A4O I: Introduction to Anarchism for Objectivists

Anarchism for Objectivists I: Introduction

An introduction to a video series intended to educate Objectivists on anarchism.

The Facts of Reality: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn079.htm

The Market for Liberty: http://www.mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf

The Ethics of Liberty: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

In Defense of Rational Anarchism: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/rational-anarchism.html

Police, Courts, and Laws On The Market: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_2...

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• market
• anarchism
• anarcho-capitalism
• voluntaryism
• objectivism
• philosophy
• epistemology
• ethics
• politics
• ayn
• rand

[jmbzkw]

Government cannot work due to the fact that it assumes human integrity.

[Twiggy269]

X,

Would you agree with the statement that, in a stateless society with entities in competition with one another to provide retaliatory violence, that inevitably one entity will remain. ? (i.e. one "Defense Force" will become a monopoly on the use of force.) If not, please give reasoning why more than one could/would exist on the market. (this question supposes there is a clear distinct difference between the sale of force/violence, and any other good/service available in a market)

[ProIndividual]

@younitehumanity Remember..the state doesn't need pure monopolies to be a state, only the ability, and effective monopolies. The state has a monopoly on first class mail, but other mail carriers still exist. Monopoly in the sense of state means the ability for a monopoly and an effective monopoly. Also, anarchists can't be against all government as we are for self-government. Lastly, "an" means without, while "archon" mean ruler. Without rulers /= w/o law or leaders.

[ProIndividual]

@younitehumanity Social contracts that lack monopolies on government, law, or geographic areas are not antithetical to anarchism per se. When these things do exist, however, you have a state. A state is roughly defined as a monopoly on law, social contract, government, violence, and many other possible things within a given geographic gang turf (borders). Social contracts that are not obligatory (like religion) are not states until they become obligatory.

[ProIndividual]

@younitehumanity Anarchy implies a lack of uniformity...not a lack of heirarchy or government. The state holds monopolies, which are uniformities, chiefly of which is the monopoly on government (law). In a anarchic society no one can coerce another...and that includes abolishing things like government by force. There will be governments; voluntary governments. There will be no compulsory government (state). Some will have no social contract (like me), and be pure anarchists.

[ProIndividual]

@elsargente No thanks...democracy is a social contract, and property is necessary to any free and prosperous society. You may want democracy and a social contract, and that's fine..but you cannot force others into your contract. To do so, or to claim some geographic monopoly on law based upon said contract, simply makes you a state. As far as property goes, you describe a Chomsky-esque communist disaster.

[ProIndividual]

@Twiggy269 The same reasons polycentric law works when there are not barriers to entry is why defense works when there are no barriers to entry into the markets. No is no reason to preclude that a monopoly will form. There is no reason to believe any people in all of history would fund a war (voting with money) that was not in direct self defense. Even more to the point, if soldiers came and went from wars as they pleased (unlike the "voluntary" military we have now), no offensive war

[ProIndividual]

@Twiggy269 If a scenario like this began to rear itself, what keeps people from defunding the groups that fight each other for purposes other than pure defense (which prevents logically the very monopolization you seem to imply)? Obviously without an extortion scheme (tax) on the threat of kidnapping (prison) there is nothing to fund these groups which go to war with each other. 2 pts: No market monopoly ever existed without state coercion, and no populace ever voted itself into war.

[docappleman]

hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah­ahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha­hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha­hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha­hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahah­ahahahahahahahaha yes dude your totally right anarchism is the answer

[Twiggy269]

My question was posed to show that; An anarchist society would have what we today call a govt. eventually. My reason for this is simple. There is only 1 way to actually defend an Individuals inalienable rights (right to life, liberty, and property, not to sound stereotypical) We can quabble about concrete ways of achieving a society that respects the sovereignty of the individual all day. In the end I think an Objectivist govt, and an Anarchist "Defense Force" would end up being the same thing.

[spikeslawson]

@Twiggy269 So people who volutarily pay for a service are now being monopolized when that service becomes so successful that all competitors have been eliminated? Are these people paying to be monopolized? Is that their goal? I suspect that many will jump ship and go to other providers. This movement will scale up as the leading defense force takes an increasingly large share of the market. How quickly will people leave if the defense force goes on offense? Is that what people are want?

[Jollyprez]

Galt's Gulch was clearly anarchic, Judge Naragansett notwithstanding.