z1235:And what makes you believe that it would be in the best interest of any supplier of force to allow you to freely make that choice?
Monopolies of force rely on deceit and implicit consent, not naked aggression. De la Boetie and all that jazz.
For the benefit of you late-to-the-party anarchists, I will re-post here the portion of my first reply to this thread pertinent to the difference between Objectivists and Libertarians of the anarcho- faction:
"4) Differences with anarchists over the nature of liberty: Objectivists and Libertarian anarchists are in agreement that the principles of Austrian free-market economics as presented by Mises are valid. When it comes to defining the proper government structure to enable that economics, however, the anarchists are subjectivists. That is why Rand labeled them "the hippies of the right." Objectivists can go a long way towards the decentralization of government through the use of private contractors and their preference for smaller units of government over one large one. And a lot of anarchists will concede that justice requires a single set of principles that will be enforced, and some will even concede that it requires some single function of oversight for appeals of the last resort to those principles. But ultimately, they will circle the wagons around one single argument. Anarchists maintain that a government may not exercise their monopoly of force to stop them from the inherently just and moral act of using force to defend themselves from an initiation of force by others—not just in those spontaneous acts of self-defense when attacked, but anytime ever, because it is in itself an initiation of force. Objectivists reject that argument altogether, pointing out that the anarchists are relying on an incomplete understanding of the nature of liberty itself. Unique to Rand's capitalism is the recognition that the primary prerequisite for liberty is that the exercise of defensive force will be objective and expected, not arbitrary and unknowable. All laws, procedures, and acts of enforcement must be objectified in the Constitution, the laws, the adjudications, the rules of enforcement, and the punishments for violations. The anarchist, in condoning the use of force in self defense without having to comply with objective standards that are known or knowable to all in advance, violates the liberty of others by enabling an arbitrary use of force that in the daily life of the populace becomes indistinguishable from an act that initiates the use of force. The principle that anarchists ignore is that over half the value of liberty is the justifiable expectation of it in one's daily life. Anarchy is thus inherently incompatible with liberty."
Michael M:Anarchy is thus inherently incompatible with liberty.
Contradiction. You need to check your premises Michael.
Liberty Student:Monopolies of force rely on deceit and implicit consent, not naked aggression.
I agree. Whatever works. The fact is that it does.
Power/force asymmetry is a major ingredient in any tacit bargaining and pay-off calculation. This hugely distorts outcomes away from where they'd otherwise rest in a free market without such asymmetry. The mere existence of this asymmetry (without any 'naked' exercise of power/force) is enough to affect the negotiation and blur the boundary between a voluntary and involuntary exchange. The problem is that a buyer of power/force services is entering the negotiation/exchange exactly because of his need to eliminate his power/force deficit, so such asymmetry is present almost by default.
Z.
z1235: Liberty Student:Monopolies of force rely on deceit and implicit consent, not naked aggression. I agree. Whatever works. The fact is that it does.
Does it? Who is it working for? And how do you define working?
z1235:Power/force asymmetry is a major ingredient in any tacit bargaining and pay-off calculation. This hugely distorts outcomes away from where they'd otherwise rest in a free market without such asymmetry.
Absolutely.
z1235:The mere existence of this asymmetry (without any 'naked' exercise of power/force) is enough to affect the negotiation and blur the boundary between a voluntary and involuntary exchange.
Agreed.
z1235:The problem is that a buyer of power/force services is entering the negotiation/exchange exactly because of his need to eliminate his power/force deficit, so such asymmetry is present almost by default.
Argument from ignorance. You wanna double check this one. You're assuming a value scale.
I would say (without any proof) there are more Americans who pay taxes because they think they are supposed to, than because they are afraid of violence. Again, government is by consent. The social contract is a myth, a lie, and a farce, but people believe in it, just like they believe in spiritual realms and other abstractions. And their belief, whether in nationalism, patriotism, objectivism etc, is enough for them to go along, without needing to be shown or reminded of the foremans lash.
You're making the same mistake Objectivists make. You're assuming a value is objective.
>>Competition is a term that only applies to the FREE exchange of goods.
This is false, competition is certainly restrained and hampered under an environment but it will occur to an extent wherever the coercion/monopoly is not total.
I believe that the most extenstive competitive environement acheivable... the freest market possible... must emerge through competitive activity of agents under an environment which was 'somewhat less' 'freely' competitive. How could it be any other way?
>Without an institution having already removed force from the market, there can be no free exchange and hence no competition.
There is no possibility of any single institution removing all force from the market, this is utopian. All a reasonable libertarian can hope for is a maximization of achievable liberty somewhat below the limit of abstractly theorizable liberty. Keeping illegitimate force at bay, is a service that will require economic resources, and like all service industries, competition gets consumer sovereignty working, it spurs efficiency, it disincentives negative externalities.
The logical fallacy here is that we cannot have 'economic freedom' worth the name unless we first receive a 'perfect monopolistic government' . But 'economic freedom' is a matter of degree....
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Liberty Student:Argument from ignorance. You wanna double check this one. You're assuming a value scale.
There may have been a misunderstanding. I was not referring to a citizen<->government but to a client<->PDA relationship, and related to the linked essay in my previous post. I'd appreciate your comment on it.
Pls explain my 'value scale' assumption.
Michael M:An Objectivist government does not do anything but guarantee that force will not be exercised arbitrarily.
I don't need you to just reassert the same things over again, as if I haven't heard you loud and clear. (As if I haven't heard it a million times before)
Michael M:Governments may not perform any other service other than guaranteeing that all interrelationships be voluntary.
What is all this "guaranteeing" nonsense? What happens when I finally do get robbed? Your theory is then finally declared to be fallacious?
There can be no such service that guarantees anything.
Michael M:No postal service, no education, no healthcare, no taxation, no anything.
But yes to police. I get it. Well, it's still a territorial monopoly on a particular service by your own admission. Telling us that you are sympathetic towards the idea of private police as "subcontractors" does not overcome the inherent contradictions in your argument. You still require one central authority with a monopoly on force in a given territorial area.
Now, there are only two methods by which such a government (or any agency) can attain such a monopoly:
1. Using force to drive out all competitors and keep them out, i.e., coercion.
2. By some miraculous achievement, one (and only one) such agency is able to acquire the voluntary consent of every individual who happens to reside in a given territory and maintain this consent by constantly remaining so efficient that no competition can ever emerge.
Now, unless you're attributing mystical powers to this thing you call "objective government", operating beyond the realm of economic laws, then you'll have to explain how this monopoly emerges not by one of the above 2 methods.
z1235: Liberty Student:Argument from ignorance. You wanna double check this one. You're assuming a value scale. There may have been a misunderstanding. I was not referring to a citizen<->government but to a client<->PDA relationship, and related to the linked essay in my previous post. I'd appreciate your comment on it. Pls explain my 'value scale' assumption. Z.
I'd like to start a new discussion about this, because you have this habit of inserting your pda critique everywhere, and this thread is about objectivism and austrianism.
That said, I read 4 pages of what you linked to, and I think it misses the point completely.
But I will discuss it with you in a new thread.
DD5,
Me: "An Objectivist government does not do anything but guarantee that force will not be exercised arbitrarily."
You: "I don't need you to just reassert the same things over again, as if I haven't heard you loud and clear. (As if I haven't heard it a million times before)"
And never once understood that competing services for defensive force are ipso facto instruments of arbitrary force, and liberty exists only in an absence of arbitrary force. So to the degree an Objectivist government with a territorial monopoly on the use of force excludes arbitrary force in its jurisdiction, it sustains liberty there, and that cannot be coercion.
Furthermore, the prevention of arbitrary force in a society is a moral and just pursuit with or without anyone's consent and even if it were imposed in the face of unanimous opposition.
Examples of competing private defense services engaged in the arbitrary use of defensive force per their own principles and standards of implementation would be blood feuds and gang wars.
Michael, what if I live in an Objectivist country and I decide that the Objectivist government is not doing a good enough job of protecting liberties... and I create my own (competing) government in response? The original Objectivist government has no moral right to shut down my government unless I violate other people's rights... but in this hypothetical example what would the Objectivist government do if I created a competing government that simply aimed at protecting the rights of others more efficiently? If the original Objectivist government tried to shut my government down, then it would be using the initiation of violence and breaking its own moral code.
Michael M:Examples of competing private defense services engaged in the arbitrary use of defensive force per their own principles and standards of implementation would be blood feuds and gang wars.
(4) Ayn Rand: Private Protection Agencies Will Battle
Probably the most popular argument against libertarian anarchy is: well, what happens if (and this is Ayn Rand's famous argument) I think you've violated my rights and you think you haven't, so I call up my protection agency, and you call up your protection agency — why won't they just do battle? What guarantees that they won't do battle? To which, of course, the answer is: well, nothing guarantees they won't do battle. Human beings have free will. They can do all kinds of crazy things. They might go to battle. Likewise, George Bush might decide to push the nuclear button tomorrow. They might do all sorts of things.
The question is: what's likely? Which is likelier to settle its disputes through violence: a government or a private protection agency? Well, the difference is that private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time — now, you might think, "I want the one that solves its disputes through violence — that's sounds really cool!" But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you're willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, "I want to go to one that doesn't charge all this extra amount for the violence." Whereas, governments — first of all, they've got captive customers, they can't go anywhere else — but since they're taxing the customers anyway, and so the customers don't have the option to switch to a different agency. And so, governments can externalize the costs of their going to war much more effectively than private agencies can.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html
Political Atheists Blog
i think the issue here has to do with the fact that the use of force to prevent violations of private property is generally conceived of to be monopolised, in the example you cite of gang wars, you are suggesting that the implementers of this force would compete over the boundaries of their jurisdiction... or indeed perhaps in the scenario i'm imagining, with multiple operators overlapping in regions, acting on the behalf of multiple antagonistic private individuals or organisations. it is problematic indeed, how does one restrain force without using force?
i believe this is what was intended in the US constitution in the second amendment. unpaid, informally trained and self funded citizens of the very places they defend operating the defensive forces. the way i understand it, agents implementing force for pay are inherently corrupt or rapidly become corrupt and will quickly escalate into the statist system that we see today and indeed this was exactly how it happened. the only solution to the question of the crime of initiating violence or coercion against the private property (or persons, referring to further up in the discussion being that each individual constitutes a sovereign private property) is that nobody defends anyone except their direct neighbours, and that thereby, while voluntary, it would be incumbent upon all able bodied persons to acquire a competence in the use of force ideally with the aim of minimal killing in order for the natural justice often called 'lynch mobs' can implement a public punishment which in the case of property crime would be remunerative and in the case of crime against persons physically - this is a tricky one, but i think it could be validly stated that any use of violence against a person even the most skillful use could ultimately become mortally wounding. this therefore logically suggests that the punishment to the initiator after a public trial should be at least partially determined by the publicly recognised victim of the violence. that is to say, if reputable medical advice states that the injuries could have easily been mortal that would then permit the punishment to be actually mortal. i guess it depends on the exact group of people in a community as to how this should be treated, and as would be suggested by libertarians and anarchists alike (i have no idea what the objectivist view would be) will be entirely dependent on the will of the people within the vicinity of this act of violence.
i guess what i'm saying then is, vigilantes and lynch mobs. i don't know exactly where this concept and demonisation of citizens militia came from but i suspect it would have to be statist propaganda. the odd occasion where a violent perpetrator was stopped by a combat-skilled citizen generally the person stopping the violence was hailed as a hero. shouldn't every street, every neighbourhood have several such folks? really, the only way to stop the concentrated use of violence is to train everyone. i would say 'compulsory military training' but that is in violation of the principles of liberty. but any person interested in doing so should be allowed to do so, acquire the weapons required and take and give the training required.
The issue has nothing to do with force. It is with how Objectivists claim objective value(s). The force stuff is just a sidebar discussion which has nothing to do with the differences between Objectivism and Austrianism. Objectivists have a flawed value theory.
I suspect this is why Michael continues to ignore my posts, after challenging me to a debate. Objectivists don't like their premises being questioned.
right... so i guess what i described would be called the pure libertarian/anarchist version of violence/crime prevention, because i basically said that it would be decided by the people in the place where the violence/crime occurs. from what i'm gathering then, the objectivists would say that once the crimes and the parties are identified the punishments would be handed down by moral authority, whoever that is.
i'm interested to hear who defines where this objective value is defined, or perhaps i should be a bit more succinct: WHO defines it. cos it sounds remarkably like christian socialism wrapped in agnosticism to me, this idea that people have a uniform sense of justice and conscience, and thus the power would thereby rest in the hands of those granted with the moral authority from whichever mystical source they claim it came from. LOL! ok, but really, who is this nonpartisan third party who has this 'objective' viewpoint? objectivity is simply a kind of abstract subjectivity anyway, it always ultimately amounts to 'the consensus view' or 'the judgement of the powers that be' and any way you slice it, it amounts to self-deification.
the anarchist view that talks about community implemented defense and justice is at least honest and puts it all back upon the social network involved and keeps things narrowed down to a local situation, every other version of the restraining of arbitrary force summons abstractions, deities and things like states and federations and syndicates etc etc etc.
the curliest bit about the whole suggestion that communities operate their own defense and justice is that there is nothing preventing groups of communities creating arbitrary, larger organised militias, how do you stop that? it's a rather fascinating subject altogether, i'm sure i'm gonna put a lot of thought into it... but my preliminary conclusion is that such pan-regional groupings of paid police/soldiers should be regarded as an incursion no matter where they are and driven out before they even gather, and as such the real defense against them is widespread knowledge of the danger of concentrated power.
krazy kaju,
"what would the Objectivist government do if I created a competing government that simply aimed at protecting the rights of others more efficiently? If the original Objectivist government tried to shut my government down, then it would be using the initiation of violence and breaking its own moral code."
It would do nothing until and unless your "government" exercised force arbitrarily (not subject to verification that it was consistent with the objectified principles, laws, and procedures known or knowable to all in advance.) Since such arbitrary force is a violation of the rights of all members of the populace to a liberty that is absent of such arbitrary force, it would take whatever measures were necessary to stop you from exercising that force just as it would any other violator of their liberty.
Michael M: not subject to verification that it was consistent with the objectified principles, laws, and procedures known or knowable to all in advance
not subject to verification that it was consistent with the objectified principles, laws, and procedures known or knowable to all in advance
Who determines what those "principles, laws, and procedures" are?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Loki Verloren:i'm interested to hear who defines where this objective value is defined, or perhaps i should be a bit more succinct: WHO defines it. cos it sounds remarkably like christian socialism wrapped in agnosticism to me, this idea that people have a uniform sense of justice and conscience, and thus the power would thereby rest in the hands of those granted with the moral authority from whichever mystical source they claim it came from. LOL! ok, but really, who is this nonpartisan third party who has this 'objective' viewpoint? objectivity is simply a kind of abstract subjectivity anyway, it always ultimately amounts to 'the consensus view' or 'the judgement of the powers that be' and any way you slice it, it amounts to self-deification.
The third party is Rand. Nothing she said can be contradicted by Objectivism because she cannot be wrong in Objectivism. If she said something where A was equal to not A, Objectivists won't address that premise. They can't, because as John Ess explained, Objectivism is a closed system. You can't innovate the ideas or improve them.
Michael makes a very key error. Anarchy is without rulers. He claims that Anarchy is not compatible with liberty. It's pretty simple to understand that Michael is saying that liberty is not possible without rulers, and yet we know that being ruled is not being in a state of liberty. This is an example of A being equal to not A.
And yet Rand was against Anarchism, so he has no choice as an Objectivist but to also be against Anarchism.
Misesians don't have this problem. Mises isn't considered infallible, his work can be improved upon, because like all men (including Rand) he is only as perfect as the rest of us, which is to say he isn't perfect at all.
Loki Verloren:the anarchist view that talks about community implemented defense and justice is at least honest and puts it all back upon the social network involved and keeps things narrowed down to a local situation, every other version of the restraining of arbitrary force summons abstractions, deities and things like states and federations and syndicates etc etc etc.
This is a bit misleading, and why I said that the discussion about force was a distraction. Anarcho-capitalism is based on a very simple moral principle. The non-aggression principle says, that it is not right to aggress, where aggression is defined as the initiation of force.
The rest of the challenges against anarchism, are based on theories, which cannot speak for all of ancap, because ancap is only constrained by the NAP and outside of the initiation of force, everything is fair game. To pin down ancap to specific ideas or theories outside the NAP is a red herring. To take a discussion about Austrianism and Objectivism, where the key difference is value theory and make it about force, is also a red herring.
I. Ryan:Who determines what those "principles, laws, and procedures" are?
The majority. Just like in ancap, or any other system. In both minarchy and ancap the red-haired will be eaten for dinner if the majority found such action acceptable.
I. Ryan,
Michael M: not subject to verification that it was consistent with the objectified principles, laws, and procedures known or knowable to all in advance "Who determines what those "principles, laws, and procedures" are?" Those who establish and sustain the government.
"Who determines what those "principles, laws, and procedures" are?"
Those who establish and sustain the government.
Michael M: Those who establish and sustain the government.
Which would include the people making up the PDAs, right?
z1235: The majority.
The majority.
Then I'm lost as to what his point is.
I mean, it sounds like he's just talking about an an-cap system where everybody agrees on the basic laws and procedures.
z1235: I. Ryan:Who determines what those "principles, laws, and procedures" are? The majority. Just like in ancap, or any other system. In both minarchy and ancap the red-haired will be eaten for dinner if the majority found such action acceptable. Z.
Ancap is not a zero sum system. Minarchy is. Big difference.
It would do nothing until and unless your "government" exercised force arbitrarily.
Really? This may but true in the short run, but what about the long run? What evidence is there to suggest that your "government" would operate within the constraints of objective law which you posit, as opposed to those states of today which clearly do not, despite attempts to limit their authority via written constitutions? As Hobbes noted, the central authority has a tendency to root out "worms in the commonwealth." You're saying this wouldn't happen...?
On "arbitrary" force you define it as:
not subject to verification that it was consistent with the objectified principles, laws, and procedures known or knowable to all in advance.
What if the use of force by your government is "subject" to consistency verification but it is repeatedly determined by the high council of objectivists to be consistent with the great objective law, despite it being clearly tyrannical? Does such force fail to meet the criterion for being arbitrary?
I'm beginning to see why you're ignoring liberty student's questions concerning objective value, because your entire definition of the word "arbitrary" depends upon your belief in "objective" law, which in turn must necessarily depend upon the idea of objective value.
If you cannot show how value can be objective, your definition of what is arbitrary fails, and so does your argument:
Even if you are correct and that would really be the result, it doesn't follow from this that your objectiveist government doesn't apply coercion to achieve its monopoly. This is the problem with only you Randians. You trapped yourself in a paradox by asserting that coercion is never acceptable, yet you are unwilling to let go of the mother of all such evil.
Michael M:So to the degree an Objectivist government with a territorial monopoly on the use of force excludes arbitrary force in its jurisdiction, it sustains liberty there, and that cannot be coercion.
(1): Is this "Objectivist government" made up of real mortal men providing real economic services subject to the laws of Human action?
If (no), then Goto Exit.
else goto (2)
(2): How does a service provider of real economic goods and services establish a territorial monopoly?
if (force used to drive out competitors) then goto (3)
else
if (all consumers in a given territory voluntarily patronize only one such service provider) then goto (4)
if (Michael asserts that a service provider of real economic goods can acquire a territorial monopoly by a mysterious unexplained phenomenon) then goto Exit.
(3) Print: "Coercion! Coercion!"
(4) Print: "Service provider is so incredibly efficient that no competitor has yet succeeded in providing any alternatives, thus creating an illusion of a government in a market economy. Amazing! "
(Exit): Print: "I'm afraid we can no longer resort to reason in order to settle this dispute. good day."
.
But there is a fundamental difference between your position and Michael's. You don't deny that the above is tyranny of the majority and not coercion. You fully acknowledge it, although you argue that some degree of such tyranny is a necessary evil. In this respect, although I am convinced of your faulty reasoning, you are in a far more "reasonable" position to argue from.
Lewis S.,
You have arrived late to this thread, so if you want to discuss this with me, it would be helpful if you would go to my first post about 13 down from the top of page 1 for at least a little of the groundwork under my comments. You are also hindered by your unfamiliarity with Objectivism that thoroughly explains values, their source, purpose, and the objectivity thereof. Best source for that would be Leonard Peikoff's easy to digest "Objectivism:The Philosophy of Ayn Rand". For an immediate shortcut, go to http://aynrandlexicon.com for excerpts from Objectivist writings on over 200 indexed subjects. As Rand's influence continues to rise, the thinking of those who are not familiar with her explanations will be increasingly marginalized.
The primary problem with your question about the ability of an Objectivist government to avoid violating rights is an attempt to establish infallibility as a minimum requirement of a valid institution of defense. But the very basis for individual rights in the first place derives in part from the recognition that all men are fallible and therefore need autonomy to protect against the fallibility of others.
It is precisely the incompatibility of autonomy with arbitrary force that is the motive for establishing a system to objectify the use of defensive force. There is nothing in defining or implementing that system that ignores the potential errors those fallible men may make. The entire concept of checks and balances arises from the recognition of human fallibility.
Note: do not confuse "objective law" in the sense that it is objectively true with "objectified law" meaning that whether it is objectively true or in error, it and its alleged proofs have been documented and institutionalized and are therefore known or knowable to all persons subject to them in advance.
A valid/moral/just government is one that can deliver both of those. It is at the very least possible for an Objectivist government to deliver both. Anarchy could conceivably deliver the first, but is inherently unable to deliver the second.
But no matter what system one proposes, it will not be immune from that fallibility. Therefore you implicit demand that an Objectivist government be infallible or it will be invalid is nonsense.
My position is the same as z's.
See my post above to Lewis S. We are both saying that the majority will establish and sustain the government and admitting the objective fact of reality that they will be fallible men and their government will not be any better than the validity of their principles and implementation—as no government ever could be.
DD5
"(1): Is this "Objectivist government" made up of real mortal men providing real economic services subject to the laws of Human action?"
Yes, they are men and women who are part of the general population (workforce).
" (2): How does a service provider of real economic goods and services establish a territorial monopoly? "
By offering them to a public who chooses their service over all others. [caveat: force is not an "economic good."]
Michael M:We are both saying that the majority will establish and sustain the government
And as I believe I have clearly demonstrated, such a majority by definition necessitates the existence of a minority, and such a minority is coerced into accepting the "will" of the majority. If it was not the case that the majority applies coercion, then no distinction between majority and minority would exist in the first place, and you would have a unanimous consent (which even you do not pretend to ever exist). Do you see the paradox yet?
Z does not deny that your (objectivist) government relies on coercion to exist. You do! There is a radical difference between both positions.
Michael M: " (2): How does a service provider of real economic goods and services establish a territorial monopoly? " By offering them to a public who chooses their service over all others. [caveat: force is not an "economic good."]
The public chooses. Great! And when some of the public (the minority you acknowledge that must exist) choose to withdraw their support from "Government A" and patronize "Government B", and "Government A" does not resort to violence to crush any such attempt by "government B" to offer competition. How can all this be reconciled with your theory of "Majority establishes one government" without contradicting your initial premise of "no coercion allowed"? There are now clearly two governments being formed and you must allow it in order to avoid contradicting yourself. This is a paradox which you have created for yourself, and the only way to resolve it is by either
1. acknowledge coercion is part of your "objectivist" political framework?
or
2. acknowledge that only the ancap "political" framework offers a system free of coercion.
LS,
I don't know much about Objectivism. You also mention 'value scales' in one of your previous replies. Do you mind explaining this further? (Not meant as an instigation for a debate -- just an honest question.)
As for starting a new (PDA related) thread, thx for the invite, but I don't think I could give it the attention/time it deserves over the next few weeks. Plus, I'm not sure my position has changed much from how I've presented it many times here over the past year. (Meaning, I'd have nothing new and groundbreaking to offer on that front.)
As I said before, I don't know much about Objectivism, but I agree that it is unreasonable to deny the existence of coercion, period, and especially when government is involved.
I'll rewrite what I recently wrote in a private conversation. Successful negotiation/bargaining/arbitration in ancap relies on strong enough "spirals of expectations", "public censure", "public opinion", and "prominent ethical standards". My point is that whenever these are, in fact, strong enough to be meaningful (toward stabilizing the bargaining/negotiation process) then they are indistinguishable from a law/force monopoly, i.e. majority's tyranny over the individual, i.e. a state. Ancaps need these forces to be strong enough to prevent (non-productive and property-destroying) chaos (via providing stabilization to the bargaining/negotiation process) but not so strong as to turn into a majority's monopoly (coercion) over the individual. I claim that such (Goldilocks) optimal uniformity level in law/force simply does not exist. Ancaps want to have the cake and eat it too. Hence, minarchy as a blatant yet honest, controlled, and minimal, surrender to the majority's power.
i'm not sure how my thread about citizen militias and local justice is irrelevant because it seems to me one of the key points about objectivism's differences with anarchocapitalism has to do with the idea of how force to restrain antisocial force is organised. since the state is generally a monopoly on force anywhere it crops up, and everything it does is backed up by force, is this not a key element of the discussion of statism and the basis upon which the state has the tendency to extend beyond limiting criminal/antisocial behaviour and why anarchocapitalism is anti-state where objectivism conjures up apparitions to justify the use of a state?
rather than have to conjure any apparitions i will say it straight out: the only true defense against arbitrary use of force is every individual being aware of the fact that concentrated power and organised force are the enemy of wealth and freedom. of course it may take some time, some millennia, even, for humanity to finally come to this realisation and make it a central element of the accepted laws of social dynamics but it's the only thing that needs to really be put forward to answer the question of how to once and for all eradicate our species of the limiting and damaging effects of what amounts to criminal, predatory behaviour.
just to clarify: when i say 'laws of social dynamics' i mean it in the same way as the laws of praxeology or the laws of physics, natural, self-emergent principles which the violation of which causes destruction to the social group that permits this falsehood of security by organised violence to be accepted as reality as though simply believing in something makes something reality.
Loki Verloren:i'm not sure how my thread about citizen militias and local justice is irrelevant because it seems to me one of the key points about objectivism's differences with anarchocapitalism has to do with the idea of how force to restrain antisocial force is organised. since the state is generally a monopoly on force anywhere it crops up, and everything it does is backed up by force, is this not a key element of the discussion of statism and the basis upon which the state has the tendency to extend beyond limiting criminal/antisocial behaviour and why anarchocapitalism is anti-state where objectivism conjures up apparitions to justify the use of a state?
Austrianism is NOT anarcho-capitalism. This is a discussion about Austrianism and Objectivism.
Michael's issue is that Objectivism cannot tolerate praxeology. The discussions about anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, PDAs, force and so on are red herrings. It's like treating a symptom rather than the underlying cause. Don't confuse Rothbard on Libertarianism with Mises and Menger on Austrian Economics.
The issue here is whether value is subjective or not.
@liberty student
To be accurate, you are conflating economics and ethics. In the field of ethics, value is only subjective if life and death are equal. The Objectivist ethics of egoism doesn't really have anything to do with economic values and Objectivism does not dispute the subject-relative nature of economic values, they would just like to call it something else (I have hear them use “socially objective value.” for example, to describe the intersection of various value-judgments involved in price formation.)
Comparing Objectivism with Austrian economics is not really the issue, because Austrian economics is a value-free science that does not make normative claims. The issue is a philosophic issue of Objectivism versus libertarianism, namely about the groundwork of ethics and its implications for political liberty. Thus if you are claiming there is no objective value system, then there is no basis for anarchy, or objective law, or dictatorship, or anything else, and any political system is not rationally validated as better (“better” as a concept has no meaning either) other than each person's own arbitrary emotional basis. So this doesn't do much to help disprove Ayn Rand's claim that anarchists are whim-worshiping subjectivists.
I might suggest that the issue be dealt with on the grounds of whether or not a government or at least a specific territorial monopoly is necessary for objective law to be recognized and enforced on its own logical terms., but this requires getting into a long chain of abstractions dealing with meta-ethical concepts.
Initiate: each person's own arbitrary emotional basis
each person's own arbitrary emotional basis
Why exactly do subjective values have to be "emotional"?
Initiate: In the field of ethics, value is only subjective if life and death are equal.
In the field of ethics, value is only subjective if life and death are equal.
Can you elaborate?
Initiate: @liberty student To be accurate, you are conflating economics and ethics.
To be accurate, you are conflating economics and ethics.
What is the difference between an economic value and an ethical one?
Initiate:Comparing Objectivism with Austrian economics is not really the issue, because Austrian economics is a value-free science that does not make normative claims. The issue is a philosophic issue of Objectivism versus libertarianism, namely about the groundwork of ethics and its implications for political liberty.
And yet, that is the topic of this thread. Despite attempts to conflate Austrian economics with libertarianism. Mises was not a libertarian in the "hippy of the right" sense.
Initiate:Thus if you are claiming there is no objective value system, then there is no basis for anarchy, or objective law, or dictatorship, or anything else, and any political system is not rationally validated as better (“better” as a concept has no meaning either) other than each person's own arbitrary emotional basis.
Subjective value is not arbitrary. Are you familiar at all with praxeology?
Initiate:So this doesn't do much to help disprove Ayn Rand's claim that anarchists are whim-worshiping subjectivists.
Well, if we assume your and Rand's premise, that ethical values are objective, then maybe she is right. I'm asking you to validate that ethics are objective. Don't assume or presume it. Prove it.
Initiate:I might suggest that the issue be dealt with on the grounds of whether or not a government or at least a specific territorial monopoly is necessary for objective law to be recognized and enforced on its own logical terms.
Law is not objective. This stuff is fantasy from the mind of Ayn Rand. Law has never been objective, just as ethics have never been objective, and they can't because humans arrive at the values (supposedly) underpinning law and ethics subjectively.
As I have written to Michael several times, Objectivism makes sense like Communism makes sense. If we perfect man and remove free choice, everything works out hunky-dory.
Objective ethics are utopian fantasy, nothing more.
I suspect the deeper issues Objectivists have with AE, is related to the fact that AE doesn't make normative claims. This is contrary to a philosophy where reality is defined by ethics. AE gives us a credible insight into human action that makes Objectivism irrelevant.
Initiate:In the field of ethics, value is only subjective if life and death are equal.
Are life and death not two possible alternatives that man must constantly choose between? There are thousands of people demonstrating their higher subjective value for death on a daily basis. No? Somebody forgot to tell them that they are out of spec.
Initiate:The Objectivist ethics of egoism doesn't really have anything to do with economic values and Objectivism does not dispute the subject-relative nature of economic values, they would just like to call it something else
Value is a manifestation of human action. Absent human action, the concept is meaningless. Rocks and plants don't value anything. So how can there be two distinct value systems with respect to human action. Such abstracts as law and order are meaningless absent human action, therefore, they cannot be based on a different value system. I have to agree with the assertion being made here that Objectivism must reject subjectivism completely. Any attempt to have two value systems is nonsensical.
Sure, I can try to elaborate, but I am finding it hard to keep up with all the posts, but I will try.
Objectivist ethics is a naturalist theory of rational ethics. This simply means that it holds that normative propositions can be discovered and validated by logic, and the source of proper moral norms rests in needs dictated by human nature and reality. Value depends on life, and what values the living entity should pursue depend on the reasons which give rise to its need for morality, which determines the purpose of morality, which in turn determines the standard of selection of values, which establishes an objective basis on which to judge good and evil. It's not really easily capsulatable in a forum post (I can only point you to Rand, e.g. The Virtue of Selfishness for background reading.), but this, in other words, means holding anything other than “man's life qua man” as the standard of value is a logical contradiction, because anything else would imply an infinite regress.
As to why subjective values have to be emotional: The basic alternative ethics is confronted with is the question of the standard of moral value. The alternative theories are to act in accordance with man's nature and reality by a process of reason, or to choose ends arbitrarily, meaning without rational basis or apart from or in contradiction to the facts of reality, meaning not according to such an objective standard of value, which means only by appeal to some internal state (subjectivism) or appeal to some transcendent reality (intrinsicism), which means some non-rational process is used, which means feelings, desires, emotions, blind obedience to the decrees of others, etc. end up being the deciding factor. In essence, a subjective standard of value in ethics inevitably holds that feelings are the basis of or creators of “good” or “evil.” On the objective theory, by contrast, holds that “good” and “evil” are determined by the nature of reality in relation to man, by the nature of a living being and its needs for survival and flourishing, and by what is beneficial or detrimental to its life and well-being.
In economics, by contrast, we are not concerned with normative propositions. We are looking on the state of affairs from a third-person point of view and simply describing what is valued by the subjects involved, each person valuing goods according to his own ends (which can be rational or irrational, in accordance with an objective standard of value, or not), thus we get economically subjective value.
My point is that it is folly to equate the subjective theory of value in Austrian economics with ethics and morality, and folly to justify anarchy (or any political philosophy) on the basis of all judgments of valuing being subjective, as this commits the fallacy of self-exclusion (as Rothbard pointed out, in regards to Mises' disbelief in a rational ethics.)
I am just making a point about this debate, that this thread started out about some differences between Austrian economists and their philosophies versus Rand and other Objectivist philosophers. Then Michael came in and started ranting away at the old anarchy debate, and now it has changed to Objectivism versus anarchy in general. I don't think the ad hominems and accusations aren't really conducive to getting to facts of the issue at hand.
The point I am trying to get across, in order to foster greater understanding between the two sides, is that the issue is not about the Austrian school of economics versus Objectivism. It is about libertarianism versus Objectivism and their differing approaches to political liberty. Namely, the issue of the ethical groundworking of libertarianism or the lack thereof, versus the question of whether or not the ethical groundworking of Objectivism is in harmony with or contradicts its own conclusion of an objectively limited government.