Activity

> The anarchists do not object to retaliatory force, only to it being wielded by a government. Why? Because, they say, it excludes "competitors." It sure does: it excludes vigilantes, lynch mobs, terrorists, and anyone else wanting to use force *subjectively*.

Competing arbitration agencies would develop *objective* (ie, non-arbitrary) laws and rules for coordination. And, just like governments,governments (should), they would defend their customers against anyone who wants to use force subjectively. That’s their value proposition; their income relies on it.

See #3.#3.↵
↵
Rand *herself* proposes a yardstick by which to determine whether one country has a right to invade another:↵
↵
> % source: Ayn Rand. *The Virtue of Selfishness.* ‘Collectivized Rights.’↵
> Since there is no fully free country today, since the so-called “Free World” consists of various “mixed economies,” it might be asked whether every country on earth is morally open to invasion by every other. The answer is: No. There is a difference between a country that recognizes the principle of individual rights, but does not implement it fully in practice, and a country that denies and flouts it explicitly. All “mixed economies” are in a precarious state of transition which, ultimately, has to turn to freedom or collapse into dictatorship. There are four characteristics which brand  a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.↵
↵
In other words, Rand recognizes that across nations – meaning *across* jurisdictions, ie having no shared jurisdiction or government – there are objective standards to determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. If Rand can do identify such standards without a shared government, why could not others do this, too?