"Shopping for government"

Philosophy & Economics: General

Marko I. February 17, 2015 at 7:43 pm

Hey folks! So, i’m an objectivist and yes, sometimes i do find value in spending time on liberty.me 🙂 We know that Ayn Rand opposed anarchism, but i would love to see what do you (anarchists who read Ayn Rand) think about what Ayn Rand wrote in Virtue Of Selfishness regarding anarchism.. as well to give an explanation if you think that she’s wrong:

“Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses. One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.”

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Sarah Meyer February 17, 2015 at 11:07 pm

How interesting – I was just going to open a new discussion thread basically asking “Hey, anarchists – what’s up with the love of HOA’s?” They are in fact, micro-governments, and some anarchists seem to tout the benefits of entering into these micro-government communities voluntarily as a means to preemptively resolve common neighborly disagreements.

Doesn’t the idea of even a voluntary government (ie: HOA’s) contradict their basic belief that small government always begets big government?

You can see a lot of back and forth regarding the HOA topic on the Anarchist discussion thread regarding how to resolve noise pollution… then there’s the anarchist vs. minarchist discussion thread where I see a lot of the small begets big argument. So, I guess I’m curious too, and definitely am interested in the answers you get to your question.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 
 Marko I. February 18, 2015 at 2:09 pm
 
 I’m glad to see an objectivist here 🙂
 
 Exactly. I’m interested to hear from them to what extent (in the terms of geography) micro-governments would exist? If there are no rules in those terms, i’m pretty sure that if anyone could “shop for a government” that society would turn into a war between gangs.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 
 Rick Rule February 18, 2015 at 5:32 pm
 
 What is wrong with rules based voluntary association. As an investor, I’m party to articles of incorporation that define my rights, responsibilities, and dispute resolution mechanisms, if I don’t like what read, I’m free to sell the stock.
 
 Same with an HOA. If I don’t like the restrictions, I don’t buy the real estate…
 
 competitive, voluntary cooperative agreements work for me
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 
 Sarah Meyer February 18, 2015 at 6:22 pm
 
 Because – small begets big, and nothing prevents these “associations” from working with each other to combine and grow rapidly.
 
 I envision an anarchist society where you’re constantly moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction of some Association, or Secured Area, or Co-op, or what have you. What a nightmare. There wouldn’t be any freedom left anywhere. You’d be left to pick the lesser of the evils (sound familiar?)
 
 Besides, they’re just not my cup of tea. I really don’t want a bunch of busy-body ninnies telling me how many inches tall my grass can be, and that I can only paint my house one of 3 approved colors, or driving around slowly taking pictures of the trashcans which weren’t pulled back within 5 minutes after the trash truck goes by… wouldn’t it be a shame if the HOA’s got all the “good” land? Leaving those of us who “don’t like the restrictions” swamp land or desert or something?
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Marko I. February 18, 2015 at 7:14 pm
 
 I agree with you completely, Sarah.
 
 And also what would happen to the people who are not able to shop for protection and just be left out to the mercy of criminals or move out to “humanitarian communities”? I would personally have a problem with it.
 
 This is why people need limited, monopolistic government. I think that is everyone’s self interest to have all citizens being protected and to have equal rights.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Rick Rule February 18, 2015 at 7:53 pm
 
 each to his or her own. competing voluntary communities work for me
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Marko I. February 18, 2015 at 8:33 pm
 
 I’m all for voluntary communities but certain conditions should apply. Individual rights, protection and a court must be provided to every individual. And also, individual rights and protection can’t be a subject to any kind of public vote. Although, the idea of many small communities spreading all over the regions is basically again ganging up against the individual.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Rick Rule February 18, 2015 at 9:17 pm
 
 my suspicion is that the first effort at a quasi libertarian community, and the only ones likely to occur in my lifetime will be semi sovereign communities carved out of bankrupt small nations by freedom oriented investors. My belief is that the developer- promoters who start them will do so for a profit, and craft covenants, conditions and restrictions to fit their interpretation of what the market will respond to, and what feels right to them. Having a few of these developments competing might not be the theoretical ideal, but I believe it mat happen. If it does , I hope it is compared to what it competes with in the world, and not an idea without a functioning champion.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Marko I. February 18, 2015 at 10:06 pm
 
 That’s one of the issues that would come from my premise about mini governments. The other issue is that communities are often dangerous in the terms of ethics, and especially, the smaller ones as they have extremely heavy sense of unity “we are small, only by unity we can survive” .(Expressed very much in small European communities today)
 
 “Group” argument, most of the time, will be that everybody are “collectivistic beings” and that will lead to the series of contradictions.
 
 There are all types of small communities but without basic principles of the truly free markets and individual rights, which if they neglect, will experience the consequences.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Robert S. March 8, 2015 at 10:17 am
 
 Very interesting discussion. I used to kind of support HOA as long as I didn’t have to live under one. My Grandma is 99 and signed on to one of these where she lives almost 30 years ago…when she had more money and the rules were less stringent. Now, with less money and too old to pack up and move and doesn’t want to leave her home of almost 30 years she finds herself having to hire people to do all of the things she has to do to “comply” with the ever increasing rules of the HOA. Our opinions and beliefs are often short sighted and don’t take possibilities into account. I am not sure what the answer to all of this is, but I know that between my Grandmother’s scenario and what I’ve read in this discussion…I’m against all of it!!! Drop me on a mountaintop with a book of matches and a blanket and leave me the hell alone. Haha
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 Leanne Baker March 6, 2015 at 6:46 pm
 
 I think it’s a mistake to call an HOA a “government.” It’s not a government, it’s an association that one must join to live (or buy property) in a certain neighborhood or development. I personally have never chosen to live anywhere with an HOA, for the same reason that I wouldn’t apply to live in a co-op in New York City, where your future neighbors can see your tax return and decide whether you can live as their neighbors. But other people love these kinds of associations, and are satisfied in neighborhoods where they give up their right to paint their home pink in exchange for having someone else mow the lawn. We have friends who live on a “cooperative” ranch that raises sheep — to me it sounds like a nightmare having to arrive at consensus on every decision, but it works well for them. There seem to be lots of “intentional communities” in this and other agricultural areas, and we know an artist who just created a small retirement community in the same vein. People on this site talk about Fort Galt or Casey’s Gulch, and I see them the same way — I haven’t checked the specifics, but I’ll bet there are plenty of covenants. In the end, we are free to choose any of these arrangements. That’s what distinguishes them from governments.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Michael Bunch February 18, 2015 at 4:31 pm

Regarding the Rand quote, Hoppe addresses this very same type of hypothetical situation with his points about competing insurance companies providing private law enforcement. Just as with insurance companies now, there’s no reason why competing companies can’t work things out and negotiate peacefully while meeting consumer demand. Insurance companies that rely on force or abuse consumers would quickly go out of business. I’d check out his essays in Democracy: The God that Failed if you’d like to see the whole point discussed and enumerated upon. You could also check out this article:

http://mises.org/library/idea-private-law-society

But this is more about private law enforcement rather than private governments. To be honest, I don’t think many would form private governments. Why do that and be restricted when you could form less binding alliances, trade agreements, and pacts amongst like-minded families? I don’t think people would throw away their freedoms so quick when they could use less intensive agreements.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 
 Rick Rule February 19, 2015 at 4:47 pm
 
 I think, from a practical point of view, that you are ” driving down the right track”” Michael.
 
 I suspect that any libertarian communities that exist in my lifetime will be privately developed and have contractually derived restrictions and rules. Hopefully, enough of these communities can evolve, that consumers can find ne where the agreements one must contractually be bound to are acceptable.
 
 The insurance model is the most practical form for the establishment, mediation and enforcement of commercial agreements in these communities.
 
 While these outcomes may not be ideal in the theoretical realm, they out compete what exists now, at least in my view, and are achievable before I shed my mortal coil.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 
 Matthew John Hayden March 2, 2015 at 8:23 pm
 
 Things like agreeing not to make thermite if you live on a seastead… :p
 I can live with that restriction.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Youliy Ninov February 19, 2015 at 4:24 pm

Ayn Rand is right. No proper solution exist within the limits of the above assumption.

However if we assume competing communities, with their respective laws but without government, then there is no problem at all. The juristictions of the particular communities do not intersect, so there is only one valid law. And if one is allowed to “shop” for a community (which means to leave and choose a particular communty at will) then there will be competition between them with respect to the laws they offer.

Just to mention that laws and government are not one and the same thing. Both can exist separately.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Matthew John Hayden March 2, 2015 at 8:21 pm

Why is the operating assumption here that the political administration of social life would continue absent the state?

On an empirical sidenote; most of the houses that Americans or Britons are likely to ever want to live in have already been built, and are not part of any HOA.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Youliy Ninov March 3, 2015 at 11:19 am
  
  “Why is the operating assumption here that the political administration of social life would continue absent the state?”
  
  Assume a land-owner in an anarchist society exists. Does he have the right to determine the rules which are valid on HIS piece of land? Every honest libertarian would say : deinintely yes. So, this land-owner could write these rights on paper and call them laws. These laws are valid on his land. No NAP is broken, but laws exist.
  
  We go on: some landwners around him decide to accept the laws our landowner has written, or they together decide on a common set of laws. It this OK? Of course, becuase the landowners own their land and they are the only ones who have the right to say how it is to be used.
  
  However, in effect a jurisdiction has been created. Laws are available and they are imposed with force without NAP being broken. If for some reason a person disagrees with the laws in force, he is free to leave the jurisdiction and join another one. There could be milions of jurisdictions, only the sky would be the limit. And nobody would be forced to stay in a particular jurisdiction.
  
  Still, the owners can not decide the laws entirely by themselves. It the laws do not cater to the need of the population, the people inhabiting this land would just flee and the particular land-owner will lose a lot, becuase land itself means nothing. There must be people on it to produce the goods neccessary for survival. So, the land-owners would try to write the laws in such a way that they be acceptable for the most people there.
  
  In effect there would be competition among competing laws (represented by jurisdictions). And the best would survive and florish.
  
  So, I do not know if you think that the above system applies ” political administration of social life”, but there is nothing wrong or strange in it from a libertarian point of view. It conforms to every basic libertarian principle. At the same time it conforms to the requirements of the objectivism, so Ayn Rand, if she was alive should have endorced it, because if she had not, she would have contradicted herself.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Matthew John Hayden March 3, 2015 at 2:34 pm
    
    Your passage is completely right. You’re describing the absence of “political admnistration” since private law is the absence of political force required to administer politically.
    
    Let’s hope such a world exists – somewhere – within our lifetimes!
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  Rick Rule March 6, 2015 at 3:04 pm
  
  I agree with what you say, but I’m less interested in “most”, I’m like you, interested in me. I am very interested in living living in a contractually governed ” ghetto”.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Jorge Trucco March 6, 2015 at 3:54 pm

I disagree, Marko and Sarah:

Excerpt from “The Market for Liberty”, by M & L Tannehill

Chapter 11 – Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime.

Some opponents of a laissez-faire society have contended that, because a governmentless society would have no single, society-wide institution able to legitimately wield superior force to prevent aggression, a state of gang warfare between defense agencies would arise. Then (as they argue), brute force, rather than justice, would prevail and society would collapse in internecine conflict. This contention assumes that private defense service entrepreneurs would find it to their advantage, at least in some circumstances, to use coercive, rather than market, means to achieve their ends. There is a further, unstated assumption that governmental officials would not only prevent coercion but would themselves consistently refrain from initiating force (or that the force they initiated would be somehow preferable to the chaos it is feared would result from an unhampered market).

The second of these assumptions is obviously groundless, since (as was shown in Chapter 4) government is a coercive monopoly which must initiate force in order to survive, and which cannot be kept limited. But what of the first assumption? Would a free market system of value-protection lead to gang warfare between the competing defense companies?

The “gang warfare” objection has been raised in regard to theories advocating a system of competing governments. When applied to any type of governments, the objection is a valid one. A government, being a coercive monopoly, is always in the position of initiating force simply by the fact of its existence, so it is not surprising that conflicts between governments frequently take the form of war. Since a government is a coercive monopoly, the notion of more than one government occupying the same area at the same time is ridiculous. But a laissez-faire society would involve, not governments, but private businesses operating in a free market.

All actions have specific consequences, and the nature of these consequences is determined by the nature of the action and by the context in which it takes place. What would be the consequences for a free-market defense company which committed an act of aggression in a laissez-faire society?

Suppose, for example, that the Old Reliable Defense Company, acting on behalf of a client who had been robbed of his wallet, sent its agents to break into and search every house in the client’s neighborhood. Suppose further that the agents shot the first man who offered resistance, taking his resistance as proof of guilt.

The most immediate consequence of the aggression is that the defense company either does or does not realize its objective (in this case, the return of the wallet, together with damages), depending on the circumstances and the amount of counter-force it meets with. But this is only the first of several important consequences springing directly from the aggression.

Not only has Old Reliable’s action put it in the precarious position of being a target of retaliatory force, it has also made the company the subject of severe business ostracism. All honest and productive individuals and businesses will immediately dissociate themselves from Old Reliable, because they will fear that any disagreement which may arise in their business dealings with it may turn its aggressive force against them. Further, they will realize that, even if they manage to remain on good terms with Old Reliable, they are in danger of becoming accidental casualties when retaliatory force is exercised by some indignant victim of Old Reliable’s aggressions.

But there is an even stronger reason which will persuade Old Reliable’s customers and business associates to quickly sever all relations with it. In a laissez-faire society, as has been pointed out, a good reputation is the most valuable asset any business or individual can have. In a free society, a man with a bad reputation would have a hard time getting customers, business associates, or credit and insurance at rates he could afford. Knowing this, no one would wish to risk his personal reputation or the business reputation of his firm by having any dealings with a known aggressor.

Insurance companies, a very important sector of any totally free economy, would have a special incentive to dissociate themselves from any aggressor and, in addition, to bring all their considerable business influence to bear against him. Aggressive violence causes value loss, and the insurance industry would suffer the major cost in most such value losses. An unrestrained aggressor is a walking liability, and no insurance company, however remotely removed from his original aggression, would wish to sustain the risk that he might aggress against one of its own clients next. Besides, aggressors and those who associate with them are more likely to be involved in situations of violence and are, thus, bad insurance risks. An insurance company would probably refuse coverage to such people out of a foresighted desire to minimize any future losses which their aggressions might cause. But even if the company were not motivated by such foresight, it would still be forced to rate their premiums up drastically or cancel their coverage altogether in order to avoid carrying the extra risk involved in their inclination to violence. In a competitive economy, no insurance company could afford to continue covering aggressors and those who had dealings with aggressors and simply pass the cost on to its honest customers; it would soon lose these customers to more reputable firms which could afford to charge less for their insurance coverage.

What would loss of insurance coverage mean in a free economy? Even if the Old Reliable Defense Company (or any other business or individual) could generate enough force to protect itself against any aggressive or retaliatory force brought against it by any factor or combination of factors, it would still have to go completely without several economic necessities. It could not purchase insurance protection against auto accidents, natural disasters, or contractual disputes. It would have no protection against damage suits resulting from accidents occurring on its property. It is very possible that Old Reliable would even have to do without the services of a fire extinguishing company, since such companies are natural outgrowths of the fire insurance business.

In addition to the terrific penalties imposed by the business ostracism which would naturally follow its aggressive act, Old Reliable would have trouble with its employees. Government employees are legally protected from suffering any personal consequences as a result of all but the most blatant of the aggressive acts which they perpetrate “in the line of duty.” Such functionaries as police officials, judges, and Internal Revenue and narcotics agents can initiate force with immunity simply by taking protection under such cliches as “I don’t write the law; I just enforce it,” or “That’s a matter for a jury to decide,” or “This statute was passed by the duly elected representatives of the people.” But employees of a free-market defense company would have no such legal immunity from retaliatory force; they would have to assume responsibility for their own actions. If a defense service agent carried out an order which involved the intentional initiation of force, both the agent and the entrepreneur or manager who gave him the order, as well as any other employees knowledge-ably involved, would be liable for any damages caused. Since he could not take refuge in “the system,” no honest defense service employee would carry out an order which involved the initiation of force (nor would an honest employer give such an order or sanction such action on the part of his employee). Thus, if Old Reliable managed to keep any employees at all, or to hire any new ones to replace those who had left, it would have to settle for people who were either terribly stupid or desperate enough to believe they had nothing to lose by being associated with aggression—in other words, simpletons and hoodlums.

In a laissez-faire society, a defense company which committed aggression, unless it acted speedily to rectify the injustices, would be left with no customers, associates, or employees except for undesirables. This raises the question of whether the criminal element in a laissez-faire society would, or even could, support their own “Mafia” defense company for the purpose of defending them against the retaliatory force of their victims.

Only a man who was willing to be openly identified as an aggressor would buy the services of such a “Mafia” defense agency, since the nature of the activities and clients of such a defense agency could not be kept hidden. This open aggressor would have to support himself entirely by aggression, because no honest man would take the chance of having business dealings with him. Furthermore, he would have to be existing very well financially, since the cost of protecting a man continually involved in acts of violence would be extremely high.

It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the only clients of such a “Mafia” defense company would be highly successful, big time, open aggressors. Since an aggressor could hardly hope to obtain that much money all by himself, the existence of such men presupposes the existence of a fairly extensive, well organized network of lesser hoodlums working for the “big operators.” In other words, organized criminal gangs would be required to provide sufficient support for a “Mafia” defense company.

Although such an organized criminal gang may enter into many fields, organized crime finds its basic support in black market activities. A black market is any area of the market which is legally prohibited. If left unprohibited, it would be an area of trade involving peaceful, willing exchanges between sellers and buyers. But when government initiates force by forbidding this area of trade to honest men, it throws it open to men who are willing to take the risk of violating bureaucratic dictates and the statutory laws of the politicians. The violence and fraud associated with any black market do not spring from the nature of the good or service being sold; they are a direct result of the fact that entrepreneurs have been legally forbidden to deal in this area of the market, leaving it open to men who dare to ignore prohibitions and who are willing to resort to violence in order to do business without getting caught. Unless prohibited, every market activity is operated on the basis of willing exchange, without the initiation of force, because this is the only way a business can be operated successfully, as force is a nonproductive expenditure of energy.

An excellent example of a black market occurred during the Prohibition era of the 1920s. When government prohibited the manufacture and sale of liquor, an area of the market was arbitrarily closed to anyone who wished to remain law-abiding. Since there was still a market demand for liquor, hosts of criminals were attracted and created to fill the vacuum. Numerous gangs, including the Mafia, were founded and/or grew into organizations of immense power on the basis of the black market afforded by the Prohibition Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. Many of these organized criminal gangs are still with us; although they lost a great deal of their base with the repeal of Prohibition, they were able to survive by shifting the major part of their activities to other governmentally forbidden areas, such as gambling and prostitution. (It is interesting to note that the two organizations which fought hardest against the repeal of Prohibition were the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Mafia!)

There is a compelling reason why organized crime must base its support in black market activities. Wealth does not exist in nature but must be created. The only means of creating wealth is value-production and free exchange—the manufacture and trade of some desired good or service. One may obtain wealth directly, by productive work, or one may obtain it indirectly, by looting it from a producer, but the wealth must be created by production in the first place in order to exist at all. The looter is a parasite who will not create his own wealth and its consequent power but is dependent on some producer to furnish it. This means that looting cannot be a profitable business in the long run (to the extent that producers are not disarmed by a false ideology—such as pacifism—or by being legally prohibited from acting in their own defense). Producers are the ones who hold the source of wealth and power, and in any long-range contest between looters and non-disarmed producers the weight of wealth and power must be on the side of the producers.

This is the reason that an organized hoodlum gang cannot support its large size and relatively complex structure by acts of aggression alone; the risk inevitably outweighs the profit (and this would be particularly true in a society where value-protection was a service sold in a competitive, free market). Such a gang can only support itself by obtaining its wealth directly, through production and trade in some black market. Thus, organized crime depends for its existence on black markets … which are the result of government prohibitions. Without government-caused black markets, Criminals would have to operate singly or in small groups because they would have no area of production and trade to furnish support for large and complex organizations. So it is clear that the criminal element in a laissez-faire society couldn’t possibly support a “Mafia” defense company.

It is also worth noting that much of the success of organized crime in our present society is due to the alliances which crime bosses are able to make with government officials On nearly all levels. From the $50 pay-off to the local cop, clear up to the $10,000 contribution to the senator’s campaign fund, organized crime regularly protects itself by buying off governmental opposition. In a laissez-faire society, aggressors would not only be scattered, weak, and unorganized, they would find it next to impossible to buy off free-market protection and arbitration agencies. The customers of a defense company don’t have to keep patronizing it if they find out that some of its employees have been accepting payoffs from aggressors. They are free to do what citizens can never do—find some other agency to protect them. A free-market agency, unlike a government, couldn’t afford to have underworld connections, even With the small and unimportant “underworld” of a free society. When the news media revealed its shady dealings, its customers would all desert it, and the aggressors wouldn’t be able to keep it in business … for the simple reason that the criminal element in a laissez-faire society would be too small and weak to support a “Mafia” defense company.

But even though a “Mafia” defense company could not exist in a free-market society, wouldn’t it be possible for some respectable defense agency to attain a position of monopoly and then begin exercising its powers in a tyrannical manner? Of course there is some possibility that any social structure can be subverted—anything which some men can build, other men can find a way to destroy. What obstacles would a would-be tyrant (or group of tyrants) have to overcome in order to gain control of a free society?

First, the would-be tyrant would have to gain control of the defense company he intended to use, and it would have to be one which controlled a fairly strong army or had the means to build one. Even if he inherited the business lock, stock, and bankroll, he would still not control it in the same way that a government controls its bureaucrats and armies, because he would have no way of guaranteeing his employees immunity from retaliation if they committed coercive acts for him. Nor would he be able to hold his employees (as a government can with its conscript soldiers) if they objected to his orders or feared to carry them out.

But if this would-be tyrant were clever and subtle enough either to gain the loyalty of his employees or to keep them from realizing what he was about, he would still have only begun his task. In order to have sufficient power to carry out his schemes, he would have to gain monopoly or near-monopoly status. He could only do this by becoming the most efficient and excellent entrepreneur in his field; and he would have to continue this excellence, even after he had gained monopoly status, to prevent other large businesses from diversifying into his field to reap the benefits of higher profit margins. This means that our would-be tyrant couldn’t charge his customers high prices in order to amass a fortune to buy weapons and hire soldiers to further his schemes of conquest.

In fact, the would-be tyrant’s customers would probably be more of an obstacle to his ambitions than his employees would. He couldn’t extract taxes from them, as a government does, and, at least until he reached the stage of full power, he couldn’t even force them to buy his service and support his company at all. A market relationship is a free relationship, and if a customer doesn’t like a company’s service or mistrusts its goals, he is free to take his business elsewhere, or to start his own competitive company, or to do without the service altogether and just provide for himself. Furthermore, customers aren’t imbued with the citizens’ spirit of patriotic fervor and obedience and are, thus, much harder to lure into foolish collectivistic endeavors (such as “national unity”). Free men aren’t in the habit of leaping like fools and sheep to “defend the Flag” or to “sacrifice for the Cause.” In these vitally important respects, the free-market system differs fundamentally and completely from a government system of any sort.

The would-be tyrant might try to build his forces in complete secrecy until he was ready to make his coup, but he would find this far from easy. Imagine amassing the cash to buy guns, tanks, airplanes, ships, missiles, and all the other paraphernalia of modern warfare. Imagine finding such items and making deals to purchase them or have them manufactured. Imagine hiring and equipping a large force of soldiers and training them for months. Then imagine doing all this in complete secrecy while alert members of the news media were continually nosing around for a big story! If you can imagine such a thing, your ability at fantasizing is remarkable, indeed.
The fear of a tyrant is a very real one, and, in the light of history, it is well justified. But, as can be seen from the foregoing examination, it applies to a governmentally run society rather than to a free society. The objection that a tyrant might take over is actually a devastating argument against government.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 
 Youliy Ninov March 6, 2015 at 4:30 pm
 
 I see a discussion about “gang warfare” (the competing police agencies problem), but did not find or may be have missed the following: What would happen if one of the clients of the defence company (Old Reliable Defense Company 🙂 ) kills another of the clients of the same company? Note that this company takes money from both of them, from the murdered and from the murderer. Should this company arrest the person from whom it gets money? The last is called a conflict of interests. Note that such conflicts of interests do not exist in the other branches of the economy.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 
 Jorge Trucco March 6, 2015 at 4:46 pm
 
 There’s where competing insurance companies and arbitration agencies come into play. (As well as competing “rating agencies”). All this is well explained in The Market for Liberty. No problem there, a free market society will find its way.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Youliy Ninov March 6, 2015 at 5:34 pm
 
 You avoided my question. Basically, you say that I should bury myself in a ton of books just to find out (most probably) that what I ask has not been discussed.
 
 About : “No problem there, a free market society will find its way.”
 
 I am sure that a really free market society would find its way, but what I question is if this police structure is really a free-market one. In short: The police as explained above is not a free-market organizatino but a pseudo-free market one. And this is the reason why problems like the “gang warfare” and the conflict of interests arise. The system is just not right.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Properal March 11, 2015 at 4:47 pm
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 Properal March 11, 2015 at 4:52 pm
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 
 Properal March 11, 2015 at 4:54 pm
 
 What would happen if one of the clients of the defence company (Old Reliable Defense Company 🙂 ) kills another of the clients of the same company? Note that this company takes money from both of them, from the murdered and from the murderer. Should this company arrest the person from whom it gets money? The last is called a conflict of interests. Note that such conflicts of interests do not exist in the other branches of the economy.
 
 Old Reliable Defense Company could resolve the issue by itself. If either customer disagrees they may take their case to a third party arbitrator. Monopoly systems can never escape the conflict of interest problem. A monopoly system can’t go to a third party to resolve disputes involving itself.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Youliy Ninov March 12, 2015 at 1:00 pm
 
 “Monopoly systems can never escape the conflict of interest problem.” 
 
 We are not discussing a monopoly of the police force, but one of the laws. I just showed that a monopolistic law created by the free market is possible and conforms to the free-market principles. 
 
 “A monopoly system can’t go to a third party to resolve disputes involving itself.” 
 
 In a monopoly system as the contemporary one the problem of the crashing police forces would not appear. The same applies to the system I suggest, which is a competitive one. 
 
 By the way are you not worried a little bit to defend a system which is not market based, but pseudo-market based? After all the clients of the police companies in Anarcho-capitalism pay for protection because there are threatened. Unless they pay they could be killed, robbed, etc. In short they act under duress, therefore they are not free. However a market on which one of the sides is not free is not a free market. So, the police market under Anarcho-capitalism is not a free market. Any comments? 
 
 “Old Reliable Defense Company could resolve the issue by itself.” 
 
 It would love to resolve it itself. Just ditch the murdered one (he can not pay any more) and do not touch the murderer (he will pay and continue paying). I am telling you that such problems occur because the system is not right.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Properal March 12, 2015 at 5:05 pm
 
 States war with each other all the time. Private protection firms would have less incentives than states to go to war.
 
 People in an anarcho-capitalist society are not required to purchase protection. They can still take take disputes to arbitrators even if they have not purchased protection.
 
 It [Old Reliable Defense Company] would love to resolve it itself. Just ditch the murdered one (he can not pay any more) and do not touch the murderer (he will pay and continue paying). I am telling you that such problems occur because the system is not right.
 
 You seemed to have missed the next sentence.
 
 If either customer disagrees they may take their case to a third party arbitrator.
 
 If you were concerned about a private firm resolving conflicts between its own customers you should also be concerned about any monopolistic legal system. Because as I pointed out the poly-centric legal system has a way to deal with conflicts of interest, while the monopoly system is just stuck with the conflicts of interest.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Youliy Ninov March 12, 2015 at 5:51 pm
 
 “People in an anarcho-capitalist society are not required to purchase protection.”
 I know, but this is not the problem. The problem is WHY they choose to purchase protection, when they do so. Because some of them will buy protection for sure. But if they choose to do so because they feel threatened, then they act under initiation of force and therefore they do not take part on this police market willingly. Therefore the market is not a free market. And by extension Anarcho-capitalism as given by Rothbard is not a true free market system
 “They can still take disputes to arbitrators even if they have not purchased protection.”
 
 The problem is that there is no arbitration procedure with killers for instance. The criminals must be kept at bay. And that is why we need police.
 
 And I did not miss the next sentence. It was just irrelevant for me. You know what you try to do: to excuse any problem that occurs in the system. I do not know if you have noticed what has occurred in the particular case I discussed (the conflict of interests). What has happened is that the company has interest not to solve the problem (murder of one of its clients by another one). Actually, the market pushes it into the wrong direction. It would get a monetary award to do nothing. Does the last seem to you as a free-market reaction?
 Because there is no way for the system to solve this alone we need arbitrators, insurances, etc. I will repeat myself, but the system is plain wrong. Such problems must simply not occur. When they do not occur we do not need to avoid them and do not need to look for some very complex solutions about them. By the way similar problems do not occur under the present police system, which is a monopoly.
 
 “Because as I pointed out the poly-centric legal system has a way to deal with conflicts of interest, while the monopoly system is just stuck with the conflicts of interest.”
 
 As I said, in the contemporary police there is no conflict of interests. It can arrest anybody without consequences. I remember that you said that you have read my articles. If you have noticed I write there about monopolistic law (established by the free market) and competing police forces, which however are conflict-free (as opposed to Anarcho-capitalism). Basically you have to prove how there could be a similar conflict of interests in the present system or in mine.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Properal March 12, 2015 at 10:15 pm
 
 But if they choose to do so because they feel threatened, then they act under initiation of force and therefore they do not take part on this police market willingly.
 
 You could say the same for the door lock market, the firearm market, and so on. Yet they are still functioning markets.
 Known criminals will have at least as hard a time trying to walk around free in an anarcho-capitalist society as the current state society, as any torts that have already been claimed against them would act like bounties on them, with prosecutors vying to prosecute them for a cut of the restitution.
 
 Now a protection firm that reneges on its contract to protect its customers risks its other customers finding out, and leaving to a more reputable firm. Like with other services there is a financial incentive to follow through on contracts. Further if they solve the murder they can collect restitution from the offender so they do have a financial incentive to solve crime. Now, since a customer can got to a third party and get a judgment against them for breach of contract, or wrongful conviction and any damages private protection firms have more incentive than a monopolist to be fair. Competing protection firms would be seeking out opportunities to make their competitors look bad and collect restitution from them by representing their disgruntled clients. So the market pushes it into the right direction.
 Contemporary estimates contend that perhaps as many as 7,500 persons arrested for crimes are wrongfully convicted annually in the United States. So injustice is quite common in the current system.
 
 http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/682/wrongful-conviction-in-the-american-judicial-process-history-scope-and-analysis
 So problems similar to the ones you described do occur under the present police system, quite frequently. The present police system does not have strong incentives to solve crimes or protect people. They can arrest anybody with few consequences, even innocent people. They can also refuse to arrest anybody with few consequences. In the US police can stand by and watch you get assaulted with little consequences. Also, they have a strong conflict of interest when there is a conflict involving and agent of the state. It is hard for them to impartially investigate themselves.
 
 The topic of this post is in regards to Ayn Rand’s critique of anarcho-capitalism. Critiquing your ideas would be off topic. However I will try to find time to discuss your ideas, later.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Youliy Ninov March 13, 2015 at 1:34 pm
 
 “You could say the same for the door lock market, the firearm market, and so on. “ 
 
 Yes, and I do say it. Every Austrian should. 
 
 “Yet they are still functioning markets.” 
 
 You seem to think that the above is some kind of an argument. Actually it is not. What is necessary for any market to exist is just two sides willing to trade. Why they do it (willingly or not) is immaterial. There are hundreds of artificial markets created by the government but they are markets nonetheless. The problem with the markets which are not free is that they do not cater to the real needs of the population and in such a way do not contribute to its well-being. They are typically counter-productive markets. The door-lock market for instance. You buy a lock not to make your life better but to avoid its getting worse. You spend money not on improvements but on securing what you have. In effect what you have becomes more expensive because of the money spend for keeping it yours. 
 
 It is interesting that the Austrians have not realized that the door-lock market is not a free-market. They should modify their definition for a free market from “ Lack of initiated violence” to “ Lack of initiated violence, caused by the state” . Just joking! :-) 
 
 Anyway, the Anarcho-capitalist police market is not a free one and in my personal opinion the last is undisputable. 
 
 About the “conflict of interest” topic: 
 You are right that there exist a conflict of interest in the contemporary system when it has to arrest the ones from whom it gets money or is dependent on. The same however is valid for Anarcho-capitalism: when you get money from somebody you tend to be dependent on him. So, if you want independence you do not have to get money directly from the property owners. You take it from the criminals themselves. You have correctly positioned yourself by saying “they solve the murder they can collect restitution from the offender” but if you have not noticed you have strayed away from Anarcho-capitalism in this way. You deny the property owners the right to pay and then a solution to your problem appears. When you change the clients of the police to the criminals themselves everything works OK. Such conflicts between them will not exist. But when they do not exist, you do not have to solve them. 
 
 By the way I want to make myself clear: I am AGAINST any police system monopoly. I gave the example with the contemporary system not because I support it. What I am for is the monopoly of law (market created monopoly).
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 Sarah Meyer March 6, 2015 at 5:08 pm
 
 🙂 I’m not sure I made any assertions to be agreed with or disagreed with. I was kind of wondering out loud why anarchists on a particular thread were all “Yay HOA’s” and I was like… ewww. A bunch of little mini-governments scattered all over the place just doesn’t sound very appealing to me any more than what we’ve got now. That’s all. Personal preference, as Rick pointed out.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Jorge Trucco March 6, 2015 at 4:24 pm

If your best argument against anarchism is that it will lead to the creation of a state, it is safe to say you have lost the debate.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 
 Sarah Meyer March 6, 2015 at 5:16 pm
 
 Oh yeah, I see. Ok, I was also confused and my writing should have been posed more like a question – Anarchists claim minarchy can’t work because small begets big… then some are all about HOA’s… so I wasn’t asserting that Anarchy would lead to the creation of a state, I was saying that those two views obviously conflict with each other, yet seem to come from the same philosophical ideal of Anarchy.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 
 Rick Rule March 6, 2015 at 5:28 pm
 
 And I’m not making a theoretical or philosophical argument
 
 .I’m looking for an interim solution that could occur in my lifetime. A competing group of real communities, privately financed, offering contractual non statist, organizational, transactional and dispute resolution mechanisms.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Sarah Meyer March 6, 2015 at 6:10 pm
 
 I like your ideas Rick 🙂 If I had the choice between your community and the federal government… you win, all day long.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 Ken Jons-un March 8, 2015 at 1:47 pm
 
 “Anarchists claim minarchy can’t work because small begets big… then some are all about HOA’s”
 
 The difference is monopoly vs competition. A minarchy state in theory does not have to grow but when people are involved and monopoly of power is in place it is almost certain. HOA is pretty tightly defined to a few hundred homes. Never-the-less sure, HOAs could combine and become a city state, then a nation state, then world domination. The biggest part I see missing in this whole line of reasoning is the Tyler a.k.a. Tytler Cycle; just because an area or the whole planet might go to minarchy doesn’t mean that 50 years later this won’t again have mission creep and be jailing people for vices, preemptive invasions, etc. Why would it be any difference with anarchy, HOA, or anything between there and dictatorship?
 
 “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
 –Thomas Paine
 
 Some people will always be wanting more freedom while others want more control or need a leader. It will never end but I sure’s hell would like to get out from under so much fungible tax slavery and it seems to be the monopoly of force is the biggest hurdle.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 Marko I. March 6, 2015 at 5:49 pm
 
 “In a free society, a man with a bad reputation would have a hard time getting customers, business associates, or credit and insurance at rates he could afford. Knowing this, no one would wish to risk his personal reputation or the business reputation of his firm by having any dealings with a known aggressor.”
 
 Jorge, on which premise do you state this? I wouldn’t agree on this one. Although they weren’t free, take Hugo Boss for an example. They were sponsoring Nazis during the war, and we see today that people are perfectly fine wearing their clothes. Man can’t be left out without rights, those rights that are previously given by the nature. Protection of individual rights is a prerequisite for any voluntary trade. If there are citizens left out without insurance, from the ethical perspective i think that it’s immoral and not in my self interest to left them out with no protection because that is diminishing the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness which is consequently diminishing my individual rights. Moreover, it would gradually create men without the morality of rational self interest.
 
 So basically what are you saying is that for example, some insurance company, Hugo Boss, Mercedes, weapons factory can’t gang up against me because they will lose customers?
 You are assuming that exercise of the right to self-defense can be an economic activity. The opposite is the case: there is no such thing as economic activity without the guarantee of rights. Economic activity is the relationship between two or more men – rational animals. Without reason, slavery is all that is left.
 Anarchists assume that everybody would live in harmony if only the evil of “granted individual rights” is removed..
 This is why i personally find anarchism as a false philosophy as most of the anarchists absolutely have no problem with communist governments or communist ethics..
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 
 Jorge Trucco March 6, 2015 at 6:48 pm
 
 If you want to have a coercive monopoly based on the initiation of force in order to “guarantee” your rights, I’m sorry to tell you.. you’ll be disappointed.
 AnCaps do not assume that everybody would live in harmony, yes there can be conflict or violence, but never to the extent that you’d have with government.
 There’s no such thing as anarcho-socialism or anarcho-communism. That is a cotradiction simply because you can’t have anarchy with government and you can’t have communism/socialism without government. Communism needs to be imposed, therefore it needs government.
 Anarcho-capitalism is a maturation of classical liberalism. It has nothing to do with communism. What’s more, minarchists and communists have something in common: the state. They are both statists. (I’ve been a minarchist myself, for a long time).
 Communism is collectivism.
 AnCap is individualism.
 Cheers!!
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Marko I. March 6, 2015 at 8:14 pm
 
 AnCap as you call it doesn’t really have any basic principle – you can create communities like you wish, the ethics of anarchism are undefinable and that means that morality doesn’t exist. What are the outcomes of this?
 
 “Force” can be only used as a natural counter-reaction when a man’s rights are violated. There’s nothing unnatural or immoral about that.
 
 I don’t understand how you claim that anarchism isn’t actually socialism when you don’t care about individual and property rights? (stating “buy an insurance” doesn’t really sound like you’re supporting freedom)
 
 Moreover, shopping for insurance isn’t practical and it’s completely a madness if there are no rights. I would have to watch my neighbour getting screwed by some ganged up insurance company and criminals if he isn’t able to buy an insurance?
 
 I know, you answer is “he can move to other community”, but what if most of the communities are like this one? (since there’s isn’t any moral principle)
 
 I’m pretty sure that it sucks to change communities because somebody is ganging up against individual rights..
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 Jorge Trucco March 6, 2015 at 6:56 pm
 
 Furthermore, in my view, anarcho-capitalism, this is, “free-market anarchy”, is the only possible freedom.
 (Anarcho-communism, or anarcho-socialism, is impossible, it’s a fallacy, a contradicting concept).
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Matthew John Hayden March 10, 2015 at 9:37 pm
 
 Indeed. The absence of hierarchical groups would have to be enforced, presumably by a hierarchical group. Not to mention the crushing economic problems of knowledge and calculation.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 Youliy Ninov March 7, 2015 at 3:44 am
 
 “Protection of individual rights is a prerequisite for any voluntary trade. ”
 
 Very well said!
 
 “If there are citizens left out without insurance, from the ethical perspective…”
 
 The problem is deeper than you think. It is not just if somebody would be left out without protection. In general on a free market one obtains from a service as much as one has paid for. When, however, you buy your freedom through a market transaction you would get as much freedom as you pay for. But not everybody can pay the same (even if he wished). So, under Rothbard’s anarchocapitalism there would be “equal” and “more equal”. The last can not be avoided because that is how the market economy works. Basically people would not be equal with respect to their basic rights.
 
 The general problem of the poilce market of the Anarcho-capitalism is that it is a pseudo-free market one. It resembles the free market, but is not.
 
 A free market is a market on which both sides act freely. The police market suggested by the Anarcho-capitalists however does not conform to the last requirement. And the reason is that the people who pay for protection do not pay for it just becuase they wish. They are forced to do it. There is a very credible threat: If you do not pay you would be robbed, mugged, your property would be stolen. So, you pay, even if you do not wish. The people on the police market act under initiation of force (threat). So, they do not act freely and consequently the market is not a free-market one. And that is why there is a host of a problems there, which the anarcho-capitalists try to excuse and find some very complex solution to.
 
 By the way, minarchism is not better, just more simple to explain. Both minarchism and anarcho-capitalism (Rothbard’s one) are bad.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Marko I. March 7, 2015 at 6:23 am
 
 Completely agree with your comment, Youily.
 
 I’m pretty sure that Rothbard was a nihilist.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Youliy Ninov March 7, 2015 at 10:25 am
 
 There are many problems with Rothbard’s version of anarchism. I have already discussed some of them several times here in Liberty.me.
 
 What must be noted is that if these problems are corrected, anarchism (not Rothbard’s one) can become a viable option. And Ayn Rand should have endorsed it if she had been alive. She, herself did not offer a true/complete system, just an idea, which was not bad, just not complete.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Marko I. March 7, 2015 at 11:50 am
 
 To be honest i still don’t find any version of anarchism as rational. And i find that anarchism is mostly not based on the facts of reality.
 
 Ayn Rand would never endorse anarchism i think.
 
 Ayn Rand presented full, complete moral and political system, starting from the man’s ethics to the government and government’s role in citizen’s life.
 
 Man’s ethics(morality) are largely influenced by the type of political system. Along with political system, man’s morality is also influenced by metaphysics, epistemology and aesthetics.
 
 Political views are governed by peoples’ underlying beliefs–their philosophical premises.
 
 But even the most apolitical person’s ethics are influenced by the politics.
 That means, even if people are not interested in the politics, they are being influenced by the politics, in one way or another.. The importance of ethics is so large because that is like a prerequisite to social systems.
 
 Anarchism is not presenting any principle except that everybody can do whatever they want. So anarchism is technically “in between” when it comes to morality. Anarchist’s ethics are actually can be actually easily recognized in the today’s “competing societies” full of nihilists and sociopaths.
 
 “Everything is the same, values are subjective, etc”..
 
 Anarchism is not answering any questions regarding man, rather in a a nihilist’s manner is pretending to care about people’s liberty. Even the Cato Institute is perfectly fine if communist communities spread over the country – if they are on created on voluntary bases. This is completely irrational!!
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Youliy Ninov March 7, 2015 at 1:48 pm
 
 “To be honest i still don’t find any version of anarchism as rational.” 
 
 Try my version (on my blog) and if it interests you let me know. By the way it is ethically clean (Ayn Rand should have approved it). 
 
 “Ayn Rand presented full, complete moral and political system, starting from the man’s ethics to the government and government’s role in citizen’s life.” 
 
 She did not show how her system would be financed. At least not convincingly. Mostly good wishes which most often than not do not work (as the practice shows ). I believe to have solved this problem of hers in another way. 
 
 Another problem is the existence of a state. She is for it. However the existence of a state (as we understand it today) contradicts her ideas for non-initiation of violence. The reason: If every person is free then he MUST have the right to secede from the state along with his land. So, if he does not like something (the laws for example) he must be allowed to join a neighboring organization. But then the state as such becomes meaningless. It just can not exist. Communities can exist, but a state (as we understand it today) can not. So: her ideas and the state structure as such are incompatible. But she insisted on having a state. She contradicts herself. 
 
 I accept her ideas almost entirely. But when I apply them, the state ceases to exist. That is the problem.
 
 “Anarchism is not presenting any principle except that everybody can do whatever they want” 
 
 If you refer to Rothbard’s one, then I agree. For instance: Rothbard states that one CAN have the justice in one’s own hands. It is just that, later what you have done must be approved by a court. I do not want even to think what would follow from the above. 
 The problem is that Rothbard contradicts the principles he is said to espouse. If we take NAP however , it is the equivalent of what Ayn Rand says. And if applied properly it creates an ethic.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Marko I. March 7, 2015 at 2:20 pm
 
 Ok i will read your blog later 🙂
 
 Government would be financed through voluntary donations. Nobody will be forced to pay the government. But for those who are able to donate, it is in their self interest to donate because they will preserve the notion of individual rights. No insurance or whatever could be able to diminish individual rights.
 
 You are assuming that government would have more freedom in objectivist society which is not the case.
 
 A law is a fact, there’s nothing to like about it or not. If somebody “doesn’t like the law”, (but what’s there to like or not about protecting individual rights i don’t really understand you) a person can buy himself a property and apply his own laws (as long he is not violating basic principles of individual rights).
 
 I refer to all libertarian-anarcho-capitalists or whatever you call it. It’s a false premise that man should be just left alone with no basic principle of individual rights.
 
 People through out the history, had a desire to gang up on one another.. I just don’t see why that wouldn’t happen if there is no basic principle of individual rights.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Youliy Ninov March 7, 2015 at 2:56 pm
 
 “Ok i will read your blog later :)”
 
 Thanks. I would appreciate any comments if you decide to take the time. If not, let it be 🙂
 
 “Government would be financed through voluntary donations. Nobody will be forced to pay the government. But for those who are able to donate, it is in their self interest to donate because they will preserve the notion of individual rights. ”
 
 Exactly, but the above is not a free-market based principle. And that is why most often than not it does not work. It works just from time to time. But not working or working from time to time is not acceptable because this means : we may or may not have a state. And by the way, assuming that it works, how would you guarantee that the income from donations stays constant? You need a constant income from donations because otherwise you would have to hire/fire policemen/judges/army constantly.
 
 The only proper solution is not to pay in any way (donations inclusive). The ones who should pay for private property protection are its violators, i.e. the criminals themselves. Burdening the society is wrong (donations are also a burden).
 
 “If somebody “doesn’t like the law….. a person can buy himself a property and apply his own laws (as long he is not violating basic principles of individual rights).”
 
 So, we agree here. But from the above it follows that a state can not exist, at least not in the contemporary meaning of a state: a fixed land mass. But Ayn Rand wanted a “state” as the contemporary one. This is the problem as I already said.
 
 ” It’s a false premise that man should be just left alone with no basic principle of individual rights.”
 
 Of course! Even Rothbard claims to follow the above (he does not do it consistently). Why do you think that we disagree?
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Youliy Ninov March 7, 2015 at 4:52 pm
 
 An additional comment about :
 
 “but what’s there to like or not about protecting individual rights i don’t really understand you”
 
 An example: I accept all the laws pertaining to the individal rights but I wish something extra. For instance that we create a tax to support stray dogs (just a stupid example). Do I have the right to wish the above? Of course, it follows from my basic rights. Do I have the right to establish such a law on my personal piece of land? After all this is a part of the freedom Ayn Rand talks about. Yes of course. How about if I find some neigbors who share the same ideas and we decide to implement this law on our combined piece of land? Do we have the right? Yes. However: the rest of the people (property owners) do not want to pay for stray dogs. I have the right on my piece of land and they have their rights on their pieces of land. How could we live together in the same state? Let me know what you think.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Leanne Baker March 7, 2015 at 5:21 pm
 
 In this specific case, if I knew that you would charge me money (tax, entry fee, whatever you want to call it) to come on to your land, for whatever reason you concoct, I would choose to be a neighbor who totally leaves you alone.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Marko I. March 7, 2015 at 8:48 pm
 
 @yninovy – For an example, i’m just trying to point out that minimal government doesn’t require steady income: Let’s say that most people don’t see any value in government, and out of 300 million citizens in the US, only 10 million people donate 20 bucks? That would be $200 mil. I’m sure this would more than enough to pay the cops and courts on a yearly bases. Running a minimal government(cops and courts) isn’t that expensive. One thing i would personally do i is that i wouldn’t buy any products from businesses if they don’t donate to government.
 
 Other possible idea of financing the government is through individual contracts and people could include a payment to the government in return for assured governmental enforcement of the contract. That way, the makers of each contract could choose to pay the government a fixed amount that would be built into the contract. The question of financing foreign defense measures is more complex.
 
 As long that is your property and as long every single man agrees to join you, you are free to require money on the property of your group. If just one member disagrees to join, you don’t have any rights to impose your rules. That is why they are called “individual rights”, not a rights of some collective, ganged up group or similar.
 
 Anarchism is just a relatively broad political position mostly based on self-evident principles. But political principles are anything but self-evident – they depend on a lot of conclusions human nature, reality and morality.
 
 Anarchism would, after some time of total absence of ethics and principles, exactly create “collective rights” which are, as we know, contradiction in terms. Those collective rights wouldn’t be some official notion of ganged up group but more a fact of reality. Ironically, competing governments is what we actually have today.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Youliy Ninov March 8, 2015 at 4:26 am
 
 „As long that is your property and as long every single man agrees to join you, you are free to require money on the property of your group. If just one member disagrees to join, you don’t have any rights to impose your rules”
 While I am on my land I have the right to impose ANY rules I deem necessary. If you claim the opposite than you break my individual rights and in fact claim that the property you are residing on is not private, but yours; that you have the right to determine how is to be lived there. So : if somebody on my land disagrees with me, he has the right to leave my land but he has no right not to pay the tax if he decides to stay. In effect: requiring a tax does not break his natural rights because he is not the owner, but refusing to pay one, while on my property, breaks my natural rights.
 So, the person leaves my property and does not come back. However: a community with its own rules exists and note: no rights (as given by Ayn Rand) have been broken. The above is the reason why I claim that, when Ayn Rand’s ideas are followed properly (something which she herself has not done), then this leads to the disappearance of the state as such. When not state exist we come to anarchy.
 
 “For an example, i’m just trying to point out that minimal government doesn’t require steady income…”
 
 I will show you where this system with donations leads. As I have told you already Ayn Rand has not solved the problem how the state would function. She has just hidden it behind generalities. Here is why:
 
 We donate and we collect money. So, how is it to be used? Of course we would give part of it to the police. How much? It will have to be determined centrally (centralized control). Moreover the police would be a monopolisitic structure as today. So, all the problems which we have today would exist: police would not be responsible for its mistakes, its size and organization would be determined centrally (by a ministry or however you call it). It would be inefficient and there would be no way to control it (as today). You can not just stop donating, because if you do the police would dissolve and you would just get to a worse state than before.
 
 The court would be the same as today: inefficient. The delays for a ruling would be again years, it will not develop itself naturally but will have to be prodded by the state. It will be totally independent and will be able to do whatever it wishes, since there would be not market feedback to correct it. And so on…
 
 In general: Ayn Rand presupposes that the system would be the same as today. And the reason is that the police and courts will again not be market regulated. Rothbard has properly suggested that the last two institutions be market ones, so that they be controlled by the market. He has just done it in the wrong way ( I have already told you that his police system is a pseudo-market one, not a really market based one).
 “Anarchism would, after some time of total absence of ethics and principles….”
 
 I told you already, Anarchism has ethics. Check what NAP means. My guess is that you have taken anarchism (the libertarian anarchism) for what stays in the newspapers. There they claim that anarchism has no rules, no ethics, no nothing. Just a total chaos. They have created a straw man which is easy to topple. And most people stay there: Why bother with something so obviously wrong? We do not need to read the original ideas, they are so obviously ridiculous.
 It seems to me that you have also bought the above.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Youliy Ninov March 8, 2015 at 4:28 am
 
 @ Leanne
 
 Of course. And you would be exercising your natural rights. But if you notice: so would I. However: we can not live together any more. At least not under the same laws, on the same piece of land.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Marko I. March 8, 2015 at 8:17 am
 
 I didn’t say that i have right to decide about your property i said that you are free to do whatever you want, be if you and other 50 people decided to join the land and impose new rules on your land, you are free to do so. But if it happens that i also reside on that land (before you ganged up against me), and if i say no to join, you don’t have any rights to impose your laws on me. This is why people need government, so that government can protect their individual rights from some ganged up group. This is such a nightmare, and you are explaining me exactly what i was talking about – anarchy would create exactly what we have today – collectivized ethics, collective rights, etc.
 
 Anarchy denies the need for philosophic foundation of any kind and has nothing to do with morality of individualism and individual rights.
 
 Libertarians have held that the principle of non-initiation of force is an axiom of social organization that should be accepted on faith, or as self-evident. But political principles are anything but self-evident like i said.
 
 Furthermore, most of the libertarian-anarcho-capitalists are skeptic about morals and knowledge because they think that any judgment we reach with certainty must be enforced on others. Absolutely wrong!
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Youliy Ninov March 8, 2015 at 12:12 pm
 
 I read what you have written and wonder: Do you know at all what you criticize?
 I will try to explain the situation in a simple manner.
 
 In order for the free market as such to exist one needs private property protection, which on its side means that one needs: police, courts and probably an army. The last is recognized ENTIRELY by : objectivists (as you), minarchists and anarcho-captialists. The differences between the above tree types are not that big. Anarcho-capitalists believe that the police and court services can be offered without the existence of a government and they try to offer market-based solutions for the above. They are 100% against the initiation of violence (NAP). Minarchists however believe that the market unfortunately is not able to offer these services (police and court) and say that they must be supported by taxes (contradicting themselves, since taxing is an initiation of force, but they do not see any better solution). That is why they want a government. And then come the objectivists. They want practically all that minarchists want but just with one difference: instead of taxing people, the funds for the police and court should come from donations.
 
 If you notice : the differences are not that big and that is why there are many objectivists here in Liberty.me. The underlying ethics is the same, the principles are the same, it is just the ways to reach the final aim that are different.
 
 I suggest you take a book (any book) of Rothbard and read a part of it. You will see that he wants:
 
 1. Private property rights/protection
 2. ..with the help of police and courts
 3. …and by using objective laws
 
 You can criticize him for what he has offered (I do it constantly) but statements like , quote:
 
 “Libertarians have held that the principle of non-initiation of force is an axiom of social organization that should be accepted on faith, or as self-evident.”
 
 are so far from the facts that the only thing I could say is that you are attacking ghosts.
 
 Now about: “I didn’t say that i have right to decide about your property….”
 
 You may not have said that before but you are saying it now (in the passage that follows). You say that you “reside” on my property. I take the word for what it means directly, i.e. you are a visitor there, not an owner. As a visitor however you do not own the land and have not right to determine how it is to be used. What would happen in the particular case is the following. Several land-owners agree that they will institute a new tax. This tax will be valid only on their land and as such this is full compatibility with the private property rights as Ayn Rand has defined them. They announce their decision and state: If you stay on our land you must abide by our rules, if not then please, leave. And here you come and say: “ I will not leave because I have rights. You have no right to force me to pay taxes, even on your own private property. You do not have the right to use your private property as you wish. I have the right to tell you how you will use it. No taxes on your land! And I will stay here despite your wishes!” Of course these people would probably expel you or throw you in jail. But why? Because you have denied them the same rights you want for yourself. You, yourself would never accept one of them to come to your home, stay there and tell you when to go to sleep and what to eat for instance.
 
 So, again: You deny the landowners the same rights you want for yourself. The last is called a “double standard”.
 
 It would be a completely different matter if you owned a piece of land somewhere (within their borders or a neighboring one). Then no one would touch you. You could do on you land whatever you wish. Their tax does not apply to you. Whatever they have decided does not apply to you, except if you agree with them.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Marko I. March 8, 2015 at 2:12 pm
 
 I don’t have any rights if that is your land, but if i own my property and if i say no, you don’t have any rights to impose your rules on me. Even if you are ganged up with thousands of people.
 
 People already own houses and lands, it’s not like that they don’t have anything so you are in natural position to gang up with other criminals and create collectivist ethics.
 
 Simple as that.
 
 I’m attacking both anarchists and libertarians as they do not have any philosophical principle. CATO Institute is going so far to tell that it’s perfectly fine to have communists communities over the country.
 
 Check your premises.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Youliy Ninov March 8, 2015 at 2:48 pm
 
 „I don’t have any rights if that is your land, but if i own my property and if i say no, you don’t have any rights to impose your rules on me. Even if you are ganged up with thousands of people.”
 I agree with the above 100% and am sure that every honest anarchist (independent of the type) would agree.
 
 “People already own houses and lands, it’s not like that they don’t have anything so you are in natural position to gang up with other criminals and create collectivist ethics. Simple as that.”
 
 I have no idea what you are alluding to. No anarchist, independent of the type wishes to create any collectivist ethic.
 
 “ CATO Institute is going so far to tell that it’s perfectly fine to have communists communities over the country.”
 
 I did not know the above, but I completely agree. The existence of a communist community does not in itself threaten my natural rights, if I live in another one. As long as they are not initiating force against me I am OK (and you should be if you follow Ayn Rand’s ideas properly).
 
 By the way, why are you against communist communitites when all the people there wish to live this way? I myself find this stupid and do not expect such communities to last long, but if they have not applied (initiated force) against you why do you care?
 
 “Check your premises.“
 For what?
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Youliy Ninov March 8, 2015 at 3:48 pm
 
 @ Marko
 
 May I ask an additional question? I know you are an objectivist. It is from another discussion and I did not get an answer:
 
 “Ayn Rand agrees that initiated violence has to be punished but it is not clear to me if she says:
 
 1. Initiating aggression is morally wrong and it must be punished always and without exception
 
 or
 
 2. It is morally justified to punish initiated violence, so if one so chooses then he can do it and this would be right (In short: Initiated violence may be rightfully punished if one so chooses, which means: not always).
 
 It is interesting because choice 1. corresponds roughly to Minarchism and choice 2. to Anarcho-Capitalism. Just to make sure it is clear: the context is a certain society itself, not inter-country/society relations, i.e. the question is not whether the USA must have attacked Saddam Hussein. The initiation of aggression happens within the particular society.”
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Marko I. March 8, 2015 at 5:24 pm
 
 “I did not know the above, but I completely agree. The existence of a communist community does not in itself threaten my natural rights, if I live in another one. As long as they are not initiating force against me I am OK (and you should be if you follow Ayn Rand’s ideas properly).”
 
 – This is exactly one of the reasons why Ayn Rand didn’t want any connection with libertarians or anarchists.
 
 By the way, why are you against communist communities when all the people there wish to live this way?
 
 -Because you don’t know if they want to live that way. Maybe they are not allowed to move to another community. Maybe they are not allowed to speak.
 
 -Because in communism they are holding a gun on you.
 
 -Because people through out the history, tend the gang up in order to rule.
 
 I feel really weird explaining why communism is inconsistent with true American values to somebody who is a friend of liberty. Being under the constant treat of some mentally screwed folks who can gang up in order to rule isn’t really a freedom.
 
 In order for people to live and survive it’s not enough to say “hey don’t initiate force”. Technically, people don’t have to use force in order to rule and create a hell.
 
 And now an answer to your second commen:
 
 “The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.
 
 If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
 
 This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.
 
 A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.” – Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - Youliy Ninov March 9, 2015 at 2:59 pm
 
 Before I answer the above let me reiterate what we did not finish:
 Suppose an objectivist state exists. There would be no ANY problem for any group to secede and the state can do NOTHING against it, if it is to follow Ayn Rand’s ethics. So, for instance a group of Muslims decides to secede. They buy some land and just say good-bay. They do not even need to inform the government. And the government itself can do nothing to stop them. After all, this is their land, their private property. If it stops them or stays in their way it would go against the private property principles. So, any group can do the above. But then the state, defined as a fixed land mass can not exist at all. And even these communities/jurisdictions will be in constant flux. However there could be a community for every taste, conviction, faith, sexual-orientation, etc.
 
 So: If we accept Ayn Rand’s ethics the state ceases to exist, at least in the form we know it today.
 
 “– This is exactly one of the reasons why Ayn Rand didn’t want any connection with libertarians or anarchists.”
 
 Surely this can not be the reason, because Ayn Rand herself has said ( in “The Virtue of Selfishness”) that any free state can choose to attack or not to attach another, non-free state. So, I choose not to attack a neighboring community and this is OK according to Ayn Rand.
 
 “I feel really weird explaining why communism is inconsistent with true American values to somebody who is a friend of liberty.”
 
 I know very well that communism is bad, but this is not the problem we are discussing. The problem is: Should we attack somebody just because he does not comply with our principles? Be them even Ayn Rand’s?
 
 I understand that there could be some people there, in the communist country/community who probably suffer. However: Are they my property? No. Has there been aggression against my property? No. So, If I go there and start fighting for them I would be the aggressor.
 
 Moreover, what would I achieve? How do I know that the people I free have a “freedom” mindset? Most people do not question the system they are in, they question just their place within in. Do you think that the slaves in ancient Egipt just waited for somebody to free them , so that they accept the democracy (for instance)? No, given the chance they themselves would enslave the rest. So, If I free these people they would just recreate the same system. That is the reason why so many “freedom bringing” missions of the USA fail. You can not change the convictions of the people just like this.
 
 About the question I asked you. You simply avoided answering it. Happens for a second time. I am beginning to think that there are very few objectivists who know the answer.
 
 About the excerpt of Leonard Peikoff:
 
 I agree with ALL until (and inclusive) :
 
 ” If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.”
 
 This institution (s) that we need are called: police, court and possibly an army. They are the things we need. And the reason is that without them not free market can exist. The government, as you understand it stays on top of them. Peikoff however presumes that police and court can not exist without a government, that they are one and the same. And if it was so, he would be right. However police and court can exist without government say the anarchists. And if they (I inclusive) are right then the “only moral justification” (for the existence of government ) vanishes into thin air.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 Properal March 11, 2015 at 10:00 pm
 
 I agree that boycotts are often not effective. However the Tannehill’s are not talking about a clothing provider that suported Nazies in the past. Customers of clothing may not care who the clothing maker supports. They care about the product and what it does for them.
 
 However customers, employees, and business partners of a protection firm that makes war frequently, are in a different situation. They would face at higher risks of being involved in war. Also, the waring firm might try to pass the cost of the war on to its customers in which case the customers would have to pay higher fees. Employees of companies that war more than others would be at higher risk to injury. They would likely demand higher pay and expensive life insurance, or find other jobs. Further protection firms that have a reputation for warring rather than arbitrating might find that other protection firm no longer arbitrate with them. This puts them at a greater disadvantage as the more peaceful firms would be at peace with each other and at war only with the warring firms. While these warring firm would be at war with all the other firms. So as the Tannehill’s described there is a lot more incentive for people to end dealings with a known aggressive protection firm, than a clothing manufacturer that supported Nazis long ago, or even a politician whose grandfather supported the Nazis.
 
 Self-defence can be an economic activity. People already hire private security firms to protect themselves, and economic activity existed long before the state monopolized law.
 People without insurance in an anarcho-capitalist society are not without justice. An anarcho-capitalist society is expected to have a tort system similar to how many stateless societies have had tort system. So similar to how the government today does not really protect you, they generally only react to a crime after it happens, people without insurance in an anarcho-capitalist society would be in a similar situation. If they have been harmed they would have a tort claim that they could take to the tort system to get justice with. If torts were transferable as we might expect them to be in an anarcho-capitalist society people could sell their tort claims to able prosecutors to prosecute. So even poor people could get justice. I am convinced peoples individual rights, would be better protected in an anarcho-capitalist society. The state is often the biggest violator of individual rights.
 
 One or two protection firms that gang up on you, whether you had insurance or not would risk confrontation from their competitors that are itching to make them look bad and at the same time make money by getting a cut of the restitution, the gang would owes you for harming you.
 The anarchists that support communism are of a completely different philosophy than anarcho-capitalists. They are anti-capitalist. They don’t consider anarcho-capitalists, anarchists, and they hate anarcho-capitalists more than the state.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Jorge Trucco March 6, 2015 at 7:02 pm

http://mises.org/library/classical-liberalism-versus-anarchocapitalism

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Jorge Trucco March 7, 2015 at 9:53 pm

“Classical Liberalism versus Anarchocapitalism”

– by Jesús Huerta de Soto
In this first decade of the 21st century, liberal thought, in both its theoretical and political aspects, has reached a historic crossroads. Although the fall of the Berlin Wall and of real socialism beginning in 1989 appeared to herald “the end of history” (to use Francis Fukuyama’s unfortunate and overblown phrase), today, and in many respects more than ever, statism prevails throughout the world, accompanied by the demoralization of freedom lovers.

Therefore, an “aggiornamento” of liberalism is imperative. It is time to thoroughly revise liberal doctrine and bring it up to date in light of the latest advances in economic science, and the experience the latest historical events have provided.

This revision must begin with an acknowledgement that classical liberals have failed in their attempt to limit the power of the state and that today economic science is in a position to explain why this failure was inevitable. The next step is to focus on the dynamic theory of the entrepreneurship-driven processes of social cooperation that give rise to the spontaneous order of the market. This theory can be expanded and transformed into a full-fledged analysis of the anarchocapitalist system of social cooperation, which reveals itself as the only system that is truly viable and compatible with human nature.

In this article, we will analyze these issues in detail, along with a series of additional, practical considerations regarding scientific and political strategy. Moreover, we will make use of this analysis to correct certain common misunderstandings and errors of interpretation.

The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism
The fatal error of classical liberals lies in their failure to realize that their ideal is theoretically impossible, as it contains the seed of its own destruction, precisely to the extent that it includes the necessary existence of a state (even a minimal one), understood as the sole agent of institutional coercion.

Therefore, classical liberals commit their great error in their approach: they view liberalism as a plan of political action and a set of economic principles, the goal of which is to limit the power of the state while accepting its existence and even deeming it necessary. However, today (in the first decade of the 21st century) economic science has already shown:

that the state is unnecessary;
that statism (even if minimal) is theoretically impossible; and
that, given human nature, once the state exists, it is impossible to limit its power.
We will comment on each of these matters separately.

The State as an Unnecessary Body
From a scientific perspective, only the mistaken paradigm of equilibrium could encourage belief in a category of “public goods” in which satisfaction of the criteria of joint supply and nonrivalry in consumption would justify, prima facie, the existence of a body with a monopoly on institutional coercion (the state) that would oblige everyone to finance those goods.

Nevertheless, the dynamic, Austrian conception of the spontaneous order that entrepreneurship drives has demolished this entire theory put forward to justify the state: the emergence of any case (real or apparent) of a “public good,” i.e., joint supply and nonrivalry in consumption, is accompanied by the incentives necessary for the impetus of entrepreneurial creativity to find a better solution via technological and legal innovations and entrepreneurial discoveries which make it possible to overcome any problem that may arise (as long as the resource is not declared “public” and the free exercise of entrepreneurship is permitted, along with the accompanying private appropriation of the fruits of each creative, entrepreneurial act).

For instance, in the United Kingdom, the lighthouse system was for many years privately owned and financed, and private procedures (sailors’ associations, port fees, spontaneous social monitoring, etc.) offered an effective solution to the “problem” of what “statist” economics textbooks depict as the most typical example of a “public good.” Likewise, in the American Far West, the problem arose of defining and defending property rights concerning, for instance, head of cattle in vast expanses of land. Various entrepreneurial innovations which resolved the problems as they arose were gradually introduced (cattle branding, constant supervision by armed cowboys on horseback, and finally, the discovery and introduction of barbed wire, which, for the first time, permitted the effective separation of great stretches of land at a very affordable price).

This creative flow of entrepreneurial innovation would have been completely blocked if the resources had been declared “public,” excluded from private ownership, and bureaucratically managed by a state agency. (Today, for instance, most streets and highways are closed to the adoption of innumerable entrepreneurial innovations — the collection of a toll per vehicle and hour, the private management of security and noise pollution, etc. — despite the fact that most such innovations no longer pose any technological problem. Nevertheless, the goods in question have been declared “public,” which precludes their privatization and creative, entrepreneurial management.)

Furthermore, most people believe the state is necessary because they confuse its existence (unnecessary) with the essential nature of many of the services and resources it currently (and poorly) provides, and over the provision of which it exercises a monopoly (almost always under the pretext of their public nature). People observe that today highways, hospitals, schools, public order, etc. are largely supplied by the state, and since these are highly necessary, people conclude without further analysis that the state is as well.

They fail to realize that the above-mentioned resources can be produced to a much higher standard of quality as well as more efficiently, economically, and in tune with the varied and changing needs of each individual, through the spontaneous market order, entrepreneurial creativity, and private property. Moreover, people make the mistake of believing the state is also necessary to protect the defenseless, poor, and destitute (“small” stockholders, ordinary consumers, workers, etc.), yet people do not understand that supposedly protective measures have the systematic result, as economic theory demonstrates, of harming in each case precisely those they are claimed to protect, and thus one of the clumsiest and stalest justifications for the existence of the state disappears.

Rothbard maintained that the set of goods and services the state currently supplies can be divided into two subsets: those goods and services which should be eliminated, and those which should be privatized. Clearly, the goods mentioned in the above paragraph belong to the second group, and the disappearance of the state, far from meaning the disappearance of highways, hospitals, schools, public order, etc., would mean their provision in greater abundance, at higher standards, and at a more reasonable price (always with respect to the actual cost citizens currently pay via taxes).

In addition, we must point out that the historical episodes of institutional chaos and public disorder we could cite (for example, many instances during the years prior to and during the Spanish Civil War and Second Republic, or today in broad areas of Colombia or in Iraq) stem from a vacuum in the provision of these goods, a situation created by the states themselves, which neither do with a minimum of efficiency what in theory they should do, according to their own supporters, nor let the private, entrepreneurial sector do, since the state prefers disorder (which also appears to more strongly legitimize its coercive presence) to its dismantling and privatization at all levels.

It is particularly important to understand that the definition, acquisition, transmission, exchange, and defense of the property rights which coordinate and drive the social process do not require a body with a monopoly on violence (the state). On the contrary, the state invariably acts by trampling on numerous legitimate property titles, defending them very poorly, and corrupting the (moral and legal) behavior of individuals with respect to the private property rights of others.

The legal system is the evolutionary manifestation of the general legal principles (especially regarding ownership) compatible with human nature. Therefore, the state does not determine the law (democratically or otherwise). Instead, the law is contained in human nature, though it is discovered and consolidated in an evolutionary manner, in terms of precedent and, mainly, doctrine.

(We view the Roman, continental legal tradition, with its more abstract and doctrinal nature, as far superior to the Anglo-Saxon system of common law, which originates from disproportionate state support for legal rulings or judgments. These judgments, through binding case law, introduce into the legal system all sorts of dysfunctions that spring from the specific and prevailing circumstances and interests in each case.) Law is evolutionary and rests on custom, and hence, it precedes and is independent of the state, and it does not require, for its definition and discovery, any agency with a monopoly on coercion.

“Given human nature, once the state exists, it is impossible to limit its power.”Not only is the state unnecessary to define the law; it is also unnecessary to enforce and defend it. This should be especially obvious these days, when the use — even, paradoxically, by many government agencies — of private security companies has become quite common.

This is not the place to present a detailed account of how the private provision of what today are considered “public goods” would work (though the lack of a priori knowledge of how the market would solve countless specific problems is the naïve, facile objection of those who favor the current status quo under the pretext, “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t”). In fact, we cannot know today what entrepreneurial solutions an army of enterprising individuals would find for particular problems — if they were allowed to do so. Nevertheless, even the most skeptical person must admit that “we now know” that the market, driven by creative entrepreneurship, works, and it works precisely to the extent that the state does not coercively intervene in this social process.

It is also essential to recognize that difficulties and conflicts invariably arise precisely in areas where the free, spontaneous order of the market is hindered. Thus, regardless of the efforts made from the time of Gustav de Molinari to the present to imagine how an anarchocapitalist network of private security and defense agencies, each in support of more or less marginally alternative legal systems, would work, freedom theorists must never forget that what prevents us from knowing what a stateless future would be like — the creative nature of entrepreneurship — is precisely what offers us the peace of knowing that any problem will tend to be overcome, as the people involved will devote all of their effort and creativity to solving it.[1]

Economic science has taught us not only that the market works, but also that statism is theoretically impossible.

Why Statism Is Theoretically Impossible
The Austrian economic theory of the impossibility of socialism can be expanded[2] and transformed into a complete theory on the impossibility of statism, understood as the attempt to organize any sphere of life in society via coercive commands which involve intervention, regulation, and control and emanate from the body with a monopoly on institutional aggression (the state). The state cannot possibly achieve its coordination goals in any part of the social-cooperation process in which it attempts to intervene, especially the spheres of money and banking,[3] the discovery of law, the dispensing of justice, and public order (understood as the prevention, suppression, and punishment of criminal acts), for the following four reasons:

The state would need a huge volume of information, and this information is only found in a dispersed or diffuse form in the minds of the millions of people who participate each day in the social process.
The information the intervening body would need for its commands to exert a coordinating effect is predominantly tacit and inarticulable in nature, and thus it cannot be transmitted with absolute clarity.
The information society uses is not “given;” it changes constantly as a result of human creativity. Hence, there is obviously no possibility of transmitting today information which will only be created tomorrow and which is precisely the information the agent of state intervention needs to achieve its objectives tomorrow.
Finally and above all, to the extent state commands are obeyed and exert the desired effect on society, their coercive nature blocks the entrepreneurial creation of the very information the intervening state body most desperately needs to make its own commands coordinating (rather than maladjusting).
Not only is statism theoretically impossible, but it also produces a whole series of distorting and highly damaging peripheral effects: the encouragement of irresponsibility (as the authorities do not know the true cost of their intervention, they act irresponsibly); the destruction of the environment when it is declared a public good and its privatization is prevented; the corruption of the traditional concepts of law and justice, which are replaced by commands and “social” justice;[4] and the imitative corruption of individuals’ behavior, which becomes more and more aggressive and less and less respectful of morality and law.

The above analysis also permits us to conclude that if certain societies thrive nowadays, they do so not because of the state, but in spite of it.[5] For many people are still accustomed to behavior patterns that are subject to substantive laws; areas of greater relative freedom remain; and the state tends to be very inefficient at imposing its invariably clumsy, blind commands. Furthermore, even the most marginal increases in freedom provide great boosts to prosperity, which illustrates how far civilization could advance without the hindrance of statism.

Finally, we have already commented on the false belief held by all those who identify the state with the provision of the (“public”) goods it now provides (poorly and at great cost) and who wrongly conclude that the disappearance of the state would necessarily mean the disappearance of its valuable services. This conclusion is drawn in an environment of constant political indoctrination at all levels (especially in the educational system, which no state wishes to lose control of, for obvious reasons), an environment where standards of “political correctness” are dictatorially imposed, and the status quo is rationalized by a complacent majority, which refuses to see the obvious: that the state is nothing but an illusion created by a minority to live at others’ expense, others who are first exploited, then corrupted, and then paid with outside resources (taxes) for all sorts of political “favors.”

The Impossibility of Limiting the Power of the State: Its “Lethal” Character in Combination with Human Nature
Once the state exists, it is impossible to limit the expansion of its power. Granted, as Hoppe indicates, certain forms of government (like absolute monarchies, in which the king-owner will, ceteris paribus, be more careful in the long term to avoid “killing the goose that lays the golden eggs”) will tend to expand their power and intervene somewhat less than others (like democracies, in which there are no real incentives to worry about what will happen after the next elections). It is also true that in certain historical circumstances, the interventionist tide has appeared to have been dammed to a certain extent.

Nevertheless, the historical analysis is irrefutable: the state has not ceased to grow.[6] And it has not ceased to grow because the mixture of human nature and the state, as an institution with a monopoly on violence, is “explosive.” The state acts as an irresistibly powerful magnet which attracts and propels the basest passions, vices, and facets of human nature. People attempt to sidestep the state’s commands yet take advantage of its monopolistic power as much as possible.

Moreover, in democratic contexts particularly, the combined effect of the action of privileged interest groups, the phenomena of government shortsightedness and vote buying, the megalomaniacal nature of politicians, and the irresponsibility and blindness of bureaucracies amounts to a dangerously unstable and explosive cocktail. This mixture is continually shaken by social, economic, and political crises which, paradoxically, politicians and social “leaders” never fail to use as justification for subsequent doses of intervention, and these merely create new problems while exacerbating existing ones even further.

The state has become the “idol” everyone turns to and worships. Statolatry is without a doubt the most serious and dangerous social disease of our time. We are taught to believe all problems can and should be detected in time and solved by the state. Our destiny lies in the hands of the state, and the politicians who govern it must guarantee us everything our well-being demands. Human beings remain immature and rebel against their own creative nature (an essential quality which makes their future inescapably uncertain).

They demand a crystal ball to ensure not only that they know what will happen in the future, but also that any problems which arise will be resolved. This “infantilization” of the masses is deliberately fostered by politicians and social leaders, since in this way they publicly justify their existence and guarantee their popularity, predominance, and governing capacity. Furthermore, a legion of intellectuals, professors, and social engineers join in this arrogant binge of power.

Not even the most respectable churches and religious denominations have reached an accurate diagnosis of the problem: that today statolatry poses the main threat to free, moral, and responsible human beings; that the state is an enormously powerful false idol which is worshipped by all and which will not countenance anyone’s freeing himself from its control nor having moral or religious loyalties outside its own sphere of dominance.

In fact, the state has managed something which might appear impossible a priori: it has slyly and systematically distracted the citizenry from the fact that the true origin of social conflicts and evils lies with the government itself, by creating scapegoats everywhere (“capitalism,” the desire for profit, private property). The state then places the blame for problems on these scapegoats and makes them the target of popular anger and of the severest and most emphatic condemnation from moral and religious leaders, almost none of whom has seen through the deception nor dared until now to denounce that in this century, statolatry represents the chief threat to religion, morality, and thus, human civilization.[7]

Just as the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 provided the best historical illustration of the theorem of the impossibility of socialism, the huge failure of classical-liberal theorists and politicians to limit the power of the state perfectly illustrates the theorem of the impossibility of statism, specifically the fact that the liberal state is self-contradictory (as it is coercive, even if “limited”) and theoretically impossible (since once we accept the existence of the state, it is impossible to limit the expansion of its power). In short, the “law-based state” is an unattainable ideal and a contradiction in terms as flagrant as that of “hot snow, wanton virgin, fat skeleton, round square,”[8] or that evident in the ideas of “social engineers” and neoclassical economists when they refer to a “perfect market” or the so-called “perfect-competition model.”[9]

Anarchocapitalism as the Only Possible System of Social Cooperation Truly Compatible with Human Nature
Statism runs counter to human nature, since it consists of the systematic, monopolistic exercise of a coercion which, in all areas where it is felt (including those corresponding to the definition of law and the maintenance of public order), blocks the creativity and entrepreneurial coordination which are precisely the most typical and essential manifestations of human nature. Furthermore, as we have already seen, statism fosters and drives irresponsibility and moral corruption, as it diverts the focus of human behavior toward a privileged pulling on the reins of political power, within a context of ineradicable ignorance that makes it impossible to know the costs of each government action. The above effects of statism appear whenever a state exists, even if every attempt is made to limit its power, an unattainable goal which renders classical liberalism a scientifically unfeasible utopia.

“The status quo is rationalized by a complacent majority, which refuses to see the obvious: that the state is nothing but an illusion created by a minority to live at others’ expense.”It is absolutely necessary to overcome the “utopian liberalism” of our predecessors, the classical liberals, who were both naïve in thinking the state could be limited, and incoherent in failing to carry their ideas to their logical conclusion and accept the implications. Hence, today, with the 21st century well under way, our top priority should be to allow the (utopian and naïve) classical liberalism of the 19th century to be superseded by its new, truly scientific, and modern formulation, which we could call libertarian capitalism, private property anarchism, or simply, anarchocapitalism. For it makes no sense for liberals to continue saying the same things they said one hundred fifty years ago when, well into the 21st century, and despite the fall of the Berlin Wall nearly twenty years ago, states have not ceased to grow and encroach upon people’s individual freedoms in all areas.

Anarchocapitalism (or “libertarianism”) is the purest representation of the spontaneous market order in which all services, including those of defining law, justice, and public order, are provided through an exclusively voluntary process of social cooperation, which thus becomes the focal point of research in modern economic science. In this system, no area is closed to the drive of human creativity and entrepreneurial coordination, and hence efficiency and fairness increase in the solution of problems, and all of the conflicts, inefficiencies, and maladjustments which bodies with a monopoly on violence (states) invariably cause simply by virtue of existing, are eradicated.

Moreover, the proposed system eliminates the corrupting incentives created by the state, and in contrast fosters the most moral and responsible human behaviors, while preventing the emergence of any monopolistic body (state) which legitimizes the systematic use of violence and the exploitation of certain social groups (those which have no choice but to obey) by others (those which at any time have the tightest hold on the reins of state power).

Anarchocapitalism is the only system which fully recognizes the free, creative nature of human beings and their perpetual capacity to internalize increasingly moral behavior patterns in an environment in which, by definition, no one can arrogate to himself the right to exercise monopolistic, systematic coercion. In short, in an anarchocapitalist system, any entrepreneurial project can be tried if it attracts enough voluntary support, and therefore many possible creative solutions can be devised in a dynamic and constantly changing environment of voluntary cooperation.

The progressive replacement of states by a dynamic network of private agencies which back different legal systems and also provide all sorts of security, crime prevention, and defense services constitutes the most important item on the political and scientific agenda, as well as the most momentous social change to take place in the 21st century.

Conclusion: The Revolutionary Implications of the New Paradigm
The revolution spearheaded in the 18th and 19th centuries by the old classical liberals against the ancien régime finds its natural continuity today in the anarchocapitalist revolution of the 21st century. Fortunately, we have discovered the reason behind the failure of utopian liberalism as well as the need to overcome it with scientific liberalism. Also, we know that the old revolutionaries were naïve and mistaken in pursuing an unattainable ideal which, throughout the twentieth century, opened the door to the worst statist tyrannies humanity has ever known.

The message of anarchocapitalism is markedly revolutionary. It is revolutionary in its end: the dismantling of the state and its replacement by a competitive market process in which a network of private agencies, associations, and organizations take part. It is also revolutionary in its means, particularly in the scientific, economic-social, and political spheres.

Scientific Revolution. On the one hand, economic science becomes the general theory of the spontaneous market order extended to all social realms. On the other hand, it incorporates the analysis of the social discoordination statism produces in any area it influences (including law, justice, and public order). In addition, the different methods for dismantling the state, the transition processes involved, and the ways and effects of wholly privatizing all services now considered “public” comprise an essential field of research for our discipline.
Economic and Social Revolution. One cannot even imagine the spectacular human achievements, advances, and discoveries that will be possible in an entrepreneurial environment completely free from statism. Even today, despite continual government harassment, a hitherto unknown civilization has begun to develop in an increasingly globalized world. It is a civilization with a degree of complexity for which the power of statism is no match, and once it is totally rid of statism, it will expand without limit. For the force of creativity in human nature is such that it inevitably sprouts up through even the thinnest cracks in the government’s armor. As soon as people gain a greater awareness of the fundamentally perverse nature of the state that restricts them, and once they perceive the tremendous opportunities removed daily from their reach when the state blocks the driving force of their entrepreneurial creativity, they will in large numbers join in the social clamor for reform, the dismantling of the state, and the advancement toward a future which remains entirely unknown to us but is bound to raise human civilization to heights unimaginable today.
Political Revolution. The daily political struggle becomes secondary to that described in a and b above. It is true that we must always support the least interventionist alternatives, in clear keeping with the efforts of classical liberals to democratically limit the state. However, the anarchocapitalist does not stop at that; he knows, and must also do, much more. He knows that the ultimate goal is the total dismantling of the state, and this fires his entire imagination and fuels all of his political action on a daily basis. Small advances in the right direction are certainly welcome, but we must never slip into a pragmatism that forsakes the ultimate goal of putting an end to the state. For purposes of teaching and influencing the general public, we must always pursue this objective in a systematic, transparent manner.[10]
For instance, the anarchocapitalist political agenda will include ever reducing the size and power of states. Through regional and local decentralization in all areas, libertarian nationalism, the reintroduction of city-states, and secession,[11] the aim will be to block the dictatorship of the majority over the minority and to permit people to increasingly “vote with their feet” rather than with ballots. In short, the goal is for people to be able to collaborate with each other on a worldwide scale and across borders, to achieve the most varied ends without regard to states (religious organizations, private clubs, Internet networks, etc.).[12]

Moreover, let us remember that political revolutions need not be bloody. This is especially true when they result from the necessary process of social education and development, as well as from popular clamor and the widespread desire to stop the deception, lies, and coercion that prevent people from fulfilling their aims. For example, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Velvet Revolution, which brought an end to socialism in Eastern Europe, were both basically bloodless. Along the path to this important final result, we must use all of the peaceful[13] and legal[14] means that current political systems permit.

An exciting future is opening up, in which we will continually discover new roads that will lead us, in keeping with fundamental principles, toward the anarchocapitalist ideal. Though this future may seem distant today, at any moment we may witness giant steps forward which will surprise even the most optimistic. Who was able to predict five years in advance that in 1989 the Berlin Wall would collapse, and with it communism itself in Eastern Europe? History has entered into an accelerated process of change, and although it will never come to a halt, it will begin an entirely new chapter when humanity, for the first time in modern history, manages to rid itself of the state once and for all and reduce it to nothing more than a dark and tragic historical relic.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Jorge Trucco March 9, 2015 at 9:37 pm

http://future.liberty.me/2014/08/07/fear-and-freedom/

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Harry Halbert March 10, 2015 at 7:38 am

Marko –

1. First, observe that the very same problem already happens with governments too. Mr Jones can violate Mr Smith’s rights in country A, then escape to country B (outside country A’s jurisdiction). What happens then?

Here’s what sometimes happens. In some cases, Mr Jones can be extradited to stand trial (under government A), as long as there is a reasonable degree of evidence of his guilt. Note that this could very well be a reasonable solution (between private protection agencies) under anarchy as well.

“But…” you might argue, “what happens if one private protection agency refuses to ‘extradite’ Mr Jones, even with evidence of his guilt?” Well, again observe that this is also a problem that already exists with governments as well. Some countries have no extradition treaties with certain other countries. So again, government doesn’t prevent such problems from arising.

If every problem you point out about anarchy, is also a problem that already exists with government… and, every one of government’s “solutions”, can also be applied by private agencies under anarchy… then that’s hardly a valid case against anarchy.

If anarchy and governments both have the same utilitarian problems, then at least anarchy (without a coercively-funded state monopoly of legalized violence) is the more moral system.

2. Secondly, there IS actually a good answer to your question. David Friedman explains it in the first 15 minutes of this video –

3. Thirdly – and this is a crucial point – what happens if Mr Smith’s rights are violated, not by another citizen, but by his very own GOVERNMENT? (Note that in the real world this actually happens way more often, and the harm on the victim is also usually way more severe, by far.)

If we had a market in peacekeeping (aka polycentric law), then at least Mr Smith would have far more (and far better) options for seeking recourse against such injustices. As opposed to a coercively-funded state monopoly in “peacekeeping”, where the government “peacekeepers” can violate your rights with little accountability – because your ONLY option is to seek recourse from the VERY SAME GOVERNMENT that violated your rights.

And polycentric law is basically a synonym for anarchy. Because government = monopoly on law. So anarchy (absence of government) = absence of monopoly on law = polycentric law.

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/what-is-polycentric-law

“Anarchy is no guarantee that some people won’t kill, injure, kidnap, defraud, or steal from others. Government is a guarantee that some will.” – Gustave de Molinari

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Youliy Ninov March 10, 2015 at 10:41 am
  
  The problem with the conflicting interests of the police forces occur mainly because the police under Anarcho-capitalism is not a free-market solution but a pseudo -free market one. And the reason is: the people who would buy the police services act under duress (threat of physical violence). They are forced to buy police services or insurance. Unless they do it they could be robbed, mugged, killed, etc. A market on which one of the sides does not act freely is not a free market.
  
  Note that similar problems do not occur in any other market branch.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Ken Jons-un March 12, 2015 at 2:26 pm
    
    Forced to buy? How so?
    
    Could a large family just do their own. Poor might do without since they have nothing to steal. A super rich person will still have their own guards either way.
    
    I am not under duress to buy fire insurance if I have no mortgage, but I’m foolish if I don’t choose to! I don’t see much difference with security services. In tough times I could drop fire and/or security until I get back on my feet. That’s something the state never allows… a pass when you need it most. Instead it demands and contibrutes to your ruin.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Youliy Ninov March 12, 2015 at 2:58 pm
      
      “I am not under duress to buy fire insurance if I have no mortgage”
      
      Fires, hurricanes, floods, etc are forces of nature. No person stays behind them, so you can not talk of “violence being initiated”. Nobody initiates violence on you when your house collapes during a storm.
      
      Crime, however has a human cause. In this sense crime is “initiation of violence”. And becuase people do not want to suffer robberies, muggings, killings, etc. they would pay in order to be secure ( in Anarcho-capitalism).
      
      If you are still not conviced that people pay under duress, try answering the following questions : How much would people pay for police services when crime did not exist? Have you seen somebody wanting to pay for private guards just so, without being threatened? Do people want to buy more and more police protection (as opposed to cosumer items and all the services for instance)?
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  Youliy Ninov March 10, 2015 at 10:52 am
  
  “Because government = monopoly on law. ”
  
  A monopoly of law can exist without government.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Jorge Trucco March 11, 2015 at 1:43 am
    
    I disagree. A coercive monopoly, of any kind, can only exist with government.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Youliy Ninov March 11, 2015 at 11:46 am
      
      Assume you own a piece of land. Do you have the right to say what the rules on it must be? Yes, of course. So, how about if several land-owners unite and define rules on their combined land. And they call these rules laws.
      
      So, there is a coercive monoply but everything is OK becuase NAP has not been broken. The owners have every right to determine the laws on their land. And if you are not OK with it, then you will be the agressor (the one who initiates force).
      
      So, no government is neccesary for the coercive monoply to exist. It can exist by itself, created by the free market.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Properal March 11, 2015 at 3:35 pm
      
      Assume you own a piece of land. Do you have the right to say what the rules on it must be?
      
      No. A landlord that is not already a sovereign, only has the right to evict people.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Youliy Ninov March 11, 2015 at 4:26 pm
      
      Sorry, I do not understand what you wish to say.
      
      What I wanted to stress is that, when one owns something he has complete control over it. The last applies to land also. And this is the reason why the state as such can not exist when private property becomes absolute (as Ayn Rand wishes).
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  Jorge Trucco March 11, 2015 at 1:45 am
  
  Agreed, Harry Halbert.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Jorge Trucco March 11, 2015 at 1:51 am

http://future.liberty.me/2014/08/07/fear-and-freedom/

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Jorge Trucco March 11, 2015 at 1:54 am

“Fear and Freedom”
By Simon Niemeyer — from Future & Liberty — Aug 7, 2014

This article is simply to share the words I contributed with in a facebook thread today, following a post by Jeff Berwick. The post includes his quote:

“Anarchy is a word that, properly expressed, is a synonym for love”
I think Jeff is absolutely right, so this is my version of that line of thought:

This is the real difference between minarchism and anarchism.

To become an anarchist you have to let go of fear. This leads to the most amazing potential for love, empathy, spirituality and awareness.

Fear is what holds people back from realizing what government is.

In our society we kind of close our eyes and ears and hand over our lives, and most of our money, to the state, as a way of coping with life and its difficulties.

It is as if we are saying, please take my money, take my freedom, just promise me that I am safe.

Life is scary, freedom is scary, so we look to rulers to make us safe and tell us that everything is gonna be ok.

In order to break out of that and see that you don’t need rulers, you have to face life in its entirety, including the hard parts.

When you do that you become more aware of the fragility of life and that in the end you are responsible for yourself, and that ultimately no one can save you.

But along with that comes the ability to really see the beauty of life, to appreciate life as a sacred and wonderful thing, and to feel real love.

Do you agree?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Bruce Koerber March 11, 2015 at 9:08 am

Objectivists ultimately are ego-driven interpreters since they do not accept the essential subjective nature of humans and for them to achieve their goals they necessarily have to become ego-driven interventionists.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Jorge Trucco March 11, 2015 at 3:41 pm
  
  Accurate!
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
starrychloe March 11, 2015 at 2:57 pm

Playlist index #25, Nature of Government

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SkH4XsBiXY&list=PL1jZODaujcncX4CidjK30PXP0C07nasVt&index=26

Basically she commits a fallacy and doesn’t think it through.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 
 starrychloe March 11, 2015 at 3:00 pm
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SkH4XsBiXY
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0
 The world is already in a constant state of anarchy, and it doesn’t always devolve to war.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y32cFdicW1U&list=PLB5965C13F4B0B2DA
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 
 starrychloe March 11, 2015 at 3:32 pm
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SkH4XsBiXY
 
 The world is already in a constant state of anarchy, and it doesn’t always devolve to war.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 
 Jorge Trucco March 11, 2015 at 3:45 pm
 
 We can forgive her for that fallacy. She did and wrote valuable philosophy that helped give a moral foundation to capitalism. The only thing you need not to be is a religious objectivist, that will consider anything different from what rand said, heresy. That’s it.
 
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Marko I. March 11, 2015 at 5:36 pm

Although i previously knew this but with this discussion i strengthen my opinion on anarchism:

1) It’s perfectly fine for them to be born in a communist community.

2) They perfectly agree not to have rights to live and be protected if they don’t have money to buy an insurance.

3) It’s perfectly enough for them to have “don’t initiate violence” principle (which is only based on faith) and be left out under the constant threat of the next subjective, relativist man to whom everything is “nothing”.

4) They don’t understand that governments are already competing today.

5) They don’t understand reality – so they can’t understand freedom.

6) They say: “Anarchism is about love” – But if they don’t love you, too bad. They will gang up on you.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  starrychloe March 11, 2015 at 6:25 pm
  
  I can’t understand if this is a criticism, or endorsement. FYI security costs $200/year.
  
  http://albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t1432003.pdf
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Youliy Ninov March 12, 2015 at 3:02 pm
  
  Another problem for you to solve:
  
  Ayn Rand wants a government. How are you going to choose it? For sure not democratically (Ayn Rand is against the democracy). Then how? And when you choose this government of yours, what would you do with the people who do not agree with this choice? There would always be some who disagree.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.