Ayn Rand - Anarchist in denial?

Some interesting quotes from Ayn Rand.

For an AMAZING article on the topic of Post-Objectivist Anarchism:
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn079.htm

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• ayn
• rand
• objectivism
• libertarian
• libertarianism
• anarchocapitalism
• anarcho-capitalism
• free
• market
• anarchism
• anarchy

[Attritive]

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

[XOmniverse]

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

Bullshit. Plain and simple.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

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

[Attritive]

@vaguelyhumanoid Figure it out for yourself.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

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

[Attritive]

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

[Attritive]

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

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@Attritive

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

[Attritive]

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

[vaguelyhumanoid]

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

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