for the best outcome. There's simply no justification for
monopoly provision. Such can only come by force, contradicting the underlying ethic.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
"any agency which enforces said standard is part of the government."
You keep introducing new ideas. Is this how you get out of calling yourself an anarchist - that any agency is now part of gov't?
So you don't follow Rand then in proposing a territorial monopoly - an actual state? You are saying that the NAP is the monopoly because it's the only valid principle for law?
Ok, but that isn't what monopoly means. Seems you're trying to harmonize Rand with an anarchist view, which is confusing.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
@MillionthUsername Didn't see these replies because I changed my username.
"You keep introducing new ideas. Is this how you get out of calling yourself an anarchist - that any agency is now part of gov't?"
I don't care what I'm labelled as, it's the ideas that matter.
Any agency which follows objective procedures and laws is part of the government, yes.
Darkademic 1 year ago
... "Ok, but that isn't what monopoly means. Seems you're trying to harmonize Rand with an anarchist view, which is confusing."
It's not confusing. The monopoly is held by those who follow objective procedures and enforce objective principles as law.
I am trying to harmonise the ideas yes, because I agree that nobody has more right to be in government more than anyone else, but I also accept that you can't let the market arbitrarily decide what aggression means or what laws should be.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic "I am trying to harmonise the ideas"
I can't make sense of it though when you talk about
monopoly.
And how is the market arbitrary on law? Firms must provide
and people must choose what corresponds best to reality or
else it will fail. Just like a house builder must build, you know,
a HOUSE, not a shipping crate!
Look up "the law merchant" and see how the market worked
to provide the needed rules, and even courts, for people to
trade safely. No state was needed.
MillionthUsername 1 year ago
@Darkademic "Any agency which follows objective procedures and laws is part of the government, yes."
A private agency is part of the gov't? Are you using "gov't"
in a generic sense of carrying out a function of "governance"
for those involved?
That's still confusing, especially in an objectivist context.
MillionthUsername 1 year ago
There is no right to monopoly. Since such a "right" could not be applied universally, no one could ever establish a STATE ethically. Objectivists should be able to grasp this in two seconds.
You are claiming that some men may do what others may not - a self-evident contradiction.
The other objections can be addressed after the special pleading of a monopoly right
is dispensed with.
Read Roy Childs' Open Letter to Ayn Rand called Objectivism and the State.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Another thought is that objectivists will say we have the right to revolt against tyranny like the founding fathers, but why are revolutions more "objective" or rational than providing competing services?
Who are these people who establish a monopoly state? Do they have my consent? Who judges how "objective" they are?
And then a non-taxing minimal objectivist state simply won't have the power to shut down peaceful competitors, so it just seems moot anyway.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MillionthUsername "Who are these people who establish a monopoly state? Do they have my consent? Who judges how "objective" they are?"
I've dealt with this; it's a monopoly of principle, not of specific people.
Darkademic 1 year ago
@Darkademic "it's a monopoly of principle, not of specific people."
Please explain specifically what this means with a real world
example. If A starts a law firm you deem objective, then no one
else can? What will you do to B who starts a competing firm?
I've read the old comments, and this has not been resolved.
MillionthUsername 1 year ago
@MillionthUsername "There is no right to monopoly."
I already said that in the video and in my previous comments.
"You are claiming that some men may do what others may not - a self-evident contradiction."
No, I am not.
Darkademic 1 year ago
Here is a simple question which exposes the self-contradictory nature of Objectivist "government": If I decide to hire a guy to protect my rights, what do you do? If you let me do it, there goes your monopoly on the use of defensive force. If you forcibly interfere, there goes your claim to believing in non-aggression. "Government" and the defense of rights are mutually exclusive. Either the thing has rights that I don't, or it's not "government." It can't be the same as me AND be above me.
LarkenRose 2 years ago 2
You can hire a guy to protect your rights; it's called a bodyguard or a security guard. That's nothing to do with government.
D4rkReaver13 2 years ago
And if a bunch of people in a neighborhood do it? Exactly WHICH "defensive force" is your Objectivist "government" going to have a monopoly on? And what if some peoplem including me, want to hire someone ELSE to use such force? Will I be allowed (there goes your monopoly) or will I be forcibly prevented (there goes your non-aggression)?
LarkenRose 2 years ago 3
You're missing the point - as all anarchists do. The question is not WHO does it, it's HOW they do it - i.e. by what methods and adhering to which principles / rights.
A government is not defined by the individuals which comprise it, but by its adherence to objective principles.
If you hire someone to defend you, and they abide by objective principles, then good for you.
D4rkReaver13 2 years ago
... A government is a structure, not a specific group of people. The point of this structure is to provide a framework within which individual rights can be protected.
There's nothing wrong with police forces competing by being more efficient / effective, there IS something wrong with agencies with competing (and therefore contradictary) laws based on conflicting principles.
D4rkReaver13 2 years ago
If it's not WHO does it, but HOW they do it, how could it be a "monopoly"--which means ONE EXCLUSIVE GROUP doing something? And to say that government isn't a specific group of people is bizarre. Depending upon my behavior today, I might be "government" today? And you might be it tomorrow? You use "creative semantics" to try to escape the obvious contradiction in the Objectivist notion of "government." Despite your attempts to rationalize the irrational, you proved my point, so I'm done here.
LarkenRose 2 years ago 2
The one exclusive group is not defined by the individuals within it, but by their methods and principles. Simple. If that sounds like "creative semantics" to you then you need to brush up on your language skills.
And yes, of course someone might legitimately be government one moment and not the next. If they use force, they are no longer performing the proper function of government and can rightly be opposed/overthrown. That's the difference between a government and a mafia.
D4rkReaver13 2 years ago
There is no contradiction. Anarchism proposes a wishy-washy "do whatever you want" approach; it doesn't dare suggest a particular principle should be rigidly enforced. The non-initiation of force is not optional and should not be treated as such.
D4rkReaver13 2 years ago
No private monopoly would engage in oppressing the masses, because the consumer decides which monopoly occurs. Wealth isn't power. How many rich people do you know that engage in wars? Wealth is a accumulation of riches. Rich people make money based on services, and goods, which the consumer decides. Only those in favor of the state, are those who want to force tyranny upon the people's liberty. Anybody who lives in a modern country knows how the state thinks what is best for everyone.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago 3
Anarcho-capitalists advocate EXTREME tyranny, they just don't see economic fascism. When you give all power to unaccountable private hands, you're screwing the people over even more than State Capitalism, where at least the people have some say in what's going on.
BattousaiOfChaos 2 years ago
Interesting. I think the problem I have with the one philosophy is that not everyone is going to agree on one philosophy; even if you call it non-aggression, who decides what is or isn't aggression? That's the problem I see.
ItsTavii 2 years ago
You cannot eliminate the use of force. You are envisioning a Utopia, in which no man ever tries to victimize another. As long as men are human, they will be free to choose to act in an irrational and immoral manner against their fellows and there will always be some who act as brutes, inflicting their will upon others by force. You cannot achieve the truly Utopian goal of a mental evolution of all mankind, where no one will even commit crimes, only a superior market based way of dealing with it.
Koutetsu 2 years ago
I never implied that the use of force can be eliminated, I said that people must work to eliminate it - i.e. get as close as possible.
D4rkReaver13 2 years ago
I liked your video very much as it relates to the telos of monetary system(s). I've added this video as a wrap up to a short playlist on my channel.
As a side note: I will say that I do not subscribe nor disavow objectivism as a philosophical school. It seems obvious and hence obviously rhetorical. It also seems limited at the border of the will of (a) subject(ivity).
dospook 3 years ago
What program did you use to make this video?
RobertPFreeman 3 years ago
Intro was done in Adobe After Effects. Text was done in Flash.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist but I find your argument strange. Your position appears to include the position that if the existing government initiates force against me then I shouldn't resist. Is that your position? Do you oppose the creation of a government that competes with the government that initiates force?
Individualistico 3 years ago
I acknowledge your arguements for an anarchy system, and see the validity of your supporting reasons, however, I still feel that I am more comfortable in a society governed by SOME kind of federal power. Government should not be seen as an obstruction to humanity in anyway (although it has become that way in many instances), on the contrary, it should be viewed as a tool of population that should be used to promote the well being and comfort of its citizens.
YamatoDamashii24 3 years ago
I think that is part of the problem; people in general tend to view the state as a cosmic Santa Claus, instead of a tool for coercive redistribution.
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
But isn't a private business an organization of employees and executibes? It may not have "governing" power over the population in general, but it does have said powers over its employees. Unfortunantly, government is a real part of human nature, and people will find ways to build a hierarchical government body to support their needs -- whether that body is a privately owned business making the best economic desicions for the company, or a federal government making the best choices 4 the people.
YamatoDamashii24 3 years ago
Equating the two mixes many incompatible elements, namely that of voluntary membership, consent, and the respect for rights. The owner of a private company cannot dispose of the property and lives of others without their consent; he must offer value for offer. The state imposes its will by the use of force and finances its activities through the seizure of property and income (taxation).
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
In addition, a pricately owned business is a form of government in itself. It would seek to gain more power -- humans do crave power in general. So it's not unreasonable to see that a privately owned PDA would assert itself to rule the free market , and eventaully the population running that market. What I'm trying to say is, getting rid of a government body would only be replacing one potential tyrant with another. What I would purpose is some kind of balance between federal and private power.
YamatoDamashii24 3 years ago
I don't consider a private business a government, precisely the opposite. Morever, I would rather live in a system where we are replacing *potential tyrants* instead of real ones.
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
I acknowledge your arguements for an anarchy system, and see the validity of your supporting reasons, however, I still feel that I am more comfortable in a society governed by SOME kind of federal power. Government should not be seen as an obstruction to humanity in anyway (although it has become that way in many instances), on the contrary, it should be viewed as a tool of population that should be used to promote the well being and comfort of its citizens.
YamatoDamashii24 3 years ago
My only concern with privately owned defense and security agencies is what happens when one agency BECOMES a monopoly and asserts control over individuals and there markets through use of force. It's certaintly true that the population would favor one PDA over others (because it would supply better quality defense). So then without a government body with the power to dissolve said monopolized PDA, how would the general population combat the threat?
YamatoDamashii24 3 years ago
YamatoDamashii24,
The outcome u describe is what we already have, the only difference is that it did not emerge as a result of consumer choice, but through violence & conquest.
It makes no sense to argue that a minimal state is preferable to a free market because private defense agencies *might* do what governments have *always* done.
And if your minimal government becomes tyrannical, can it be legitimately "dissolved* by a rival agency that is not tyrannical? If yes, welcome to anarchism.
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
But a private defense agency *would* become monopolized -- especially in a capitalist society where competition is encouraged for the profit of the business. Think of Wal-Mart and Microsoft, both of which are well known examples of private businesses becoming monopolized. The only reason they don't overpower other bussnisses in the U.S is because the federal government is limiting them. The U.S has been trying to break Microsoft into many sub-companies for years.
YamatoDamashii24 3 years ago
I don't deny monopolies are *possible* in a free market, and if Microsoft and Walmart are examples, they are of the benign kind, firms that offer products and services that most find satisfying enough that it's unprofitable to compete. Give some credit to the role of consumer choice as a check on corporate arrogance.
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
Even in these two cases, I wouldn't be surprised if the state did as much to build up these monopolies as it did to allegedly limit them.
What is wrong with a monopoly resulting from free consumer choice?
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
I do see your point on trusting in the desicion of the people to limit the power of "corperate arrogance". And to clear my statement, I don't see anything wrong in the development of monopolies (if that's what the consumers choose to promote). I'm only saying that there should be some kind of organization (whether it be federal or private) to limit the power of monopolies, should one decide to become oppressive.
YamatoDamashii24 3 years ago
The only monopoly I fear is the one that enforces its will through violence or the threat of violence. And the state is the only institution I know of that does this consistently.
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
Yamato, monopolies in a anarchy are by consumer choice. If the monopoly is oppressive, the consumer would simply stop supporting such monopoly. Simple as that. Wealth isn't power. People with guns, and like control others are the ones who want power. I don't see any ketchup company, or anything private oppressing people. That's just absurd. Federal power is a power legitimately, because they literally use their their guns against you to control you. Don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. Absurd.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago 3
I'll have to pick up on this later. I recommend an excellent article that addresses the very points you are making about Objectivist minarchism and objective procedures. It is "In Defense of Rational Anarchism" By George Smith. I cannot post a link on youtube, but you can google it. If you have not already read it, it is well worth looking at, IMHO.
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
Alright, I'll have a look for it later on - I'm supposed to be working at the moment. ;)
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
Ok, later :)
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
Because humans are fallible, force must be strictly controlled. People can't be just free to use retaliation unilaterally without any kind of process by which their actions are validated. The general population cannot be free from force if there is no objective methodology for ascertaining what force is, and a system for carrying this methodology out. This is a function of government.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
It doesn't matter WHO in particular is providing such services - what matters is they are subordinate to an objective system of validation - the government.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
Who will control the controller? I imagine you will say that ultimately, it boils down to philosophical consensus and public vigilance. Fine, but if this is an effective check on abuse of governmental power, why can it not be assumed that the same philosophical consensus and public vigilance will counteract and minimize the abuse among judicial institutions in a free market?
There's nothing about justice and the use of force, that makes a state the only reliable judge or enforcing mechanism.
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
If I say government is the structure which facilitates THE objective method of validating the use of retaliatory force, does that make more sense?
A free market cannot counteract abuse because it the free market does not provide a strict method and structure for dealing with such matters.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
Based on the point below, the issue of a single arbiter is irrelevant, the question is what kind of force is used, not *who* is using it.
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
I'd agree with that I think, but anarcho-capitalism does not suggest a singular legal framework which must be explicitly followed by any agencies to be legimitate. An objective use of retaliatory force requires objective validation by an objective process - so those wishing to perform governmental functions must go through such a process before they can fill such a position. Still, I think it's correct that it's not a question of who in particular is in these positions.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
An analogy; is medicine a discipline that requires objective validation by an objective process? Do you advocate a single provider of medicine and health services on the grounds of the need for objective procedures?
Ultimately, the question of what will keep free market DRO's honest and objective, is no different than the question of what will allegedly keep an Objectivist government from abusing *it's* power. Public vigilance and a cultural inclination towards reason and respect for rights.
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
No, only force needs to be objectively validated and controlled.
Yes, public vigilance and a public philosophical consensus which respects rights is (at least partly) what will keep governmental powers in check.
If all agencies are binded by a singular code, they are essentially a government. They have a monopoly over the definition of force and the proper way to retaliate against it.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
The NYPD and LAPD are separate, largely autonomous entities, and are funded as such, but are still part of the government. They are subordinate to upholding a specific code of laws. The same would be so in an Objectivist system, except the law would be based on the non-initiation of force; on individual rights. There is no competition possible other than competition over jobs in government positions.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
The NYPD and LAPD uphold different legal codes, and as a result they violate the consistency rule of Objectivist minarchism, which in effect would have to advocate one world government. As you said, "If all agencies are binded by a singular code, they are essentially a government.". Note the singular "government".
Your post above this one also refers to a "monopoly of definitions". Is that phrase not alien to Objectivist terminology?
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
Well yeah I was just using the NYPD/LAPD as examples - obviously the actual law they uphold is non-objective.
The "monopoly of definitions" is my own interpretation of Objectivism, and is not explicitly part of the philosophy, although I think it is consistent with it.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
I think you are equating *objective* with *exclusive". The first does not require the second.
If the principles of justice are objective, then they can be derived by using the faculty of reason, which is a capacity possessed by every individual. His use of force does not cease to be objective, from the mere fact that he has implemented it apart from the state, nor does it assume the status of objective, from the mere fact that he is a member of the state.
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
The first does require the second. This is my whole point: I'm separating people from principles. Objectivity isn't exclusive to certain individuals - but objectivity must have an exclusive "authority" so to speak - so non-objective codes and rules are not legitimate.
The state is DEFINED by its objective use of force, and not by the the particular individuals which it is composed of. The government IS the structural component which provides a method for objectivity.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
Objectivist minarchism *does not* separate people from principles, because it is primarily concerned with *who* enforces the rules of justice, and only secondarily at best, *what rules* are enforced. Ayn Rand implicitly argued against this approach in her article "Who is the Final Authority in Ethics?" Applied to political theory, this is an endorsement of rational anarchism.
Morevover, what attribute of a government inclines towards objectivity, in theory or historical fact?
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
I seem to have had this exact discussion with
prashantpawar above - I even said in my video that a government is not "inclined towards objectivity" - that is beside the point. It is merely the fact that that there cannot be multiple equally correct interpretations/definitions of what constitutes force which legitimises a government.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
Forget particular individuals, government is not a representation of a particular group of people or their views; government is a STRUCTURE which facilitates the objective validation of the use of retaliatory force.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
And without employing circular definitions or reasoning, what are those "structural features" that facilitate such objective validation, that are either unknowable or logically impossible to actors in a market system?
Bosco20061217 3 years ago
I don't claim to know the specific structures - but suffice it to say they are based on logic and natural rights.
Again, as the video stated, it's not that people are incapable of being objective - it's that there has to be a strict system to control force. A market is too open to subjective desire; it provides no structure or procedure for dealing with ambiguity or disagreement.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
I agree & would expand that to say that such objective validation is required in any field.
The mechanism for dealing with ambiguity or disagreement in a free market is arbitration. Arbitration, defense & other judicial institutions in a free market have to earn their keep by developing procedures and conducting themselves in ways that are generally perceived as fair & balanced by subscribers & observers. There's no equivalent for an agency whose monopoly on force is acquired by force itself.
Bosco20061217 3 years ago