McKeever's problem is that he tries to Drive and Think at the same time.
He should stop and concentrate in how much Ayn Rand's stupid ideas are the bases for Greenspan's idiocies that created today's UNFOLDING, WORSENING CRISIS.
She once said that 'Reality will be the ultimate judge'. I agree with that wholeheartedly, especially when you realise that Rand's theory is based, not on 'Reality As-Is', but rather 'Reality According to Ayn Rand' and was about as arrogant with her own self-righteousness as possible.
A battle-axe with a chip on her shoulder, her life was nothing more than a standard ego trip.
McKeever has got it wrong here.. A police service would have a huge incentive to arrest "smith". Yes, they could lose his business, but if they let hiim slide, they risk losing the business of 99% of their other customers once it is discovered that they do not provide the services that they claim to provide.. in such a case, it would pay to arrest smith..
@Paul: You raise the issue of the potential private retaliatory force agencies being swayed by their "interests" to by unjust because they would want to keep their paying customer who may have violated someones property. But if an agency overlooked one customers transgressions in order to keep them, wouldn't that potentially cause them to lose all of their other customers since it would destroy their reputation? So if self-interest is at play, surely it would work in the opposite way.
@Paul: I appreciate this analysis. It is good food for thought. I have two questions. Aren't defensive force and retaliatory force really just the same thing with,perhaps, retaliatory force having an emphasize on time, i.e., "defensive force" connotes immediate action whereas retaliatory force connotes allowing some time to pass before taking action.
I don't think it's logically consistent. It's rather incomplete. Claim to have and have are separate. As far as law goes, a responsible free agent is self-legislating. No external law is needed to be moral, ethical or justified.
You have gotten the definition of minarchism wrong. Minarchists are defined by considering the state to be a necessity, and thus wanting to minimalize government. Minarchists are not defined by allowing for private police and judiciaries, althought many of them do, but by the support of the night watchman state, consisting only of police, a legal system and millitary defence. Ayn Rand was a minarchist, and so are you.
I never disagreed that she despised anarchists, I know she did.
And I never said "Ayn Rand said something, thus it is true" point out where I said that or stop creating strawmen please.
Whether the word miniarchy applies to Rand's view of the government or not, the important thing to keep in mind is that she opposed taxation. Most anarchists, when attacking her position act as if she supported the government's right to tax. This is true for Stefbot as well.
It is really an either-or situation. Either government has the right to taxate in order to finance its fundamental functions, or it does not have the right to exist. While it is true that many Objectivists, dubiously including Ayn Rand herself, are convinced that private donations would, in a free society, voluntarily cover these expences, this does not deal with the "what if" of this not happening.
You'll have to explain that a bit more, I don't understand.
Can you explain what your problem with voluntary funding of the government is exactly? I really feel that anarchists just skip over that whole part when criticizing Rand, which is ironic because in my mind that is the most important aspect of the difference between objectivism and anarchism.
The government should exist as a result of objective laws, and funding should be voluntary.
There is nothing wrong with voluntarily funded government, except that it may not happen. Then what? Either the rights of the individual justifies the existance of the state regardless of the citizens' willingness to pay for it, or it does not. The former case is minarchism, minimal rule, the latter is outright anarchism.
You're saying that you have more belief that a society with no laws will work than you do in the idea that people can voluntarily fund institutions which are important to them?
The church is voluntarily funded, billions of dollars a year
Foreign aid is voluntarily funded, billions a year
Wikipedia now relies on donations, they still exist, in fact they raised the money they needed much faster than they anticipated. Objectivist J Wales proved that voluntary funding works!
Your argument doesn't disproove that a government cannot be funded voluntarily. Has it ever been tested? It has to at least be given a chance before you say that it won't work
"Either the rights of the individual justifies the existance of the state regardless of the citizen's willingness to pay for it...."
Sorry but the "rights of the individual" mean precisely that nobody has the right to take your money if you aren't willing to give it up. Taxation is a form of a violation of said rights, therefore there can be no such thing as the government's right to exist by eliminating individual's right to their property
I'd be fine with that, some things just need to be tried before you can dismiss them.
I'd be for the attempt to create a voluntarily funded government and then as you said, if it really doesn't work I would probably side with anarchy over government with power to tax people.
I won't however take the side of anarchy before voluntarily funded government has been given a fair shot however. Every anarchy in the past has failed, let's not forget.
Claiming that the state then cannot exist, is it would rely on coercive taxation, fundamentally differs from the position that the minimal state is a consequence of and justified by the negative rights of the individual. The latter is the position of classical liberalism, the first is essentially anarchist.
This guy is so smart he's become stupid. His argument has absolutely nothing to do with Anarchism. He's like one of the slaves in Plato's cave...arguing for the shadows on the wall.
define what you're talking about. If you're talking about the number of murders committed then yes, che>rand.
(maybe you think combat killing is not murder, fair enough. Che also murdered his own followers, not after a military tribunal but on his own 'authority' as judge, jury and exectuioner; rand never shot anyone.)
Rand was a thinker who asserted fundamental human rights and freedom; Che used violence over people's rights to life and property. at morality, Rand>Che.
In fact the idea that the government is needed for a consistent set of laws is simply wrong. Lex Mercator developed without needing the government and it was a unitary system of law. So did islamic mercantile law (which had to overcome the someone stupid pronounciations of the prophet but still worked). In fact a monopoly government CANNOT develop a unitary system of laws because they must break the law themselves to maintain their power, or make exceptions in the law to allow everything.
Why would you pay a judge that strikes against you is a good question, why would you vote for a government official that strikes against you? Why would people vote for laws that fore them?
Why would you buy appliances from companies that do not give 100 year warranty? Or give their products away for free? Because it is the best compromise you can get on the free market I guess.
The silly e-mail notifications on youtube are about 4 weeks late in coming, so I only just today (Dec 6) got notice of your debate question. Give the weaknesses of the youtube e-mailing thingy, probably best that we discuss this via e-mail ( pmckeever[at]mckeever[dot]com ) or via telephone 905-721-9772
Selfishness is needed for surviving yourself but basically sucks in large group cooperation by definition. Did you really need me to point this out to you? Are you 10 years old or something?
I am guessing you're older than 10 but not very intelligent. Which is why you not only failed to explain why "Ayn Rand is flawed" but also demonstrated to be a second-hander, since your sense of worth is dependent upon trying to put down a complete stranger. And that's pretty much what I got from you, so you might want to actually READ Rand before saying she is flawed. Or not. Makes no big difference to me.
I rest my case. Your a moron running around in your own hypocrisy. Perhaps you haven't actually taken the time to read her works. Please, educate yourself.
My first comment came because I was wondering what, in that video, prompted you to say she was "flawed". Once I saw your reasoning had nothing to do with the video and I understood the kind of person you were, I saw you had nothing intelligent to say one way or another. I've actually read her works. I also know you can't differentiate "your" from "you're" which indicates you don't read much or are of moderate literacy. If you really think you are better than me, your life is your punishment.
Regarding conflict of interest for a market justice system, it only applies in the aggregate of all the subscribers just like democracy. My rep doesn't write laws I want and is not answerable to me but to the "market" of voters at large who create a majority. This is where you get "objective"
law from anyway. It doesn't fall from heaven. How could it be any worse under a free system than a monopoly? Ever been turned down by YOUR insurance company? They can't pander to every subscriber.
The main problem with the argument about one set of laws is that such is never the case except locally. The relationship between sovereign states is an anarchy and is "governed" either by treaty or by force. It seems we ought to argue for one world government to be consistent. Why can't smaller sovereign entities act in a similar way to decentralize power and so prevent extremely large conflicts and abuses of power? If the minimal state is the best, what size ought it be? Hard question!
If your point is 'the state is the enemy of freedom', than that would be true. Rand was such a warmongering bitch. You should take out 'the ethics of liberty', you can request it via an inter library loan from any london library ;)
lewrockwell (dot) com/rothbard/rothbard110 (dot) html
"The rule should be absolute: no 'retaliation' is ever justified that injures or kills innocent people, and that means people who are not themselves active criminals. Anything else is an apologia for unremitting and unending mass murder; anything else is chaos and old night, and a justification for 'anarchy' in the bad sense."
Ayn Rand was not a market anarchist:
tmh (dot) floonet (dot) net/articles/racolar (dot) html
The most an actual market anarchist (anarcho-capitalist) would be for is recompense in terms of justice, not in the escalation of force.
A public police force is less responsible for their actions due to their monopoly of power. Mediation amongst private police forces who are held accountable for their actions by an armed citizenry keeps them in check. All government should be is the mediation between citizens. Eg, disinterested parties as jury in disputes.
Your mistake is that you assume that anarchists don't hold objective law.
Anarchists agree that there must be one set of laws.
However there should be a competition of judges adjudicating those laws, and that competition prevents corruption (like we have now). They don't get to write their own laws, they get to compete to determine the penalty in the case of retaliatory force. Those that adjudicate poorly would be replaced by the market.
@JohnGalt1717 "However there should be a competition of judges adjudicating those laws, and that competition prevents corruption (like we have now). They don't get to write their own laws, they get to compete"
Actually, we have competition among judges now. Or, are you saying California lawmakers and judges make and judge the laws of New York? Brazilian lawmakers and judges make and judge the laws of the U.S.?
@hitssquad Your argument is exactly the reason why people favor the 10th amendment and ensuring that the federal government stays within the specifically enumerated powers.... however what I'm talking about is multiple courts in the same jurisdiction that compete to adjudicate cases and competing private jails etc. The law is objective, absolute, and universally agreed upon criminal and civil code that the courts use as the basis for their judgments.
@JohnGalt1717 "The law is objective, absolute, and universally agreed upon criminal and civil code that the courts use as the basis for their judgments."
No, because written law is necessarily also interpreted. Without interpretation, there is no law.
Words are not interpreted. Words have absolute meaning. If the laws are properly written then there is no interpretation necessary. The problem with laws now is that they're being applied in the literal sense instead of the definition sense. As a result we need zillions of laws for no reason. (i.e. the EPA exists because the courts stopped enforcing property rights laws and assessing damages as a result of pollution as they used to even though the old law clearly still applies)
And finally the laws must be set out in the opening statements from most severe to least with the most severe being chosen first. (and only)
Further the courts should not have a specific charge for a jury to deliberate against, the jury should be presented with evidence and then decide if and what crime the person is guilty.
There is no interpretation in that definition. If there is evidence of planning, it's 1st degree...etc. It's black and white as the law should be.
The definition of murder is clear "unjustified homicide". I have defined that quite clearly in my definition.
Note the use of the word "another". Another refers to a person by definition. I did not define the word person, but the world "human" is quite clear as "a rational animal" which is a synonym of "person". To be rational, one has to be able to use one's mind and act according to it, and not one's emotions etc. A fetus does not fit the definition. No interpretation necessary.
Theres no way to rebell against laissez-faire capitalism without violating someones individual rights. The "Lets Legalize Crime Crowd" days are numbered.
All you say sounds good on paper, but the power of authority is too dangerous for 67% of the population to posses according to the milgram experiment and such alike(The prison experiments).
And as Peter Parker aka Spiderman says, with great power comes great responsibility. The problem is no one can hold the people holding the power responsible without the market forces.
Market forces remain forces only so long as they are backed by the retaliatory use of guns. Think about it. So the issue is: do you agree that such use should be govered by objective laws, or are "competing" decision-makers the best way to objectively control such force?
In open competition, the "objective" rules will be discovered through supply and demand and the ways in which consumers spend their money for the services. Nothing "objective" can come from a monopoly that is not subject to the naturally corrective action of supply and demand.
What are you talking about? Objective rules (in terms of ethics and politics) are not discovered through supply and demand. That would mean the rules would be SUBJECTIVE rather than objective.
No, "subjective" is what an opinion, in this case a legal decree from some state monopoly.
Objective rules, in this instance, would be revealed though society's understanding of, and how well it comports to, cause and effect. Like scientific progress, society needs a free and unfettered open competition in order to best discover the objective rules.
A set of objective rules cannot be founded on someones word. Rather, an objective set of rules would be discovered through trial and error in an open marketplace framework.
Another science analogy: Gravity isnt real or objective because a scientist says it is. Rather, it is discovered to be real.
The rules have already been discovered. The initiation of force is wrong and must be banned. I somehow doubt that trial and error will get anyone anywhere in terms of politics; you just have to look at the countless failures of the past.
I agree that the initiation of force must be banned. But that is because it violates the consent of another. And when a consumer or producers consent is violated, it is also a violation of supply and demand.
True. However, wheres one can legitimately choose to buy a different chocolate bar, a different refrigerator, or one can choose to not buy one at all, one cannot legitimately "opt out" of being subjected to the law; i.e. be free from objective standards; be free from justice. You can't just go out and purchase a different set of laws to suit your own beliefs.
Sure they need an organization(s) that will follow objective rules.
Too bad you dont understand that those objective rules come from supply and demand through open competition in a market. Objective rules do NOT come by decree, or from some committee.
Bob tells Dan that "A is an instance of X". Bob Dan agree that "A" is a word representing the concept "platypus", and that "X" represents the concept "duck". Jake, who thinks "A" means "bicycle" and "X" means "automotive", says "You're wrong Bob". In this conversation, you are Jake.
Objective rules (I guess you mean laws) come from neither decree nor from supply and demand (collective decree). They come from man's nature and are discovered using logic.
I have never heard a single market anarchist suggest that Ayn Rand advocated civilian disarmament. And for all the bush-beating in this video, you never rectify the simple reality that a government cannot exist in any form without initiating force, unless it recognizes the individual's right to not be a part of that government (which effectively makes it a private enterprise, i.e. anarchy).
I never once say that a market anarchist suggest AR advocated civilian disarmament. However, many people have done so: just google. And, I have never seen any market anarchist distinguish between defence and retaliation when (erroneous) stating that Objectivism is in self-contradictory. Accordingly, in a video about Rand position on retaliatory force, it is fitting to be exact about what she meant by "retaliatory". (cont'd)
As for your second point: by definition, retaliation is never initiation (which is another reason I took care to define "retaliate"). And, I note, you do not address - in your response - the fundamental flaw in the anarchist argument, which I identify in the video: the mind-body dichotomy.
I fully aware that you took care to narrow your discussion to "retaliation," because by addressing MY point (the right to live free or government) you would run into the very contradiction actually criticized by many anarchists, rather than the "retaliatory force" straw-man. Unless you recognize my right to live without your government, you must initiate force, and Objectivists have dodged this point for decades.
Two things. 1. This video was about the anarchist's condemnation of Rand's argument that government has a "monopoly on the retaliatory use of force". To discuss retaliation, accordingly, is not to raise a "straw man". (cont'd)
It was a straw-man, because you painted the issue as though there is some universal opinion among market anarchists on this matter, when in fact the more prevalent view centers on coercing submission to a state, not whether it monopolizes retaliation. You avoided the actual issue entirely. Had you specified exactly whose opinion you were responding to, maybe it would've been different, but you didn't.
This video is about ONE subject: one argument, raised by anarchists, about RAND'S PHILOSOPHY. I address THAT argument. The existence or logic of OTHER anarchist arguments is not the subject of this video. None of your comments, so far, deal with the subject addressed by the video: the FLAW in an anarchist's argument, ABOUT the INTERNAL CONSISTENCY of RAND'S PHILOSOPHY.
WHICH anarchists? Who makes this argument? I've never made this argument. I've never seen anyone else make this argument in the way you defined. Generally, it centers on COERCED SUBMISSION TO A STATE, not whether anyone should be able to open a private police agency. In other words, you either took one person's opinion and applied it to anarchism as a whole, or you pulled something out of your ass. Either way, it's a straw-man.
The argument has been made NUMEROUS times. Google "Roy Childs" and "Open letter to Ayn Rand". Or just watch XOmniverse, or sw33tliberty, or miniamericanflags or....etc....make the same argument here at youtube.
XOmniverse's two videos center on COERCED SUBMISSION TO A STATE, and to my recollection sw33tlibery's was in response to those or at least precipitated by them. Childs was not an anarchist. At any rate, that doesn't qualify as "numerous."
How do you claim the right to rule another person without initiating force? THAT is the problem with Objectivism -- it is divorced from the reality of statism.
I've made my video a response to the XOmniverse video I'm talking about: in which he repeats Child's assertion, that a state monopoly on retaliatory force violates the non-aggression principle, such the Objectivism is internally inconsistent.
And that's true, but that isn't the only point he makes. The topic spans two videos, and nobody (including you) has managed to respond coherently.
I think the only thing you've accomplished here is further demonstrating how Objectivism is the epitome of subjectivity. You subjectively decide only government SHOULD have a monopoly on retaliatory force, and this is the "objective" standard by which you excuse Rand's violation of her own principle regarding initiation of force.
When I care to address other arguments he, or anyone else makes, I will. I have responded to one argument by addressing the argument itself. You have addressed my argument ONLY by saying "well, there are other arguments too". Irrelevant. Addressing all possible arguments was not the point of the video.
Of all of the many comments you have posted here LING, not one of them addresses the fundamental flaw identified in my video. Simply writing "straw man" is not a counter-argument. I can only assume, therefore, that you have no meaningful counter-argument to make.
Of all the replies you've posted, you have not once explained how you intend to foist a government on unwilling subjects without initiating force.
A straw-man it a straw-man. I call 'em how I see 'em. You addressed a so-called "anarchist" argument but could only cite four individuals who made it, three of whom are here on YT and didn't make THAT argument alone. Also of those four, three aren't even anarchists. Straw-man. And it's a bad argument anyway, since it's divorced from reality.
How to "foist a government on unwilling subjects without initiating force" was not the topic of the video. The flaw inherent in a SINGLE argument raised by ANARCHISTS (all four I cited say they are anarchists) was the subject of my video. Just repeating, like a parrot: "government initiates force" is not a counter-argument. For the same reasons, neither is: "Oh yea? Well oak trees are short".
So in other words, your argument was a straw-man to avoid the real issue since 3/4 of the people you cited aren't anarchists, and you mischaracterized the other 1/4. My point stands. And your argument is divorced from reality.
What part of "all four I cited say they are anarchists" didn't you understand? Just asserting "mischaracterized" or "divorced from reality" is not an argument. What was the alleged mischaracterization? How is my argument "divorced from reality"? For a point to stand, one first has to have a point.
So sw33tliberty has deconverted, which is great, so I stand corrected. I think she is MiniAF's wife or girlfriend, so maybe he's deconverted also, which is twice great. They both participated in the discussion with XO, who made the argument, so your latching onto them is rather amusing. Child was an anarcho-sympathizer at best. He recanted his own opinions.
Your argument is divorced from reality because governments must initiate force in order to exist over an unwilling population.
Nonsense. Five people live on an island. Three of them elect a fourth to make and enforce objective laws concerning the use of retaliatory force. Setting up the government as such does not involve "forcing" anyone in any way: government's mere existence does not involve force.
And, so long as the elected person restricts his activity to making and enforcing objective laws concerning the retaliatory use of force, he is a government.
Should the fifth person - who did not elect the fourth to govern - initiate coercive physical force, the fourth person is right to retaliate. The fourth person does not need the fifth person's consent before retaliating against the fifth person, in this scenario.
Yeah, yeah, and that is all divorced from reality. That's not how government works.
Your "objective" laws are subjective, and I reject them. What are you gonna do about it? How do you maintain a government over an unwilling populace without initiating force?
Every burglar and murderer rejects objective laws. You respond to their initiation of coercive force with retaliatory force. You do so whether or not they are "unwilling".
Rejection of objective laws = theft and murder. Non sequitur, McKeever. Theft and murder = rejection of objective laws. Possibly, but also non sequitur, since most thieves and murders do not want to be stolen from or killed. I see why you find it necessary to make that conflation, however, as you've no argument otherwise.
In addition, Rand's philosophy does not regard the initiation of physical force to be government action: it is gang action. Accordingly, by the definition Rand gave the word "government" (a definition I share), it is categorically false to say "government initiates force".
Force that is not applied pursuant to law is force that is not under objective control. When used in response to the initiation of coercive physical force, force that is not under objective control is not "retaliatory": it is initiation.
A geographic area having multiple legal systems cannot have objective laws: objective laws are possible only within a single legal system. A monopoly on law-making is morally right, because it is the only way to have objective law.
In fact geographical areas with multiple legal systems worked fine in the middle ages. I don't see any evidence that their legal systems were any less objective than areas with one legal system. In any case law is generally created by precedent, so the fact that there are multiple firms providing private courts services in no way implies there will be more than one legal system. And BTW there are at least 3 legal systems in the US, local, federal and state. Cf. medical marijuana.
2. Nobody has a "right" to initiate force. The government of a free country retaliates, it does not initiate. Freedom from retaliation is freedom from justice (a.k.a., tyranny). No individual has a "right" to be free of retaliation: no individual has "right" to be free of government.
So you just conflate government with retaliation, subjectively saying it "has to be" that way, and then call it done? Sorry, contradiction, not to mention being completely divorced from the reality of statism. If I refuse to associate with your government, to compel my association is initiation of force. Period.
This video is about Rand's philosophy. Her philosophy does not involve a government somehow "compelling" your "association". It deals only with government retaliating against you when you initiate coercive physical force. In a free society, government activity is nothing other than retaliation.
When someone has there home taken away from them, and it is torn down so the state can build a road, or so that Target can build a new store, and it is done so with the help of the justice system, and police force, it clearly is an example of the state inititiating force. This is first comment I have read here, and I must say that I'm disturbed that so few people understand this.
Anytime the state takes part in theft, which is what expropriating individual private property is, that is a form of coerion, because volluntary consent did not happen, state coercion IS an inititation of force.
My 4 year old son understands this, some of you people must have been indoctrinated in the public school system.
No it initiates, because it is taxing people. It is forcing people to attend it's courts, whether they want to or not (and both of these it does before there can be any decisions that the victim used force).
I can't speak for him and I doubt I could if allowed, but I'm pretty sure he makes a point to argue that anarchy itself is a crime, because it inevitably leads to crimes. So therefore, it is justifiable to initiate a government, or law, to citizens by force.
If anarchy inevitably leads to crime within a society, then it is a moral crime itself, and therefore punishable in a moral court, which is another way of saying subjected to laws, which is another way of saying subject to a government. The point of this video was to say that defense is justifiable. And, to justify initiating forces against philosophies which are known to initiate forces in an amoral fashion, because it is defense.
I'm aware of how incoherent it is. I almost didn't post it, but i'm realizing why i'm having such a hard time arguing against your assertions, and that's because i assumed they are valid when they aren't. Anarchism doesn't exist. By definition, it is the absense of governeing rules, but it has a governing rule, and that is, there is no rules. It is in direct contradiction with itself.
Obviously, you don't know anything about anarchism.
Anarchism means "without rulers." That's it. Look it up. Since you don't even know what it means, I see no reason to take your mindless comments seriously. If you want a contradiction, just take a long, hard look at Objectivism. Have fun.
"Take a long hard look" is no substitute for actually proving your assertion that Objectivism is/involves "contradiction". Admittedly, comments sections don't permit complete arguments. How about doing a video?
Obviously, you don't either. Anarchism by definition is a body without government, but a government is a body guided by rules. Anarchism adovocates the lack of government, therefore the lack of rules, which is effectively a rule itself. Anarchism says, "the order is that there shall be no order." That is the creation of a law, isn't it? How is that not contradictory?
If you can define terms properly, maybe we can have a discussion, but not until then. Anarchism is, by definition, "no rulers" or "without rulers." If you can't accept that, there's nowhere else to go here.
i was pulling my definition out of dictionary. i'm sorry we couldn't agree to a definition. but what is to happen if there are no rulers? then there are effectively no rules right? but then who makes the rule that there are no rulers? isn't that person a ruler, and then the society he creates without rulers a governless government? and isn't that a contradiction? educate me please.
because how do you enforce rules without rulers? rules can exist without rulers, but what purpose do rules have if not enforced? and they could only be enforced by rulers, because anyone claiming to act in the name of rules, or enforcing control based on rules, is a ruler, no?
So rules CAN exist with no rulers, yes? That's my only point; glad you agree.
But are you arguing that rules can't be followed unless they are "enforced" by rulers? That's rather silly, but I'm expecting as much from you at this point. As for people who don't follow the rules, there are various theories as to how justice might work sans state, mostly hinging on defense and exclusion. Your objections are old and have been dismantled repeatedly.
fair enough. i'm not claiming to be an authority on anarchism, but rather trying to understand it. you're so disgusted by opposition, its rediculous... what i'm trying to lead to is, what happens when someone breaks a rule? isn't whomever retaliates, a ruler by enforcing the rules?
I'm not disgusted by opposition, just ignorant opposition.
"Rulers" in the anarchy sense derives from "archons," a term denoting the sovereigns of Greek city-states. Unless you conflate personal defense and collective exclusion with statism, I'm not sure what your point is. David Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Han-Hermann Hoppe and others have written extensively on this subject.
I do conflate them with statism. Isn't collective exclusion a small scale model of a government? Aren't there agreements and contracts within a society like that? And what is to happen when the agreements are broken? Doesn't one of the parties involved in the contract seek retaliation? And then isn't he a ruler in that he is initiating control over the other? And isn't that then just a two person society, under a one man government?
Aren't you creating a state between two parties when creating a contract? You are creating a document that has economic and social control over the two parties, a law right? That is statism, however small, because if the contract is broken, it creates a ruler. I'm saying, that anarchy isn't without rulers, unless there is never an agreement or a contract. I'm saying anarchy by your definition, only exists if an individual always socially and economically alone.
If a contract is broken, the defaulting party will generally be excluded, blacklisted or otherwise shunned. This in no way creates rulers or a ruling class of any sort, as it is voluntary. So again -- statism without a state: how does that work?
so you're are saying that the person will shun themselves? aren't you insisting by your logic that murders will eventually murder themselves? and if you aren't saying that, then who blacklists a party if not a ruler? even if that party is a single person, isn't he exercising control over another, and is therefore a ruler?
What? So if I just ignore you from now on, I'm "exercising control" over you? There's some mental gymnastics, and I don't mean the healthy kind. We're talkin' shredded cartilage.
More insults.. I think if anyone is deluded, its you in assuming that people don't want to retaliate when a crime is committed against them. Now that your argument has come to a place where there is a need for rulers if people aren't perfect, you assert that they are perfect. Anarchy is political ideal, if you have to ignore the nature of man to allow it.
I never said people don't want to or even shouldn't retaliate. I'm merely wondering how shunning someone or fulfilling the terms of a voluntary contract equates to statism or "ruling" someone. You're just making a non sequitur conflation to suit your conclusion (which was drawn in ignorance to begin with), and you're completely wrong.
i'm mearly making the argument that if retaliating requires a ruler, if only for a moment, and if only to resolve a contractual issue, then it is small scale model of statism. the only difference is the number of bodies involved. then anarchy isn't free of controls, then anarchy doesn't exist in the way that you define it, which i was arguing since the beginning of the thread.
retaliation requires control over an other, which is ruling over another by -- your friend -- the dictionary's definition. was the dictionary right before, but wrong now?
since retaliation is the attack on someone who made similar attack. are you entertaining the idea that you can attack someone without control over whatever aspect you are attacking? so attacking requires control. and i've proved control requires rulers. anarchists are without rulers making no exception for themselves, therefore they can't exist by your definition.
You've proven nothing. I clearly defined "rulers" many messages ago -- archons. I asked you to demonstrate how statism can exist without a state, and you've failed to do so. If you want to pretend otherwise, that's okay, but you can't expect me to take you seriously.
thanks. atleast humor isn't lost on you... this has successfully gone nowhere, but anarchy is government on the smallest scale. you insist i'm ignoring the truth, and i believe you are doing the same. i don't argue that anarchy isn't a valid system, but i'm only arguing that it is in fact a system, and big government is the ineveitable product of that system, esp. when dealing with extremely dense populations. good luck with your anarchy.
Of course it's a system. It's defined as a political philosophy. The O in the common symbol stands for Order.
You're simply assuming one who retaliates is a ruler, and I defined ruler as it is derived in the common anarchist context -- archon, magistrate, state sovereign. Some leftists extrapolate this to all forms of hierarchy, but that denies human nature. I reject the state and the initiation of violence, and anarchy exists.
When definitions don't match, there's no resolution to be had.
What ever happened with the potential debate w/ Stefan?
Did you end up accepting Anarchic arguments, hence making debate unnecessary?
KyleSkullz 1 month ago
Please debate Stefan Molyneux.
ih8ronpaulh8ers 1 month ago
How is this government to be funded, Paul!?
Victorprossart1 1 month ago
DEBATE Stefan Molyneux! Why not?
Victorprossart1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Truth about Ayn Rand slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
facebook.com/Anarcho.Objectivist
Bosco20061217 7 months ago
Comment removed
Bosco20061217 7 months ago
McKeever's problem is that he tries to Drive and Think at the same time.
He should stop and concentrate in how much Ayn Rand's stupid ideas are the bases for Greenspan's idiocies that created today's UNFOLDING, WORSENING CRISIS.
etniks69 7 months ago
Rand was a vile person with vile ideals.
She once said that 'Reality will be the ultimate judge'. I agree with that wholeheartedly, especially when you realise that Rand's theory is based, not on 'Reality As-Is', but rather 'Reality According to Ayn Rand' and was about as arrogant with her own self-righteousness as possible.
A battle-axe with a chip on her shoulder, her life was nothing more than a standard ego trip.
I'm glad she's dead in the dirt.
TheMchap123 1 year ago
McKeever has got it wrong here.. A police service would have a huge incentive to arrest "smith". Yes, they could lose his business, but if they let hiim slide, they risk losing the business of 99% of their other customers once it is discovered that they do not provide the services that they claim to provide.. in such a case, it would pay to arrest smith..
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago
@Paul: You raise the issue of the potential private retaliatory force agencies being swayed by their "interests" to by unjust because they would want to keep their paying customer who may have violated someones property. But if an agency overlooked one customers transgressions in order to keep them, wouldn't that potentially cause them to lose all of their other customers since it would destroy their reputation? So if self-interest is at play, surely it would work in the opposite way.
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago
@Paul: I appreciate this analysis. It is good food for thought. I have two questions. Aren't defensive force and retaliatory force really just the same thing with,perhaps, retaliatory force having an emphasize on time, i.e., "defensive force" connotes immediate action whereas retaliatory force connotes allowing some time to pass before taking action.
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago
It is called Minarchism, more specifically. Not Anarchism.
There. Solved the communication problem here.
xCyanoticx 2 years ago
Government is a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic area, but thanks for trying.
Nofaris 2 years ago
I don't think it's logically consistent. It's rather incomplete. Claim to have and have are separate. As far as law goes, a responsible free agent is self-legislating. No external law is needed to be moral, ethical or justified.
IcarusMoonsight 2 years ago
You have gotten the definition of minarchism wrong. Minarchists are defined by considering the state to be a necessity, and thus wanting to minimalize government. Minarchists are not defined by allowing for private police and judiciaries, althought many of them do, but by the support of the night watchman state, consisting only of police, a legal system and millitary defence. Ayn Rand was a minarchist, and so are you.
olvew 2 years ago
ding ding!
xCyanoticx 2 years ago
Ayn Rand was not a miniarchist, objectivism doesn't advocate a government that has the right to tax or initiate force in any way
Miniarchism is the position that the government should keep it's right to tax and manipulate the economy, but should be kept small
Sam26100 2 years ago
You are simply wrong, both about Objectivism and Ayn Rand, who despised anarchists.
olvew 2 years ago
However, the argument "Ayn Rand said something, thus it is true" is per definition invalid. Let's discuss case, not person.
olvew 2 years ago
Huh?
I never disagreed that she despised anarchists, I know she did.
And I never said "Ayn Rand said something, thus it is true" point out where I said that or stop creating strawmen please.
Whether the word miniarchy applies to Rand's view of the government or not, the important thing to keep in mind is that she opposed taxation. Most anarchists, when attacking her position act as if she supported the government's right to tax. This is true for Stefbot as well.
Sam26100 2 years ago
It is really an either-or situation. Either government has the right to taxate in order to finance its fundamental functions, or it does not have the right to exist. While it is true that many Objectivists, dubiously including Ayn Rand herself, are convinced that private donations would, in a free society, voluntarily cover these expences, this does not deal with the "what if" of this not happening.
olvew 2 years ago
Sorry, "what if of this not happening"
You'll have to explain that a bit more, I don't understand.
Can you explain what your problem with voluntary funding of the government is exactly? I really feel that anarchists just skip over that whole part when criticizing Rand, which is ironic because in my mind that is the most important aspect of the difference between objectivism and anarchism.
The government should exist as a result of objective laws, and funding should be voluntary.
Sam26100 2 years ago
There is nothing wrong with voluntarily funded government, except that it may not happen. Then what? Either the rights of the individual justifies the existance of the state regardless of the citizens' willingness to pay for it, or it does not. The former case is minarchism, minimal rule, the latter is outright anarchism.
olvew 2 years ago
You're saying that you have more belief that a society with no laws will work than you do in the idea that people can voluntarily fund institutions which are important to them?
The church is voluntarily funded, billions of dollars a year
Foreign aid is voluntarily funded, billions a year
Wikipedia now relies on donations, they still exist, in fact they raised the money they needed much faster than they anticipated. Objectivist J Wales proved that voluntary funding works!
Sam26100 2 years ago
@Sam26100 "The church is voluntarily funded"
No. Failure to donate to churches is punished by the government.
google. com/search?q=church+donations+tax+deductible
"Foreign aid is voluntarily funded"
No. Foreign-aid has strings attached.
google. com/search?q=foreign+aid+strings+attached
hitssquad 2 years ago
/yawn
None of that changes the fact that the money is given voluntarily
Sure there are benefits, but so there would be benefits in funding the local law enforcement. Benefits such as, less violent crime etc
Sam26100 2 years ago
@Sam "None of that changes the fact that the money is given voluntarily"
Actually, it does, since it explains how the money cannot be given voluntarily: the non-giving of the money is punished.
"Sure there are benefits"
And where there are benefits to doing something, there must be costs to not doing that thing -- such as, for example, the lack of the benefits.
hitssquad 2 years ago
As I said in a different post:
Your argument doesn't disproove that a government cannot be funded voluntarily. Has it ever been tested? It has to at least be given a chance before you say that it won't work
Sam26100 2 years ago
@ olvew
"Either the rights of the individual justifies the existance of the state regardless of the citizen's willingness to pay for it...."
Sorry but the "rights of the individual" mean precisely that nobody has the right to take your money if you aren't willing to give it up. Taxation is a form of a violation of said rights, therefore there can be no such thing as the government's right to exist by eliminating individual's right to their property
Voluntary funding works though
Sam26100 2 years ago
If it does, fine. If it does not, you have to choose between anarchy and taxation.
olvew 2 years ago
I'd be fine with that, some things just need to be tried before you can dismiss them.
I'd be for the attempt to create a voluntarily funded government and then as you said, if it really doesn't work I would probably side with anarchy over government with power to tax people.
I won't however take the side of anarchy before voluntarily funded government has been given a fair shot however. Every anarchy in the past has failed, let's not forget.
Sam26100 2 years ago
Claiming that the state then cannot exist, is it would rely on coercive taxation, fundamentally differs from the position that the minimal state is a consequence of and justified by the negative rights of the individual. The latter is the position of classical liberalism, the first is essentially anarchist.
olvew 2 years ago
We're having quite the fun debate about Ayn over at docflamingo-wordpress-com for all interested. Getting good and heated now!
DocFlamingo 2 years ago
Thanks for the ride man
BestSpatula 2 years ago
This guy is so smart he's become stupid. His argument has absolutely nothing to do with Anarchism. He's like one of the slaves in Plato's cave...arguing for the shadows on the wall.
phoenixatom 2 years ago
Che Guevara > Ayn Rand
4Barbudos 3 years ago
define what you're talking about. If you're talking about the number of murders committed then yes, che>rand.
(maybe you think combat killing is not murder, fair enough. Che also murdered his own followers, not after a military tribunal but on his own 'authority' as judge, jury and exectuioner; rand never shot anyone.)
Rand was a thinker who asserted fundamental human rights and freedom; Che used violence over people's rights to life and property. at morality, Rand>Che.
at thinking, a slug > you
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
In fact the idea that the government is needed for a consistent set of laws is simply wrong. Lex Mercator developed without needing the government and it was a unitary system of law. So did islamic mercantile law (which had to overcome the someone stupid pronounciations of the prophet but still worked). In fact a monopoly government CANNOT develop a unitary system of laws because they must break the law themselves to maintain their power, or make exceptions in the law to allow everything.
newperve 3 years ago
Why would you pay a judge that strikes against you is a good question, why would you vote for a government official that strikes against you? Why would people vote for laws that fore them?
Why would you buy appliances from companies that do not give 100 year warranty? Or give their products away for free? Because it is the best compromise you can get on the free market I guess.
modelmark 3 years ago
Hey Paul, it's Stef from Freedomain Radio - I think we could have a fun debate, what do you say? :)
stefbot 3 years ago 9
Hi Stef:
The silly e-mail notifications on youtube are about 4 weeks late in coming, so I only just today (Dec 6) got notice of your debate question. Give the weaknesses of the youtube e-mailing thingy, probably best that we discuss this via e-mail ( pmckeever[at]mckeever[dot]com ) or via telephone 905-721-9772
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago 2
hey Paul, I considered this argument as well and independantly came up w/almost the exact same response!
natdavi 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ayn Rand is flawed as all hell, as usual.
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
Elaborate, please.
ChristianInHollywood 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Selfishness is needed for surviving yourself but basically sucks in large group cooperation by definition. Did you really need me to point this out to you? Are you 10 years old or something?
HumanStrategy 2 years ago
I am guessing you're older than 10 but not very intelligent. Which is why you not only failed to explain why "Ayn Rand is flawed" but also demonstrated to be a second-hander, since your sense of worth is dependent upon trying to put down a complete stranger. And that's pretty much what I got from you, so you might want to actually READ Rand before saying she is flawed. Or not. Makes no big difference to me.
ChristianInHollywood 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
"Elaborate, please"
"Makes no big difference to me."
I rest my case. Your a moron running around in your own hypocrisy. Perhaps you haven't actually taken the time to read her works. Please, educate yourself.
Have a nice day.^^
HumanStrategy 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristianInHollywood 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My first comment came because I was wondering what, in that video, prompted you to say she was "flawed". Once I saw your reasoning had nothing to do with the video and I understood the kind of person you were, I saw you had nothing intelligent to say one way or another. I've actually read her works. I also know you can't differentiate "your" from "you're" which indicates you don't read much or are of moderate literacy. If you really think you are better than me, your life is your punishment.
ChristianInHollywood 2 years ago 5
Forget philosophy, forget law, forget everything. All I wanna know is
How the fuck did you time your video to finish at the end of the journey?!?
senselessbattery 3 years ago
i farted > i voted
GetterRoboG 3 years ago 2
Regarding conflict of interest for a market justice system, it only applies in the aggregate of all the subscribers just like democracy. My rep doesn't write laws I want and is not answerable to me but to the "market" of voters at large who create a majority. This is where you get "objective"
law from anyway. It doesn't fall from heaven. How could it be any worse under a free system than a monopoly? Ever been turned down by YOUR insurance company? They can't pander to every subscriber.
MillionthUsername 4 years ago
The main problem with the argument about one set of laws is that such is never the case except locally. The relationship between sovereign states is an anarchy and is "governed" either by treaty or by force. It seems we ought to argue for one world government to be consistent. Why can't smaller sovereign entities act in a similar way to decentralize power and so prevent extremely large conflicts and abuses of power? If the minimal state is the best, what size ought it be? Hard question!
MillionthUsername 4 years ago
ok stop the wordgames and come help save what's left of this shithole planet, book man.
CheeezMaster 4 years ago
Somebody's got a bad case of the Mondays.
Duckyhunter 4 years ago
Haha, Office Space... I can appreciate that reference.
CheeezMaster 4 years ago
You miss the argument completely Paul... stop flailing at strawmen and read some Rothbard :P
SlickExecutiveType 4 years ago
I've read lots of Rothbard. I like his economics. His philosophical writings only prove my point.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago 2
If your point is 'the state is the enemy of freedom', than that would be true. Rand was such a warmongering bitch. You should take out 'the ethics of liberty', you can request it via an inter library loan from any london library ;)
SlickExecutiveType 4 years ago
@PaulMcKeever
Really?
lewrockwell (dot) com/rothbard/rothbard110 (dot) html
"The rule should be absolute: no 'retaliation' is ever justified that injures or kills innocent people, and that means people who are not themselves active criminals. Anything else is an apologia for unremitting and unending mass murder; anything else is chaos and old night, and a justification for 'anarchy' in the bad sense."
Ayn Rand was not a market anarchist:
tmh (dot) floonet (dot) net/articles/racolar (dot) html
mdrdrm 1 year ago
@PaulMcKeever
The most an actual market anarchist (anarcho-capitalist) would be for is recompense in terms of justice, not in the escalation of force.
A public police force is less responsible for their actions due to their monopoly of power. Mediation amongst private police forces who are held accountable for their actions by an armed citizenry keeps them in check. All government should be is the mediation between citizens. Eg, disinterested parties as jury in disputes.
mdrdrm 1 year ago
@PaulMcKeever
Now, I'm not advocating "real" anarchy, I'm in the vein of Rothbard, but I think that a government that is insoluble is untenable.
I think the least we should do is integrate nullification into our government structures.
As everything pertains to Ayn Rand, I disagree with her on a number of accounts, including the escalation of force as well as in patent law, etc.
Please check out my website some time at libertarianatheist (dot) com. You're a deep thinker. I like it.
mdrdrm 1 year ago
@PaulMcKeever
Going to go watch some of your other videos now.
mdrdrm 1 year ago
@PaulMcKeever
The problem is that there are only two ways that the retalitory punishments can be determined based on Rand's theory:
1. A tyrant decides based on his position. Be it a judge or a despot.
2. The government voting by majority to decide whatever they wish. (i.e. stealing a car is worse in our society than murdering a person.)
This monopoly breeds abuse with no redress for the wronged individual. (i.e. your innocence doesn't matter in an appeal)
JohnGalt1717 9 months ago
Your mistake is that you assume that anarchists don't hold objective law.
Anarchists agree that there must be one set of laws.
However there should be a competition of judges adjudicating those laws, and that competition prevents corruption (like we have now). They don't get to write their own laws, they get to compete to determine the penalty in the case of retaliatory force. Those that adjudicate poorly would be replaced by the market.
No such solution exists in a government monopoly.
JohnGalt1717 9 months ago
@JohnGalt1717 "However there should be a competition of judges adjudicating those laws, and that competition prevents corruption (like we have now). They don't get to write their own laws, they get to compete"
Actually, we have competition among judges now. Or, are you saying California lawmakers and judges make and judge the laws of New York? Brazilian lawmakers and judges make and judge the laws of the U.S.?
hitssquad 9 months ago
@hitssquad Your argument is exactly the reason why people favor the 10th amendment and ensuring that the federal government stays within the specifically enumerated powers.... however what I'm talking about is multiple courts in the same jurisdiction that compete to adjudicate cases and competing private jails etc. The law is objective, absolute, and universally agreed upon criminal and civil code that the courts use as the basis for their judgments.
JohnGalt1717 9 months ago
@JohnGalt1717 "The law is objective, absolute, and universally agreed upon criminal and civil code that the courts use as the basis for their judgments."
No, because written law is necessarily also interpreted. Without interpretation, there is no law.
hitssquad 9 months ago
@hitssquad
Words are not interpreted. Words have absolute meaning. If the laws are properly written then there is no interpretation necessary. The problem with laws now is that they're being applied in the literal sense instead of the definition sense. As a result we need zillions of laws for no reason. (i.e. the EPA exists because the courts stopped enforcing property rights laws and assessing damages as a result of pollution as they used to even though the old law clearly still applies)
JohnGalt1717 9 months ago
@JohnGalt1717 "If the laws are properly written then there is no interpretation necessary."
Example, please.
hitssquad 9 months ago
@hitssquad
Murder: A person is guilty of murder if they:
1. Initiate force against another resulting in their death.
2. Are not acting to defend one's self, their property or others from the eminent initiation of force by another.
Levels of Murder:
1. A person is guilty of murder in the 1st degree if: They planned the murder before executing it.
2. A person is guilty of murder in the 2nd degree if: They intended to commit murder but did not plan it.
... more room needed to complete.
JohnGalt1717 9 months ago
@JohnGalt1717
3. A person is guilty of manslaughter if: The person did not intend to commit murder through their actions but did so.
JohnGalt1717 9 months ago
@JohnGalt1717
And finally the laws must be set out in the opening statements from most severe to least with the most severe being chosen first. (and only)
Further the courts should not have a specific charge for a jury to deliberate against, the jury should be presented with evidence and then decide if and what crime the person is guilty.
There is no interpretation in that definition. If there is evidence of planning, it's 1st degree...etc. It's black and white as the law should be.
JohnGalt1717 9 months ago
@JohnGalt1717 "Murder"
google. com/search?q=abortion+is+murder
google. com/search?q=abortion+isn%27t+murder
hitssquad 9 months ago
@hitssquad
The definition of murder is clear "unjustified homicide". I have defined that quite clearly in my definition.
Note the use of the word "another". Another refers to a person by definition. I did not define the word person, but the world "human" is quite clear as "a rational animal" which is a synonym of "person". To be rational, one has to be able to use one's mind and act according to it, and not one's emotions etc. A fetus does not fit the definition. No interpretation necessary.
JohnGalt1717 9 months ago
Theres no way to rebell against laissez-faire capitalism without violating someones individual rights. The "Lets Legalize Crime Crowd" days are numbered.
Signofthedollar 4 years ago
All you say sounds good on paper, but the power of authority is too dangerous for 67% of the population to posses according to the milgram experiment and such alike(The prison experiments).
And as Peter Parker aka Spiderman says, with great power comes great responsibility. The problem is no one can hold the people holding the power responsible without the market forces.
lordmetroid 4 years ago
Market forces remain forces only so long as they are backed by the retaliatory use of guns. Think about it. So the issue is: do you agree that such use should be govered by objective laws, or are "competing" decision-makers the best way to objectively control such force?
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago 3
In open competition, the "objective" rules will be discovered through supply and demand and the ways in which consumers spend their money for the services. Nothing "objective" can come from a monopoly that is not subject to the naturally corrective action of supply and demand.
blue46gt 4 years ago
What are you talking about? Objective rules (in terms of ethics and politics) are not discovered through supply and demand. That would mean the rules would be SUBJECTIVE rather than objective.
D4rkReaver13 4 years ago
No, "subjective" is what an opinion, in this case a legal decree from some state monopoly.
Objective rules, in this instance, would be revealed though society's understanding of, and how well it comports to, cause and effect. Like scientific progress, society needs a free and unfettered open competition in order to best discover the objective rules.
blue46gt 4 years ago
A set of objective rules cannot be founded on someones word. Rather, an objective set of rules would be discovered through trial and error in an open marketplace framework.
Another science analogy: Gravity isnt real or objective because a scientist says it is. Rather, it is discovered to be real.
blue46gt 4 years ago
The rules have already been discovered. The initiation of force is wrong and must be banned. I somehow doubt that trial and error will get anyone anywhere in terms of politics; you just have to look at the countless failures of the past.
D4rkReaver13 4 years ago
I agree that the initiation of force must be banned. But that is because it violates the consent of another. And when a consumer or producers consent is violated, it is also a violation of supply and demand.
blue46gt 4 years ago
True. However, wheres one can legitimately choose to buy a different chocolate bar, a different refrigerator, or one can choose to not buy one at all, one cannot legitimately "opt out" of being subjected to the law; i.e. be free from objective standards; be free from justice. You can't just go out and purchase a different set of laws to suit your own beliefs.
D4rkReaver13 4 years ago
Sure they need an organization(s) that will follow objective rules.
Too bad you dont understand that those objective rules come from supply and demand through open competition in a market. Objective rules do NOT come by decree, or from some committee.
blue46gt 4 years ago
Bob tells Dan that "A is an instance of X". Bob Dan agree that "A" is a word representing the concept "platypus", and that "X" represents the concept "duck". Jake, who thinks "A" means "bicycle" and "X" means "automotive", says "You're wrong Bob". In this conversation, you are Jake.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
That should say "Bob and Dan agree".
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Objective rules (I guess you mean laws) come from neither decree nor from supply and demand (collective decree). They come from man's nature and are discovered using logic.
They are OBJECTIVE, not intrinsic nor subjective.
grantsinmypants 4 years ago
Think about what the claim that "supply and demand determine what's correct" means.
It means that when Edison created the light bulb (and later the demand for it) he was merely asserting his subjective preference for electric light.
Yes, S&D work ALOT better than central planning, but it is not automatically the best way to do something.
grantsinmypants 4 years ago
I love all your posts.
keyan99 4 years ago
I have never heard a single market anarchist suggest that Ayn Rand advocated civilian disarmament. And for all the bush-beating in this video, you never rectify the simple reality that a government cannot exist in any form without initiating force, unless it recognizes the individual's right to not be a part of that government (which effectively makes it a private enterprise, i.e. anarchy).
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago 2
I never once say that a market anarchist suggest AR advocated civilian disarmament. However, many people have done so: just google. And, I have never seen any market anarchist distinguish between defence and retaliation when (erroneous) stating that Objectivism is in self-contradictory. Accordingly, in a video about Rand position on retaliatory force, it is fitting to be exact about what she meant by "retaliatory". (cont'd)
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
As for your second point: by definition, retaliation is never initiation (which is another reason I took care to define "retaliate"). And, I note, you do not address - in your response - the fundamental flaw in the anarchist argument, which I identify in the video: the mind-body dichotomy.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
I fully aware that you took care to narrow your discussion to "retaliation," because by addressing MY point (the right to live free or government) you would run into the very contradiction actually criticized by many anarchists, rather than the "retaliatory force" straw-man. Unless you recognize my right to live without your government, you must initiate force, and Objectivists have dodged this point for decades.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago 2
Two things. 1. This video was about the anarchist's condemnation of Rand's argument that government has a "monopoly on the retaliatory use of force". To discuss retaliation, accordingly, is not to raise a "straw man". (cont'd)
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
It was a straw-man, because you painted the issue as though there is some universal opinion among market anarchists on this matter, when in fact the more prevalent view centers on coercing submission to a state, not whether it monopolizes retaliation. You avoided the actual issue entirely. Had you specified exactly whose opinion you were responding to, maybe it would've been different, but you didn't.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
This video is about ONE subject: one argument, raised by anarchists, about RAND'S PHILOSOPHY. I address THAT argument. The existence or logic of OTHER anarchist arguments is not the subject of this video. None of your comments, so far, deal with the subject addressed by the video: the FLAW in an anarchist's argument, ABOUT the INTERNAL CONSISTENCY of RAND'S PHILOSOPHY.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
WHICH anarchists? Who makes this argument? I've never made this argument. I've never seen anyone else make this argument in the way you defined. Generally, it centers on COERCED SUBMISSION TO A STATE, not whether anyone should be able to open a private police agency. In other words, you either took one person's opinion and applied it to anarchism as a whole, or you pulled something out of your ass. Either way, it's a straw-man.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
The argument has been made NUMEROUS times. Google "Roy Childs" and "Open letter to Ayn Rand". Or just watch XOmniverse, or sw33tliberty, or miniamericanflags or....etc....make the same argument here at youtube.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
XOmniverse's two videos center on COERCED SUBMISSION TO A STATE, and to my recollection sw33tlibery's was in response to those or at least precipitated by them. Childs was not an anarchist. At any rate, that doesn't qualify as "numerous."
How do you claim the right to rule another person without initiating force? THAT is the problem with Objectivism -- it is divorced from the reality of statism.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
I've made my video a response to the XOmniverse video I'm talking about: in which he repeats Child's assertion, that a state monopoly on retaliatory force violates the non-aggression principle, such the Objectivism is internally inconsistent.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
And that's true, but that isn't the only point he makes. The topic spans two videos, and nobody (including you) has managed to respond coherently.
I think the only thing you've accomplished here is further demonstrating how Objectivism is the epitome of subjectivity. You subjectively decide only government SHOULD have a monopoly on retaliatory force, and this is the "objective" standard by which you excuse Rand's violation of her own principle regarding initiation of force.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
When I care to address other arguments he, or anyone else makes, I will. I have responded to one argument by addressing the argument itself. You have addressed my argument ONLY by saying "well, there are other arguments too". Irrelevant. Addressing all possible arguments was not the point of the video.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Well, have fun playing dress-up with your straw-man. Seems you have little else to work with.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
Of all of the many comments you have posted here LING, not one of them addresses the fundamental flaw identified in my video. Simply writing "straw man" is not a counter-argument. I can only assume, therefore, that you have no meaningful counter-argument to make.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Of all the replies you've posted, you have not once explained how you intend to foist a government on unwilling subjects without initiating force.
A straw-man it a straw-man. I call 'em how I see 'em. You addressed a so-called "anarchist" argument but could only cite four individuals who made it, three of whom are here on YT and didn't make THAT argument alone. Also of those four, three aren't even anarchists. Straw-man. And it's a bad argument anyway, since it's divorced from reality.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
How to "foist a government on unwilling subjects without initiating force" was not the topic of the video. The flaw inherent in a SINGLE argument raised by ANARCHISTS (all four I cited say they are anarchists) was the subject of my video. Just repeating, like a parrot: "government initiates force" is not a counter-argument. For the same reasons, neither is: "Oh yea? Well oak trees are short".
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
So in other words, your argument was a straw-man to avoid the real issue since 3/4 of the people you cited aren't anarchists, and you mischaracterized the other 1/4. My point stands. And your argument is divorced from reality.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
What part of "all four I cited say they are anarchists" didn't you understand? Just asserting "mischaracterized" or "divorced from reality" is not an argument. What was the alleged mischaracterization? How is my argument "divorced from reality"? For a point to stand, one first has to have a point.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
So sw33tliberty has deconverted, which is great, so I stand corrected. I think she is MiniAF's wife or girlfriend, so maybe he's deconverted also, which is twice great. They both participated in the discussion with XO, who made the argument, so your latching onto them is rather amusing. Child was an anarcho-sympathizer at best. He recanted his own opinions.
Your argument is divorced from reality because governments must initiate force in order to exist over an unwilling population.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
Nonsense. Five people live on an island. Three of them elect a fourth to make and enforce objective laws concerning the use of retaliatory force. Setting up the government as such does not involve "forcing" anyone in any way: government's mere existence does not involve force.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
And, so long as the elected person restricts his activity to making and enforcing objective laws concerning the retaliatory use of force, he is a government.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Should the fifth person - who did not elect the fourth to govern - initiate coercive physical force, the fourth person is right to retaliate. The fourth person does not need the fifth person's consent before retaliating against the fifth person, in this scenario.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Yeah, yeah, and that is all divorced from reality. That's not how government works.
Your "objective" laws are subjective, and I reject them. What are you gonna do about it? How do you maintain a government over an unwilling populace without initiating force?
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
Every burglar and murderer rejects objective laws. You respond to their initiation of coercive force with retaliatory force. You do so whether or not they are "unwilling".
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Rejection of objective laws = theft and murder. Non sequitur, McKeever. Theft and murder = rejection of objective laws. Possibly, but also non sequitur, since most thieves and murders do not want to be stolen from or killed. I see why you find it necessary to make that conflation, however, as you've no argument otherwise.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
In addition, Rand's philosophy does not regard the initiation of physical force to be government action: it is gang action. Accordingly, by the definition Rand gave the word "government" (a definition I share), it is categorically false to say "government initiates force".
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Force that is not applied pursuant to law is force that is not under objective control. When used in response to the initiation of coercive physical force, force that is not under objective control is not "retaliatory": it is initiation.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
A geographic area having multiple legal systems cannot have objective laws: objective laws are possible only within a single legal system. A monopoly on law-making is morally right, because it is the only way to have objective law.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
In fact geographical areas with multiple legal systems worked fine in the middle ages. I don't see any evidence that their legal systems were any less objective than areas with one legal system. In any case law is generally created by precedent, so the fact that there are multiple firms providing private courts services in no way implies there will be more than one legal system. And BTW there are at least 3 legal systems in the US, local, federal and state. Cf. medical marijuana.
newperve 3 years ago
...cont'd
2. Nobody has a "right" to initiate force. The government of a free country retaliates, it does not initiate. Freedom from retaliation is freedom from justice (a.k.a., tyranny). No individual has a "right" to be free of retaliation: no individual has "right" to be free of government.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
So you just conflate government with retaliation, subjectively saying it "has to be" that way, and then call it done? Sorry, contradiction, not to mention being completely divorced from the reality of statism. If I refuse to associate with your government, to compel my association is initiation of force. Period.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
This video is about Rand's philosophy. Her philosophy does not involve a government somehow "compelling" your "association". It deals only with government retaliating against you when you initiate coercive physical force. In a free society, government activity is nothing other than retaliation.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
When someone has there home taken away from them, and it is torn down so the state can build a road, or so that Target can build a new store, and it is done so with the help of the justice system, and police force, it clearly is an example of the state inititiating force. This is first comment I have read here, and I must say that I'm disturbed that so few people understand this.
Statismisbad 4 years ago
no one is arguing that isn't wrong, or that that isn't initiating force... i kind of lead the comments way off topic here.
keyan99 4 years ago
Anytime the state takes part in theft, which is what expropriating individual private property is, that is a form of coerion, because volluntary consent did not happen, state coercion IS an inititation of force.
My 4 year old son understands this, some of you people must have been indoctrinated in the public school system.
Statismisbad 4 years ago
your living in the country isn't consent? you aren't forced to live here are you?.. i just want to understand, not make anyone angry.
keyan99 4 years ago
When an entity expropriates someone, it is not a government. I must say that I'm disturbed that so few people understand this.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
No it initiates, because it is taxing people. It is forcing people to attend it's courts, whether they want to or not (and both of these it does before there can be any decisions that the victim used force).
newperve 3 years ago
I can't speak for him and I doubt I could if allowed, but I'm pretty sure he makes a point to argue that anarchy itself is a crime, because it inevitably leads to crimes. So therefore, it is justifiable to initiate a government, or law, to citizens by force.
keyan99 4 years ago
"...anarchy itself is a crime..."
Would sure love to see the logic by which you reached that conclusion.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
"...anarchy itself is a crime..."
Which, by the way, kinda proves my initial point.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
If anarchy inevitably leads to crime within a society, then it is a moral crime itself, and therefore punishable in a moral court, which is another way of saying subjected to laws, which is another way of saying subject to a government. The point of this video was to say that defense is justifiable. And, to justify initiating forces against philosophies which are known to initiate forces in an amoral fashion, because it is defense.
keyan99 4 years ago
That's borderline incoherent, but I'll be generous and just call it delusional. Do you know anything about anarchism?
Further, you're contradicting McKeever, because his grand claim in this video is that government is retaliation, not initiation.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
I'm aware of how incoherent it is. I almost didn't post it, but i'm realizing why i'm having such a hard time arguing against your assertions, and that's because i assumed they are valid when they aren't. Anarchism doesn't exist. By definition, it is the absense of governeing rules, but it has a governing rule, and that is, there is no rules. It is in direct contradiction with itself.
keyan99 4 years ago
Obviously, you don't know anything about anarchism.
Anarchism means "without rulers." That's it. Look it up. Since you don't even know what it means, I see no reason to take your mindless comments seriously. If you want a contradiction, just take a long, hard look at Objectivism. Have fun.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
"Take a long hard look" is no substitute for actually proving your assertion that Objectivism is/involves "contradiction". Admittedly, comments sections don't permit complete arguments. How about doing a video?
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Obviously, you don't either. Anarchism by definition is a body without government, but a government is a body guided by rules. Anarchism adovocates the lack of government, therefore the lack of rules, which is effectively a rule itself. Anarchism says, "the order is that there shall be no order." That is the creation of a law, isn't it? How is that not contradictory?
keyan99 4 years ago
If you can define terms properly, maybe we can have a discussion, but not until then. Anarchism is, by definition, "no rulers" or "without rulers." If you can't accept that, there's nowhere else to go here.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
i was pulling my definition out of dictionary. i'm sorry we couldn't agree to a definition. but what is to happen if there are no rulers? then there are effectively no rules right? but then who makes the rule that there are no rulers? isn't that person a ruler, and then the society he creates without rulers a governless government? and isn't that a contradiction? educate me please.
keyan99 4 years ago
How do you get "no rules" from "no rulers?"
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
because how do you enforce rules without rulers? rules can exist without rulers, but what purpose do rules have if not enforced? and they could only be enforced by rulers, because anyone claiming to act in the name of rules, or enforcing control based on rules, is a ruler, no?
keyan99 4 years ago
So rules CAN exist with no rulers, yes? That's my only point; glad you agree.
But are you arguing that rules can't be followed unless they are "enforced" by rulers? That's rather silly, but I'm expecting as much from you at this point. As for people who don't follow the rules, there are various theories as to how justice might work sans state, mostly hinging on defense and exclusion. Your objections are old and have been dismantled repeatedly.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
fair enough. i'm not claiming to be an authority on anarchism, but rather trying to understand it. you're so disgusted by opposition, its rediculous... what i'm trying to lead to is, what happens when someone breaks a rule? isn't whomever retaliates, a ruler by enforcing the rules?
keyan99 4 years ago
I'm not disgusted by opposition, just ignorant opposition.
"Rulers" in the anarchy sense derives from "archons," a term denoting the sovereigns of Greek city-states. Unless you conflate personal defense and collective exclusion with statism, I'm not sure what your point is. David Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Han-Hermann Hoppe and others have written extensively on this subject.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
I do conflate them with statism. Isn't collective exclusion a small scale model of a government? Aren't there agreements and contracts within a society like that? And what is to happen when the agreements are broken? Doesn't one of the parties involved in the contract seek retaliation? And then isn't he a ruler in that he is initiating control over the other? And isn't that then just a two person society, under a one man government?
keyan99 4 years ago
Statism without a state. How does that work?
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
Aren't you creating a state between two parties when creating a contract? You are creating a document that has economic and social control over the two parties, a law right? That is statism, however small, because if the contract is broken, it creates a ruler. I'm saying, that anarchy isn't without rulers, unless there is never an agreement or a contract. I'm saying anarchy by your definition, only exists if an individual always socially and economically alone.
keyan99 4 years ago
If a contract is broken, the defaulting party will generally be excluded, blacklisted or otherwise shunned. This in no way creates rulers or a ruling class of any sort, as it is voluntary. So again -- statism without a state: how does that work?
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
so you're are saying that the person will shun themselves? aren't you insisting by your logic that murders will eventually murder themselves? and if you aren't saying that, then who blacklists a party if not a ruler? even if that party is a single person, isn't he exercising control over another, and is therefore a ruler?
keyan99 4 years ago
What? So if I just ignore you from now on, I'm "exercising control" over you? There's some mental gymnastics, and I don't mean the healthy kind. We're talkin' shredded cartilage.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
More insults.. I think if anyone is deluded, its you in assuming that people don't want to retaliate when a crime is committed against them. Now that your argument has come to a place where there is a need for rulers if people aren't perfect, you assert that they are perfect. Anarchy is political ideal, if you have to ignore the nature of man to allow it.
keyan99 4 years ago
I never said people don't want to or even shouldn't retaliate. I'm merely wondering how shunning someone or fulfilling the terms of a voluntary contract equates to statism or "ruling" someone. You're just making a non sequitur conflation to suit your conclusion (which was drawn in ignorance to begin with), and you're completely wrong.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
i'm mearly making the argument that if retaliating requires a ruler, if only for a moment, and if only to resolve a contractual issue, then it is small scale model of statism. the only difference is the number of bodies involved. then anarchy isn't free of controls, then anarchy doesn't exist in the way that you define it, which i was arguing since the beginning of the thread.
keyan99 4 years ago
But retaliation doesn't require a "ruler." So your argument dies before it gets started.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
retaliation requires control over an other, which is ruling over another by -- your friend -- the dictionary's definition. was the dictionary right before, but wrong now?
keyan99 4 years ago
Since when does retaliation require "control over another?"
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
since retaliation is the attack on someone who made similar attack. are you entertaining the idea that you can attack someone without control over whatever aspect you are attacking? so attacking requires control. and i've proved control requires rulers. anarchists are without rulers making no exception for themselves, therefore they can't exist by your definition.
keyan99 4 years ago
You've proven nothing. I clearly defined "rulers" many messages ago -- archons. I asked you to demonstrate how statism can exist without a state, and you've failed to do so. If you want to pretend otherwise, that's okay, but you can't expect me to take you seriously.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
"I want to stab anarchists."
That's just too cute.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
thanks. atleast humor isn't lost on you... this has successfully gone nowhere, but anarchy is government on the smallest scale. you insist i'm ignoring the truth, and i believe you are doing the same. i don't argue that anarchy isn't a valid system, but i'm only arguing that it is in fact a system, and big government is the ineveitable product of that system, esp. when dealing with extremely dense populations. good luck with your anarchy.
keyan99 4 years ago
Of course it's a system. It's defined as a political philosophy. The O in the common symbol stands for Order.
You're simply assuming one who retaliates is a ruler, and I defined ruler as it is derived in the common anarchist context -- archon, magistrate, state sovereign. Some leftists extrapolate this to all forms of hierarchy, but that denies human nature. I reject the state and the initiation of violence, and anarchy exists.
When definitions don't match, there's no resolution to be had.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago