I'll admit that I'm out of my league. Anybody who would like to write a follow-up comment to him in reply or help me gather some thoughts would be appreciated :)
People like Rothbard -- anarchists, "minarchists", and proponents of "competeting governments" -- Rand very well addressed long ago:"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government."
Basically the issue Rand raises in this excerpt is that without monopoly government there cannot be any court system. First of all, I'm not sure what "objective laws" mean. What does it mean for a law to be objective? Of course, her problem is that she conflates law and monopoly government. As Long points out ( http://libertariannation.org/a/f13l2.html ), law and monopoly government are distinct concepts.
I would argue along these lines.
In both anarchy and dictatorship, there is no one to protect the individual from harm by others. The only difference between an anarchy and a dictatorship is whether an individual has to fear one tyrant or many.
Of course, in a free society a person may defend himself, may invest in private security, may purchase defense insurance, etc. He's plainly wrong. By the way, does monopoly government really protect individuals from harm? It seems to me that our 'protection' (i.e., police) is largely a reactive force at BEST.
Thank you for your help. Reminds me of a comic http://xkcd.com/386/
Unfortunately, I don't have the time today to combat him, so I did "borrow" a lot of you text verbatim.
I posted:
You seem to admit that Objectivism is doctrine and not reason. It is only obedience to a "charismatic leader" in Ayn Rand. That sounds like a religion, not a philosophy. It is apparently enough to appeal to authority and say Ayn Rand is smarter than Rothbard so I am wrong. It doesn't seem to matter what or how I debate. But I'll try.
I would say that the scenario she paints - that anarchy leads to the first criminal that comes along taking over is exactly what CAN happen add that that the criminal seems to change his name to "government" every time.
Rand, in your excerpt, conflates law and monopoly government. As Long points out ( http://libertariannation.org/a/f13l2.html ), law and monopoly government are distinct concepts.
But the problem here is that she could not see how a self-governed society could operate and so declared it impossible and further, absurd. That sounds a lot like every other politician. I see nothing underlying the idea that government is necessary other than fear and ignorance of the other path.
In a free society a person may defend himself, may invest in private security, may purchase defense insurance, etc Does monopoly government really protect individuals from harm? It seems to me that our 'protection' (i.e., police) is largely a reactive force at BEST.
He has moderation on, so the reply may never show up. Oh well, I really should get back to "economically productive" tasks now.
Thanks again.