Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Atlas Shrugged, et al.

[warpus]

I oppose the monopoly state.

What do you mean by that? You'd want multiple governments competing for your vote? How would that work?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Whether you are talking about governments or corporations the problem is the same.

When the US government 'does something' there is generally not one US citizen that will sit up and acknowledge that they are responsible for what just happened. So cops shoot citizens, taxes are collected and squandered or even spent to the direct detriment of the citizens, the US army runs amok on the far side of the planet, etc.

Meanwhile, when a corporation 'does something', there is generally not a single stockholder willing to sit up and acknowledge that they are responsible for what just happened. So 'companies' pollute the environment, abuse their employees, swindle their customers, etc.

Government or corporation, we have a system for diffusion of responsibility to the point where there basically is none.

 

[RFC_Viceroy]

What do you mean by that? You'd want multiple governments competing for your vote? How would that work?

Well, not exactly competing for your "vote." Here's a good article that explains it:

http://jim.com/anarchy/

Mind you, nothing here is set in stone, but that's the general and most likely idea of how governance would form without a monopoly-state.

 

[warpus]

Oh, anarchy. The only rule of law being the rule of the free market, it seems?

Amazing that you think something like that would lead to something that isn't horrible. I don't quite understand how you can justify any of your arguments. Why do you worship the free market? Maybe that's a good place to start.

 

[RFC_Viceroy]

Oh, anarchy. The only rule of law being the rule of the free market, it seems?

Did you actually read the article?

Amazing that you think something like that would lead to something that isn't horrible. I don't quite understand how you can justify any of your arguments. Why do you worship the free market? Maybe that's a good place to start.

The question's premise is flawed. Perhaps atheist libertarians worship the market, but I am a Christian. I could just as easily turn this question back at you. "Why do you worship the State?" Would that be fair? Perhaps not, but its no more unfair than what you are doing to me.

What you are actually asking me is why I think anarcho-capitalism would lead to non-horiffic conclusions. But what you are implying is that I think the free market is absolutely perfect (that would seem to me to be a bare minimum for something to be worthy of "worship.") I do not think a totally free market will lead to a perfect, crime free sociey. I do think a totally free market society will lead to a better society than can be had otherwise.

Note that "the free market" is not limited to capitalism. Any voluntary organizations can compete on the market so long as they do not use coercion against peaceful people.

With that said:

I believe in temporal self-ownership (There are many ways you can justify this, I prefer the explanation that the right is given by God, but there are other ways people use as well.)


I believe that the right to own said property stems from said ownership, we own the fruits of our labor.

To take such things by force (through taxation or otherwise) is theft, thus inherently immoral. Since all monopoly-states violate this rule, they are illegitimate.

Furthermore, per self-ownership, laws that are incompatible with the NAP are illegitimate.

I believe that a society that recognizes the importance of non-aggression and private property will provide better results than one based on coercion, even if some people (criminals) use coercion some portion of the time.

 

[Old Hippy]

Well, not exactly competing for your "vote." Here's a good article that explains it:

http://jim.com/anarchy/

Mind you, nothing here is set in stone, but that's the general and most likely idea of how governance would form without a monopoly-state.

just reading that article and I can not help thinking of Ale Capone, sign up with a contracted protection agency, before a dispute arises...

the dispute might be that you do not want to sign up...

 

[RFC_Viceroy]

just reading that article and I can not help thinking of Ale Capone, sign up with a contracted protection agency, before adispute arises...

the dispute might be that you do not want to sign up...

I'm not exactly sure how to answer this, but I will say, this is at least a substantive objection. "Why do you worship the free market" is not.

My hope would be that there would be enough competing agencies that no one agency could function as a criminal entity in that regard without being checked by others. I suspect that without licensing and regulation that there would be enough competition to prevent a coercive entity from growing exceptionally powerful. That said, a certain degree of virtue on the part of the populace is going to be necessary as well. It doesn't mean that people have to be perfect. It does mean that most people will at least have to have enough of a conscience so as to be able to resist the urge to violently restrict the rights of others. I'll grant that its not possible to guarantee this. But I'll also say that I think a people who cannot do this will create a government that reflects their own coercive spirit. That's why the US Government is as big and controlling as it is now, despite the fact that the Constitution lays out a relatively limited government. And as people derive more or less of a desire to coerce each other, the government they create reflects them. At least in anarcho-capitalism you don't have an established coercive authority to manipulate, you have to make one, and there won't be any intrinsic legitimacy to it that everyone will just accept.

 

[Tarquelne]

So what's going on with libertarians?

I don't know about "libertarians" in general. But if you mean those who seem terribly naive, hopelessly idealistic, and completely misanthropic by turns, then when confronted scornfully tell you to go read Mises, I think the problem is "."

That's right, the period.
Lots of people don't like thinking. And they don't like being uncertain. And, certainly, they don't like being wrong. But they'll accept that as an abstract risk if they can feel they're smarter than everyone else.*

The key to resolving all of those desires is a keen interest in the period. You develop a mental framework that allows you to do as little thinking as possible, clear up uncertainties, and make you feel smart ... then apply the . When it kicks in you must stop thinking. Quote Libertarianism unquote is very good for this. Just mind mind your periods.

Example:
"Abolishing taxes is the answer."
No uncertainties, and you're clearly smarter than the sheeple who think there should be at least some taxes. Now stop thinking. If you feel doubts stirring, go read some self-affirming literature. Or, perhaps, participate in a forum dominated by fellow CILs. Each activity gives the illusion of thought without the substance.

Religion is famous for its ample supply of periods. But it offers moral superiority rather than intellectual.

Just about any party affiliation can do. They offer sort of a mix between moral and intellectual superiority. But, frankly, in each area they're so weak that you really need to be a master of denial for party affiliation to work.

Ideological fixation - in America that's often "progressive" or "conservative" - is a very nice halfway point between party affiliation and religion. It's also the category in which I'd place the Common Internet Libertarian.


*People who think they know everything are extremely annoying to those of us who do.

 

[Old Hippy]

My hope would be that there would be enough competing agencies that no one agency could function as a criminal entity in that regard without being checked by others. I suspect that without licensing and regulation that there would be enough competition to prevent a coercive entity from growing exceptionally powerful. .

I have a warm feeling for anarchism in general... but why do I now think of Valintines day...

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

My biggest problem with Ayn Rand and Objectivism is its hostility towards religion. It teaches that selfishness is good and that people should live their lives with the goal of their own happiness. I don't care for it much and I'm a Libertarian.

 

[RFC_Viceroy]

I have a warm feeling for anarchism in general... but why do I now think of Valintines day...

I'm not sure. What's the argument here?

My biggest problem with Ayn Rand and Objectivism is its hostility towards religion. It teaches that selfishness is good and that people should live their lives with the goal of their own happiness. I don't care for it much and I'm a Libertarian.

Yes, I agree with you on Rand. I've never liked her. I've even referred to Objectivists as "cultists" at times. I have nothing in common with her ideologically, other than the circumstantial support of "small government".

I love the Ron Paul quote in your sig... that's the essence of what libertarian anarcho-capitalism is for me (and yes, I know Ron isn't an ancap but he pretty much holds to ancap principles.)

 

[Old Hippy]

I'm not sure. What's the argument here?

not an argument, just an observation on ''I suspect that without licensing and regulation that there would be enough competition to prevent a coercive entity from growing exceptionally powerful''
the valentines day massacre was the free market contracted dispute resolution equivalent of what your posted article suggested to me, with the pre purchase of and contracted justice service and protection 'insurance'

So, provided that most affluent and respectable people with something to protect sign up in advance of any dispute, each of the agencies involved has an interest in ensuring that justice is done, and wants to be able persuade the other agency, its other clients, and potential customers, that justice was done – the agencies want justice to be done, and want justice to be seen to be done.

see the free market is not really concerned about justice but very concerned about the right people signing up in advance which would be the driver of this business model... it been done many times before.

licensing and regulation is how we deal with it

 

[Ajidica]

that's the essence of what libertarian anarcho-capitalism is for me

So libertarian anarcho-capitalism is a resurrected Dixiecrat getting subsidies for shrimp fishers?
I'll stick with Social Democracy, thank you very much.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Yes, I agree with you on Rand. I've never liked her. I've even referred to Objectivists as "cultists" at times. I have nothing in common with her ideologically, other than the circumstantial support of "small government".

I love the Ron Paul quote in your sig... that's the essence of what libertarian anarcho-capitalism is for me (and yes, I know Ron isn't an ancap but he pretty much holds to ancap principles.)

It's one of my favorite quotes of his. I'm not an Ancap, but I certainly can sympathize with them.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

A big problem with Rand was that she chose to use highly idiosyncratic definitions with little to no connection to how those words are used in the vernacular. This allowed her to reasonably derive and defend principals which are almost trivially true and obvious, but make them sound controversial and horrible. Her followers, and sometimes she herself, did not always do a good job of keeping their definitions straight and so may at times act like the jerks that they sound like.

Her definition of "altruism" may actually be close to what Auguste Comte meant when he coined the term (or its French equivalent which was soon Anglicized), but is far from what most people mean today. I'm not sure anyone has ever really advocated what she would call "sacrifice," which anyone else would just call waste. What most people call sacrifice is not giving up the greater value for the lesser value, but giving up a lesser value in the hopes of gaining something considered far more valuable.

Also like so many on the economic right, she failed to take into account how the justifications for a free market in property produced by human labor really do not work well for property in scarce natural resources. Her line of reasoning ought to lead to Georgist conclusions, but she was biased by a huge antipathy engendered by the USSR's land confiscation policies and was not willing to consider the saner policies of George or Tolstoy. (Galt's Gultch could be considered a Georgist Monarchy or Heathian Anarchy, but she never knowingly advocated anything close to those systems.)

She also bought into a rather racist stereotypes of Native Americans based on old cowboy movies from Hollywood, rather than trying to learn anything about how they really lived before displaced by European diseases and colonists.

 

[El_Machinae]

So what's going on with libertarians? Do they just not know how the world works? Are they misguided for other reasons?

. It's more of a moral stance than a viable economic system, though some libertarians like to think it's a viable economic system. That it would outperform modern systems economically is a bit of a stretch given how many market failures it cannot handle plus the government's history of investment in gamechanging technologies (nuclear, Internet, satellite, etc.). It's more of a moral stance " you should not be able to to Force me to pay for stuff I don wanna pay for". In many ways, it's reasonable. It's just not viable

 

[Berzerker]

My hope would be that there would be enough competing agencies that no one agency could function as a criminal entity

why would a free market allow criminal entities to operate?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

why would a free market allow criminal entities to operate?

Because they are profitable?

 

[Berzerker]

so is murdering people for their $$$, thats still a crime and is not freedom

 

[Timsup2nothin]

so is murdering people for their $$$, thats still a crime and is not freedom

Agreed, but the 'free market' has no mechanism to prevent that either. Some form of collective law enforcement, almost certainly based on the principle of greater violence, is a necessary adjunct to the 'free market'.