Search ideas

Superseded by #926. This comment was generated automatically.

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 (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.

Rand herself proposes a yardstick by which to determine whether one country has a right to invade another:

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 – ie having no shared jurisdiction or government – there are still objective standards to determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. If Rand can identify such standards without sharing a government with those countries, why could not others do this, too?

The working principle here is supremacy of reason, not the supremacy of government. See also #920, where I explain that certain rules of engagement exist a priori and need not be devised by humans before engaging.

Superseded by #924. This comment was generated automatically.

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 (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.

Rand herself proposes a yardstick by which to determine whether one country has a right to invade another:

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?

Superseded by #922. This comment was generated automatically.

Force properly employed is used only in retaliation, but even when retaliatory, force merely eliminates a negative, it cannot create value.

That isn’t true.

People want protection and justice. Retaliatory force does not merely eliminate a negative. Restoring and producing justice is a value, as is the peace of mind from knowing you have working defenses and someone who will seek justice on your behalf.

Retaliating against one burglar can scare off ten others. The value that’s created here far exceeds the negative which the burglar (might have) created.

Superseded by #920. This comment was generated automatically.

Economic competition presupposes a free market. A free market cannot exist until after force has been barred. That means objective law, backed up by a government. To say it can be backed up by "competing" force-wielders is circular. There is no competition until there is a free market, and some agency has to protect its condition as a free market by the use of retaliatory force.

The anarchist idea of putting law on "the market" cannot be applied even to a baseball game. It would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it.

Once again, supranational treaties refute this point. Germany and the US have no shared government or jurisdiction. (They each have separate governments, but together they have no common government above them.) Yet they have come up with rules of trade and justice and extradition and so on. Those are objective and evidently work really well since war between these two nations is unthinkable.

I think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians logically rely on a concept they reject. Clearly, as international relations have shown time and again, that is not the case. There are certain mechanisms such as, again, the discipline of constant dealings, which exist independently of any particular association between people. When someone reneges on his word, he diminishes his ability to do business in the future. That’s inherent in the logic of the situation, without any definition or creation by people. It is not necessary for people to create rules of engagement before engaging. It’s helpful, sure, but certain rules of engagement exist a priori.

See also #16 and my application of Karl Popper’s myth of the framework to this issue: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/objectivism-vs-the-myth-of-the-framework

Superseded by #918. This comment was generated automatically.

The wielding of force is not a business function. In fact, force is outside the realm of economics. Economics concerns production and trade, not destruction and seizure.

It cannot be. This is an attempt to step outside of nature rather than obey it, even though objectivists normally advocate obeying it.

The police force, prosecutors, judges, etc need resources and payment. Those resources don’t grow in nature. Scarcity and the economic-calculation problem apply.

Any attempt to ignore or evade this reality leads to police forces and justice systems that are, all else being equal, worse than they would be in a free market because they don’t correct errors as well as they otherwise would.

See #267.

Superseded by #916. This comment was generated automatically.

Force properly employed is used only in retaliation, but even when retaliatory, force merely eliminates a negative, it cannot create value.

That isn’t true.

People want protection and justice. Retaliatory force does not merely eliminate a negative. Restoring and producing justice is a value.

Retaliating against one burglar can scare off ten others. The value that’s created here far exceeds the negative which the burglar (might have) created.

Superseded by #914. This comment was generated automatically.

Economic competition presupposes a free market. A free market cannot exist until after force has been barred. That means objective law, backed up by a government. To say it can be backed up by "competing" force-wielders is circular. There is no competition until there is a free market, and some agency has to protect its condition as a free market by the use of retaliatory force.

The anarchist idea of putting law on "the market" cannot be applied even to a baseball game. It would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it.

Once again, supranational treaties refute this point. Germany and the US have no shared government or jurisdiction. (They each have separate governments, but together they have no common government above them.) Yet they have come up with rules of trade and justice and extradition and so on. Those are objective and evidently work really well since war between these two nations is unthinkable.

I think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians logically rely on a concept they reject. Clearly, as international relations have shown time and again, that is not the case. There are certain mechanisms such as, again, the discipline of constant dealings, which exist independently of any particular association between people. When someone reneges on his word, he diminishes his ability to do business in the future. That’s inherent in the logic of the situation, without any definition or creation by people. It is not necessary for people to create rules of engagement before engaging. It’s helpful, sure, but certain rules of engagement exist a priori.

Superseded by #912. This comment was generated automatically.

Economic competition presupposes a free market. A free market cannot exist until after force has been barred. That means objective law, backed up by a government. To say it can be backed up by "competing" force-wielders is circular. There is no competition until there is a free market, and some agency has to protect its condition as a free market by the use of retaliatory force.

The anarchist idea of putting law on "the market" cannot be applied even to a baseball game. It would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it.

Once again, supranational treaties refute this point. Germany and the US have no shared government or jurisdiction. (They each have separate governments, but together they have no common government above them.) Yet they have come up with rules of trade and justice and extradition and so on. Those are objective and evidently work really well since war between these two nations is unthinkable.

I think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians logically rely on a concept on which they reject. Clearly, as international relations have shown time and again, that is not the case. There are certain mechanisms such as, again, the discipline of constant dealings, which exist independently of any particular association between people. When someone reneges on his word, he diminishes his ability to do business in the future. That’s inherent in the logic of the situation, without any definition or creation by people. It is not necessary for people to create rules of engagement before engaging. It’s helpful, sure, but certain rules of engagement exist a priori.

Economic competition presupposes a free market. A free market cannot exist until after force has been barred. That means objective law, backed up by a government. To say it can be backed up by "competing" force-wielders is circular. There is no competition until there is a free market, and some agency has to protect its condition as a free market by the use of retaliatory force.

The anarchist idea of putting law on "the market" cannot be applied even to a baseball game. It would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it.

Once again, supranational treaties refute this point. Germany and the US have no shared government or jurisdiction. (They each have separate governments, but together they have no common government above them.) Yet they have come up with rules of trade and justice and extradition and so on. Those are objective and evidently work really well since war between these two nations is unthinkable.

I think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians rely on a concept on which they logically depend. Clearly, as international relations show time and again, that is not the case.

[T]here is no conflict between individual rights and outlawing private force: there is no right to the arbitrary use of force. No political or moral principle could require the police to stand by helplessly while others use force arbitrarily--i.e., according to whatever private notions of justice they happen to hold.

What a horrible straw man. No libertarian advocates this view.

Libertarians agree that laws should be objective, ie non-arbitrary. They have that in common with objectivists. Libertarians disagree that a monopoly is required to make laws objective. They think that a monopoly makes laws less objective.

Anyone who tried to make ‘laws’ based on whim which, say, allow him to rob his neighbor, would be immediately greeted by the machine guns of that neighbor’s private protection service and their objective rules for engagement.

But if anyone could make his own laws based on whim, that would be arbitrary, no?

Superseded by #906. This comment was generated automatically.

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, 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.

She looked at me grimly and said, "You mean like at the U.N.?"

Consider, instead, NATO – the ‘North Atlantic Treaty Organization’ – another supranational collaboration. It has been stable for decades and war amongst its members would be unthinkable.

Why does Rand choose a bad example that conveniently supports her case while ignoring a good one that doesn’t?

The part “enforced by whom?” is telling. There isn’t just ‘who’ but also ‘what’. For example, David Friedman refers to the discipline of constant dealings as an enforcement mechanism.

Could conflict among "competing governments" be taken care of by treaties? Treaties?--enforced by whom? I once asked Ayn Rand about the feasibility of such treaties between sovereign "competing governments." She looked at me grimly and said, "You mean like at the U.N.?"