If government is only funded by voluntary donations, then it will naturally become the exact size that is necessary and in the individuals' interests.
The problem with the Objectivists is that they haven't been able to de-mystify the state. The state is not something other than society. It's part of society. The state is just a group of people, an idea, an arrangement, an order. Its functions, which are performed by men, are just as easily performed by other men under other arrangements. The only reason the state is dominant is because it uses force to establish itself over all existing and potential voluntary arrangements. We never choose it.
Anarchism leads to totalitarianism because the guy with the bigger mob or nuke will use that force to dominate the others. This is the lesson of the dark ages and why anarchism is simply a philosophy of intelligent teenagers or retarded adults.
@RolandStGermain and you are currently effectively advocating a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT to stop anarchy between the states. How do you feel as a world government advocate? After all, the guy with the bigger mob and nukes - the United States - is currently using that force to dominate all other nations, through various diplomatic pressures and the threat to use his overpowering force if necessary. Logically, we should have a coercive world government to keep such bullies as the USA at bay, right?
As I remember Nazi Germany had a few anarchist groups. The SS, SA ect... they won by the way. Soviet union had a bunch of Revolutions as you shall remember of anarchist groups. In fact, Lenin was essentially an anarchist. Marx theory was that communism would lead to a Voluntarist type society as well where laws would not be needed. You have to be very careful with this one fellers.
"The only way to enforce property rights is with a government". He's obviously wrong here. People defend their property all of the time by themselves. Why not allow competition in security? How would Yaron like it if went up to him and said, "Sign this paper which makes me his protector, and the protector of all his heirs, for eternity?" Do you think he would sign it? At least I'd be giving him a chance to sign which is more than we get now.
if i were a criminal, i wouldn't give a shit if you're a objectivist or a voluntaryist. i'll take your shit, or die trying. try and "educate" me with my gun to your face :D
Thanks for your response. I'm not sure I follow. What are the principles of an Objectivists gov? My point was that an Objectivist gov is still a government, meaning it is a legal monopoly of force. Rand claimed that you could have a monopoly of retaliatory force. The problem is that you can't. It's like saying you can have a round circle. How would you enforce a monopoly of retaliatory force w/o using coercion and thereby becoming an aggressor?
The other fallacy here is the fallacy that government must precede markets. This is obviously self-contradictory b/c without markets there would be no wealth to use to even form a government in the first place. Law does not depend upon gov. Law is just agreed upon rules that people operate by. Plenty of examples of such law without gov exist (like ancient Ireland, common law and the merchant law) but are ignored by Objectivists. Free people created law and gov expropriated it.
The problem with Ran's politics is that a "monopoly of the use of physical force in a geographical region" is coercion against those who do not want to pay for that government and would rather pay for other protection services. This is the hard fact that Objectivists righteously evade.
Any protection service that follows different principles than an objectivist government would necessarely be in the business of violating individual rights (unless the government is corrupt and has strayed from its duties). Therefore such a competing entity would have no moral right to operate. And nobody would be forcing you to pay for the government. If you think its not performing its duty, then don't fund it. But you have no right to create your own laws.
As an Ancap I wouldn't pay a DRO that didn't have a way to guarantee that it would not abuse its power - that is the check. As for a State, there is no check. That's the difference. Whatever evils could befall a DRO, they will befall a State a thousand fold since there is no check at all, except outright rebellion which is just as much a "precription for dictatorship" since it is virtually impossible without mass death. Brooke is wrong.
I agree with Yaron. Many Anarcho-Capitalists think there would be DROs that you would make a contract with, but they don't think about how the contract would be enforced. What if the DRO decides to violate the contract? who's going to stop them, another DRO with more guns? You need law, even Anarchistic societies eventually develop local competing laws, but there is much needless bloodshed in the process
Dr. Yaron Brook is great. An eloquent defender of freedom and Capitalism. He defends freedom from the collectivists who want to steal our property and from the childish Anarcho- "Capitalists" who wants to deprive us of the protection of courts, police and army. Who is going to defend our individual rights and our property in an Anarchy? Who is going to settle disputes in an anarchy?
1:12 Stop people from stealing your property by stealing your property to pay cops and soldiers and judges to stop other people from stealing what's left of your money? That is what government is "good" for? lol
Voluntary taxation? Oxymoron.
Government is not eloquence. It is force.
Anarchy does NOT self-destruct when viewed with an open mind and a dedication to logic, reason, truth and universal morality... even if Mr. Brooks says so.
Noodlefood post "Thoughts on Tax Reform" has some good comments against the anarchocapitalist argument at comment #32 and #50 by William Stoddard and #66 by yours truly, Roderick Fitts.
True. The first society to try "voluntary taxation" will have to rename it "defense tithes" or something - after all, people pay tithes to churches without being forced to do so. Why would defense and government be any different?
Mr Brook is sadly uninformed regarding voluntaryism/anarchy. His argument might as well include that if anarchy existed; everyone would have tattoos on their foreheads... huh?
Brook thinks that a stateless society is a bad thing and assumes that government is good so long as it is the size HE wants and does what HE wants it to do. He thinks that governments can stay small and assumes that alternatives will result in bad stuff happening.
I once was a minarchist like Brooks, but have kept studying... much like Glenn Beck is a bit more informed than Obama... but still hasn't taken his philosophy to its rational conclusion.
certain services must be provided by the Gov. Example. Army
The reason is in order to provide the service to one, you must provide it to everyone
The army can't defend you and me from Russia, but say, "Tim didn't pay for military defense, so Russia can invade Tim's land". Same with police, the police can't try and stop a rape, and then say "wait, sally didn't pay her bill. You can keep raping her"
There are a few things you need a Gov for, mainly in regard to condition I specified above. And primarily to defend property
And it is true, if we all have guns, we can defend our stuff. But you going to do that while you're at work? So we all have to go back to being farmers, and subsistence living, or we're going to need a neighborhood watch or something
And you can call it a 7ft Tall Purple Bunny if you like, but its still filling the role of Gov, and you still need it to have a society
@shepardh1 It isn't the quantity of the government (big or small), but the quality that counts--whether it carries out its legitimate function or not.
The AnCap argument falls apart when you realize that the losing party in a court case could just claim that the current DRO is violating *his* rights and form a new legal arbiter (and therefore, a new jurisdiction)--exactly what they claim about the minarchic government. Their argument applies just as well (i.e. as badly) to their own agencies.
Yaron is confused. If taxes were voluntary, there wouldn't be "government", for the services would be considered private contractors. He's calling private contractors "government".
@MoneyIsSilver You're ignoring the crucial point that the government is the only entity that is legally permitted to use force. So the government isn't equivalent to private contractors, even if all of its costs are paid for voluntarily, because it has the legal right to use force, a right which no private contractor holds. To confuse a limited government with private contractors on the market is to confuse political power with economic power, a confusion that seems common among Rand's opponents
@MoneyIsSilver Not quite. He believes the govt would have a monopoly on the use of force within a geographical area, which would have one set of objective laws for all. It would also be funded voluntarily. Under this system you would be allowed not to pay tax. But you would not be allowed to break the law.
This is quite different from a system guns-for-hire private contractors providing services.
If government is only funded by voluntary donations, then it will naturally become the exact size that is necessary and in the individuals' interests.
dbc616 2 months ago
The problem with the Objectivists is that they haven't been able to de-mystify the state. The state is not something other than society. It's part of society. The state is just a group of people, an idea, an arrangement, an order. Its functions, which are performed by men, are just as easily performed by other men under other arrangements. The only reason the state is dominant is because it uses force to establish itself over all existing and potential voluntary arrangements. We never choose it.
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
What if that thug works for the government?
"Force is not a good"
Ummm...there is a difference between force and defense.
FarmingFractals 6 months ago
Anarchism leads to totalitarianism because the guy with the bigger mob or nuke will use that force to dominate the others. This is the lesson of the dark ages and why anarchism is simply a philosophy of intelligent teenagers or retarded adults.
RolandStGermain 8 months ago
@RolandStGermain and you are currently effectively advocating a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT to stop anarchy between the states. How do you feel as a world government advocate? After all, the guy with the bigger mob and nukes - the United States - is currently using that force to dominate all other nations, through various diplomatic pressures and the threat to use his overpowering force if necessary. Logically, we should have a coercive world government to keep such bullies as the USA at bay, right?
Arjozof 6 months ago
@Arjozof Coercion is not always done with force. Trust me, most coercion occurs through means that most people welcome.
RolandStGermain 6 months ago
@RolandStGermain it's not coercion in legal terms. Advertisment is not coercion. But threat of force is.
Arjozof 6 months ago
As I remember Nazi Germany had a few anarchist groups. The SS, SA ect... they won by the way. Soviet union had a bunch of Revolutions as you shall remember of anarchist groups. In fact, Lenin was essentially an anarchist. Marx theory was that communism would lead to a Voluntarist type society as well where laws would not be needed. You have to be very careful with this one fellers.
Bigturns33 4 months ago
@Bigturns33 I think that you inadvertently proved my point.
Anarchism is a Platonic Ideal that is not suited to the real world where people are still animals and Might is still Right.
All of the Anarchist Movements that you mention were eventually smashed by the guy with the bigger weapon.
The Crimea was occupied by Soviet troops and it is funny how Communist societies never do progress beyond the dictatorship of the Proletariat....
RolandStGermain 4 months ago
"As soon as you introduce force into the marketplace..." - What does he think that government is?
TreachMarkets 11 months ago
"The only way to enforce property rights is with a government". He's obviously wrong here. People defend their property all of the time by themselves. Why not allow competition in security? How would Yaron like it if went up to him and said, "Sign this paper which makes me his protector, and the protector of all his heirs, for eternity?" Do you think he would sign it? At least I'd be giving him a chance to sign which is more than we get now.
cfbastiat 1 year ago
if i were a criminal, i wouldn't give a shit if you're a objectivist or a voluntaryist. i'll take your shit, or die trying. try and "educate" me with my gun to your face :D
centerrightpunk 1 year ago
@centerrightpunk If you were the only one in the world with a gun but knowing that isn't and wouldn't ever be the case, you wouldn't live very long.
LeedansParis 1 year ago
@LeedansParis
let's compare guns then. by the way, i love the idea of anarchy. it will let the weak die off. might is right. :D
centerrightpunk 1 year ago
@centerrightpunk *said in my best, effeminate lisp:
"Oooh CR Punk, it'ss ssssoooO big!"
LeedansParis 1 year ago
@LeedansParis
glad to hear you're a homosexual.
centerrightpunk 1 year ago
@centerrightpunk I knew you'd be excited to think so.
LeedansParis 1 year ago
@Thill029
Thanks for your response. I'm not sure I follow. What are the principles of an Objectivists gov? My point was that an Objectivist gov is still a government, meaning it is a legal monopoly of force. Rand claimed that you could have a monopoly of retaliatory force. The problem is that you can't. It's like saying you can have a round circle. How would you enforce a monopoly of retaliatory force w/o using coercion and thereby becoming an aggressor?
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago
The other fallacy here is the fallacy that government must precede markets. This is obviously self-contradictory b/c without markets there would be no wealth to use to even form a government in the first place. Law does not depend upon gov. Law is just agreed upon rules that people operate by. Plenty of examples of such law without gov exist (like ancient Ireland, common law and the merchant law) but are ignored by Objectivists. Free people created law and gov expropriated it.
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago 6
The problem with Ran's politics is that a "monopoly of the use of physical force in a geographical region" is coercion against those who do not want to pay for that government and would rather pay for other protection services. This is the hard fact that Objectivists righteously evade.
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago
@ORIGINALUSRNM
Any protection service that follows different principles than an objectivist government would necessarely be in the business of violating individual rights (unless the government is corrupt and has strayed from its duties). Therefore such a competing entity would have no moral right to operate. And nobody would be forcing you to pay for the government. If you think its not performing its duty, then don't fund it. But you have no right to create your own laws.
Thill029 1 year ago
As an Ancap I wouldn't pay a DRO that didn't have a way to guarantee that it would not abuse its power - that is the check. As for a State, there is no check. That's the difference. Whatever evils could befall a DRO, they will befall a State a thousand fold since there is no check at all, except outright rebellion which is just as much a "precription for dictatorship" since it is virtually impossible without mass death. Brooke is wrong.
ORIGINALUSRNM 1 year ago
Damn, he's good.
nine9s 1 year ago
Take that Voluntaryism.
lordpoppycock 1 year ago
I agree with Yaron. Many Anarcho-Capitalists think there would be DROs that you would make a contract with, but they don't think about how the contract would be enforced. What if the DRO decides to violate the contract? who's going to stop them, another DRO with more guns? You need law, even Anarchistic societies eventually develop local competing laws, but there is much needless bloodshed in the process
Sam26100 1 year ago
Dr. Yaron Brook is great. An eloquent defender of freedom and Capitalism. He defends freedom from the collectivists who want to steal our property and from the childish Anarcho- "Capitalists" who wants to deprive us of the protection of courts, police and army. Who is going to defend our individual rights and our property in an Anarchy? Who is going to settle disputes in an anarchy?
genji77 1 year ago
1:12 Stop people from stealing your property by stealing your property to pay cops and soldiers and judges to stop other people from stealing what's left of your money? That is what government is "good" for? lol
Voluntary taxation? Oxymoron.
Government is not eloquence. It is force.
Anarchy does NOT self-destruct when viewed with an open mind and a dedication to logic, reason, truth and universal morality... even if Mr. Brooks says so.
shepardh1 1 year ago
@shepardh1
Noodlefood post "Thoughts on Tax Reform" has some good comments against the anarchocapitalist argument at comment #32 and #50 by William Stoddard and #66 by yours truly, Roderick Fitts.
Youhavethebody 1 year ago
@shepardh1 "Voluntary taxation? Oxymoron."
True. The first society to try "voluntary taxation" will have to rename it "defense tithes" or something - after all, people pay tithes to churches without being forced to do so. Why would defense and government be any different?
MrCropper 1 year ago
Mr Brook is sadly uninformed regarding voluntaryism/anarchy. His argument might as well include that if anarchy existed; everyone would have tattoos on their foreheads... huh?
shepardh1 1 year ago
"huh?"
and so say all of us. Read what you wrote, and then tell me if even you can understand it
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
Brook thinks that a stateless society is a bad thing and assumes that government is good so long as it is the size HE wants and does what HE wants it to do. He thinks that governments can stay small and assumes that alternatives will result in bad stuff happening.
I once was a minarchist like Brooks, but have kept studying... much like Glenn Beck is a bit more informed than Obama... but still hasn't taken his philosophy to its rational conclusion.
shepardh1 1 year ago
certain services must be provided by the Gov. Example. Army
The reason is in order to provide the service to one, you must provide it to everyone
The army can't defend you and me from Russia, but say, "Tim didn't pay for military defense, so Russia can invade Tim's land". Same with police, the police can't try and stop a rape, and then say "wait, sally didn't pay her bill. You can keep raping her"
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
There are a few things you need a Gov for, mainly in regard to condition I specified above. And primarily to defend property
And it is true, if we all have guns, we can defend our stuff. But you going to do that while you're at work? So we all have to go back to being farmers, and subsistence living, or we're going to need a neighborhood watch or something
And you can call it a 7ft Tall Purple Bunny if you like, but its still filling the role of Gov, and you still need it to have a society
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@shepardh1 It isn't the quantity of the government (big or small), but the quality that counts--whether it carries out its legitimate function or not.
The AnCap argument falls apart when you realize that the losing party in a court case could just claim that the current DRO is violating *his* rights and form a new legal arbiter (and therefore, a new jurisdiction)--exactly what they claim about the minarchic government. Their argument applies just as well (i.e. as badly) to their own agencies.
Youhavethebody 1 year ago
Mr. Brook, if sexual intercourse is provided by force, shall the victim be required to pay for the service?
The "government" enforcers are the thugs.
CorrodedConformitySD 1 year ago
Bahhhhh
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
@rockstarofredondo This guy is an ass.
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
Yaron is confused. If taxes were voluntary, there wouldn't be "government", for the services would be considered private contractors. He's calling private contractors "government".
MoneyIsSilver 1 year ago 5
@MoneyIsSilver You're ignoring the crucial point that the government is the only entity that is legally permitted to use force. So the government isn't equivalent to private contractors, even if all of its costs are paid for voluntarily, because it has the legal right to use force, a right which no private contractor holds. To confuse a limited government with private contractors on the market is to confuse political power with economic power, a confusion that seems common among Rand's opponents
jonathanaconway 8 months ago
@MoneyIsSilver Not quite. He believes the govt would have a monopoly on the use of force within a geographical area, which would have one set of objective laws for all. It would also be funded voluntarily. Under this system you would be allowed not to pay tax. But you would not be allowed to break the law.
This is quite different from a system guns-for-hire private contractors providing services.
richardcadbury 6 months ago