Political Theory

Re: The Market for Liberty

Morty — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:56:25 GMT

JAlanKatz:
While I understand that this book is a life-changer for a lot of people, I found the Objectivist methodology simply annoying and aggravating. How many times can you read "which means" or hear anyone who disagrees with the author dismissed as "anti-life" ,really?

That bit nearly lost me when I was listening to the audiobook. Calling anyone who disagrees on an issue which does not directly threaten lives "anti-life" is disingenuous hyperbole and takes away from real discussion. It is the sort of guilt by association which is just annoying ("well, you disagree with us on this issue, and so do COMMUNISTS! I GUESS YOU MUST BE A RED!").

I disagree with them on the issue of sacrifice, especially. Sacrifice, in the way it is presented in the book, is a contradiction of human action and cannot happen. They say sacrifice is when you somehow do something which is not in your subjective best interest. But how could you? The fact that you did it proves that you actually prefered it over other choices, third party objections notwithstanding. They even recognize psychic, intangible value yet still insist on this ludicrous definition of sacrifice.

Don't get me wrong. The book was very good and makes some important points regarding liberty. But these Randian morality rants can really turn someone off, even someone like me who is fully in favor of anarchism.

Re: The Market for Liberty

Bostwick — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:16:51 GMT

I'm half through the audio book.

I don't know much about objectivism, but I agree with your assessment that it was well presented. Of course, I'm not in the market for a philosophy, just a legal system.

One passage that struck me was painting corporatism as unfair to the government's business partners, because they bear the risk. Oh those poor Banksters.

I haven't gotten to that chapter yet but your thoughts on Fences and Ownership, Chapter 6, reminds me of a great Stephen Kinsella blog about labor, homesteading and ownership.

Re: The Market for Liberty

mike barskey — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:13:03 GMT

FYI: There is a free audiobook version of The Market For Liberty available here.

Re: The Market for Liberty

JAlanKatz — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:49:23 GMT

While I understand that this book is a life-changer for a lot of people, I found the Objectivist methodology simply annoying and aggravating. How many times can you read "which means" or hear anyone who disagrees with the author dismissed as "anti-life" ,really?

Re: The Market for Liberty

allixpeeke — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:55:35 GMT

I like that distinction. I hereby adopt it.

Re: The Market for Liberty

Brainpolice — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:06:06 GMT

allixpeeke:

There is nothing inappropriate about calling statelessness "anarchism." Anarchism literally means "no leaders."

What is wrong is associating the orderly system we call anarchism with "chaos," which is a product of coercion.

A slight correction: anarchism means "no rulers". I make a distinction between a leader and a ruler. A leader has voluntary followers, while a ruler monocentrically imposes their will from above. A leader can be directly chosen, while a ruler is not.

Re: The Market for Liberty

Dennis Lee Wilson — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:58:43 GMT

Brett_McS:
I don't disagree with the concept, just the choice of the word, for "anarchy" also mean "chaos" ("Political disorder and confusion" , "confusion; chaos; disorder"). It is unfortunate.

In reply, I quote from an article that I wrote ( http://tinyurl.com/s39w7 )

One of the erroneous preconceptions I had about anarchy was a common and popular association or “package deal” of anarchy with chaos, disorder and destruction, which put anarchy in conflict with my explicit moral code. When I recently read Butler Shaffer’s excellent article What is Anarchy? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html ), I encountered a proper definition and a study of the etymology of the word, and I realized that--like the words “atheist” and “selfish”—”anarchy” has been badly maligned. "Archos" is Greek/Latin for ruler, tyrant, or dictator. “Anarkhos“, "an-archos" or "Anarchy" means "without a ruler". Civic life experienced without a tyrant or dictator telling us what to do is hardly an undesirable state of affairs.

Anarchy is not chaos, in spite of what some dictionaries claim. (They are also guilty of confusing a Republic with a Democracy). As Michael T. Bradshaw said in Home of the Slave? (The Libertarian Enterprise #362) “…chaos is not anarchy. The two are polar opposites. To the extent that you have one, you have less of the other. Chaos is disorder; such as we see in governmental interference in the market economy, pogrom, genocide and wars between states. Anarchy is the absence of a king or political state. A free market, guided by the invisible hand of price feedback is the classic example of anarchy. Most, by far, human interaction is an-archic. Examples are families, friends and shopping—as none of these require governmental intervention. That is why anarchy is peaceful and orderly, with a rather smooth progression of increasing prosperity."

Even driving on the streets and highways can be considered anarchic. Traffic violations sometimes make sensational news, but the vast, overwhelming majority of driving activity is governed by (mostly) reasonable rules and completely unsupervised by rulers of any kind. Indeed, attempts to enforce unreasonable driving rules are often viewed with distain and disobedience. Shaffer’s article contains well-considered detail and examples regarding driving behaviors as does this entire article by Brad Edmonds titled Traffic Cops Are Traffic Hazards. ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds144.html --sorry about the link. I see that Edmonds has not restored his material yet. Makes a good case for keeping copies).

As Butler Shaffer points out: “If we dealt with our colleagues at work in the same coercive and threatening manner by which the state insists on dealing with us, our employment would be immediately terminated. We would soon be without friends were we to demand that they adhere to specific behavioral standards that we had mandated for their lives. Should you come over to our home for a visit, you will not be taxed, searched, required to show a passport or driver’s license, fined, jailed, threatened, handcuffed, or prohibited from leaving. I suspect that your relationships with your friends are conducted on the same basis of mutual respect. In short, virtually all of our dealings with friends and strangers alike are grounded in practices that are peaceful, voluntary, and devoid of coercion.”

Re: The Market for Liberty

Brett_McS — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:29:53 GMT

I don't disagree with the concept, just the choice of the word, for "anarchy" also mean "chaos" ("Political disorder and confusion" , "confusion; chaos; disorder"). It is unfortunate.

Re: The Market for Liberty

allixpeeke — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:42:56 GMT

There is nothing inappropriate about calling statelessness "anarchism." Anarchism literally means "no leaders."

What is wrong is associating the orderly system we call anarchism with "chaos," which is a product of coercion.

Re: The Market for Liberty

Brett_McS — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 05:21:28 GMT

Interesting phrase "anarchism as an orderly system". Whoever came up with the idea of calling anything not presided over by politicians "anarchy" was either an enemy of the free market (cf the origins of the word "capitalism"), or else completely ignorant. You haven't seen anarchy (chaos) until politicians start putting their finger in the pie.

The Market for Liberty

allixpeeke — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:49:03 GMT

I recently read The Market for Liberty, Linda & Morris Tannehill's 1970 anarcho-Objectivist manifesto.

I was struck by many passages. There were many ideas presented that I had not thought of previously, and this work really helped solidify my perspective of anarchism as an orderly system. As such, I made a variety of notes to myself as I read this to remind myself of various passages which I may wish to quote in the future.

At the same time, there were a variety of areas I considered flawed. It's amazing how consistent the Tannehills were able to make Objectivism be, but because of this reliance on Objectivism, I found some sections simply silly. I made a variety of notes on Post-it notes while reading this that could be read by anyone to whom I lend the book.

Here is a list of all the quotes I found interesting (in white) and the issues and disagreements I had with the book (in yellow).

How many of you have read this book? What did you think of it? Would you agree with me that parts of the book are wrong or just "out there"? What do you take of the notes I'd written to myself (see link)? Did I misunderstand or misread the authors? Am I right to have these disagreements? Where am I flawed? Are there any flaws in the book that I missed or glossed over? Did you find this book inspiring? Did it make you think? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.