Konkin: We’re All Marxists Now
I did a crash course in agorism for a panel at PorcFest. Specifically, I read the New Libertarian Manifesto. (Thanks to the reader who pointed me to it.) I liked a lot of it, especially the fact that Konkin dedicated it gave special acknowledgements to Mises, Rothbard, and LeFevre. (This shocked me; I had no idea he was so hip-deep into a “right-winger” like Mises.)
However, I have two major complaints:
(1) Typos. The book is littered with them. And this was the second edition. Did Konkin not want to make an editor his wage-slave?
(2) The suspiciously Marxist-sounding recommendations for how we will achieve the new libertopia:
Each step from statism to agorism requires a different strategy; tactics will differ even within each step. There are some rules which will apply in all stages.
Under all circumstances, one recruits and educates. Given typically confused individual acquaintances who consider a counter-economic act, encourage them to do it. If they are intelligent enough and not likely to turn on you, explain risks involved and return expected. Most of all, educate them by your example to the extent you can let them know.
All “Library Libertarians” you know, those who profess some theoretical variant of libertarianism but eschew practice, should be encouraged to practice what they preach. Scorn their inaction, praise their first halting steps towards counter- economics. Interact with them more and more as trust grows with their competence and experience.
Those already in counter-economics whom you meet can be “let in on” the libertarian philosophy that you hold, that mysterious belief you hold which keeps you so happy and free of guilt. Drop it nonchalantly if they feign lack of interest: wax enthusiastic as they grow more curious and eager to learn.
Self agorism by example and argument. Control and program your emotional reactions to exhibit hostility at statism and deviationism, and to exhibit enthusiasm and joy at agorist acts and the State’s setbacks. Most of these tactics will come with routine but you can check yourself to polish a few things.
Finally, co-ordinate your activities with other New Libertarian activists. At this point, we arrive at the need for group tactics and organization.
Sorry, fans of Konkin, but that part I put in bold gives me the creeps.
Can anyone explain to me what is meant by “counter-economic act”? What is that, theft and vandalism or just doing something for yourself (like mowing your lawn instead of hiring the neighbor kid)?
That would, IIUIC, include anything that goes outside the official list of state-endorsed, state controlled, state-monitored economic activity. Hiding transactions. Using non-cartel, non-subsidized options to get your food and other essentials. Engaging in activity the state restricts to a monopoly. Becoming independent of state-compliant goods providers. Use alternative currencies (yes, like bitcoin).
Control and program your emotional reactions to exhibit hostility at statism and deviationism, and to exhibit enthusiasm and joy at agorist acts and the State’s setbacks. Most of these tactics will come with routine but you can check yourself to polish a few things.
Sorry, fans of Konkin, but that part I put in bold gives me the creeps.
– – – –
Yes, it does sound a little cultish, but not necessarily Marxist.
Sufficiently Marxist.
I don’t know who this Konkin character is, but it is looking like he is simply suggesting things that work.
I think Austrian economists are so bound up in logic that they forget 90% of people are totally illogical. They base their decisions on emotions rather than logic, which is why violent insane communist regimes are able to come to power in the first place.
I think he would have been better off saying something like “we must demonstrate hostility toward illogical behavior and deviation from logical thinking.” – which is what I think he meant by that statement.
I think Austrian economists are so bound up in logic that they forget 90% of people are totally illogical. They base their decisions on emotions rather than logic, which is why violent insane communist regimes are able to come to power in the first place.
We are all using logic, just making mistakes from time to time. Those who support communist regimes believe communism can achieve what they desire. This is a rational action. They are thinking logically, they’re just making errors.
This is a rational action. They are thinking logically, they’re just making errors. “This is a rational action. They are thinking logically, they’re just making errors.”
Simply having “desires” does not make one rational, nor does thinking or acting logically about how best to satisfy it. An irrational desire is irrational because it contradicts or conflicts with a rational objective standard.
Those who think no rational or objective standards exist should check their premises. Objectivity in the realm of human cognition, and consequently of all human action, comes from reference to the facts of reality and a standard by which one can measure such actions follows accordingly.
Holy paging Ayn Rand, Batman.
If two people, Person A and Person B, value an apple differently, neither is in a position to say that the other person’s values are irrational or rational.
If I don’t like to eat apples, because I derive happiness in my life, which is the ultimate standard of all value, by eating oranges instead of apples, if oranges make me happy in accordance with my standard of holding my life and my happiness as the top value, then you cannot say that my actions are irrational. The facts of reality are that oranges promote my life, happiness and well-being, and apples detract from my life, happiness, and well-being. I am a factual person whose happiness is derived through eating oranges instead of apples.
Value, in this sense, is subjective, not objective. Each individual must come to learn what gives him or her happiness in accordance with their life as top value.
If you want to check someone’s premises, check Ayn Rands’ premises. Ayn Rand held that it is wrong to initiate physical force against others. When asked to square that with her belief in the necessity of government, she answered that government will be financed voluntarily. But she also said that anarchy is irrational.
She thus, apparently, did not check her premises.
The principle of non-aggression, and voluntary government, two of Rand’s stated positions, logically, and inevitably, leads to anarchy. This is because each individual, due to them being free from violent coercion, would be free to abstain from or seek the security and protection services of, anyone they wanted, and they would not be forced to pay or hire the same person or group of people as everyone else, which would be required in a statist society that Rand advocated.
If both you and I are free to abstain from, or agree to, hiring any given individual as a government agent, then in a society of individuals, singular government would be impossible, and thus anarchy would be inevitable, which is directly counter to Rand’s claim that anarchy is “irrational.”
So Rand’s conclusion that anarchy is irrational is a result of her not checking her premise of non-aggression. This premise leads to anarchy, not territorial monopoly government.
“Value, in this sense, is subjective, not objective. Each individual must come to learn what gives him or her happiness in accordance with their life as top value”
No, “value” in that sense would be objective. “Personal” does not equal non-objective. Each individual who uses their own life as their top value in order to estimate which choices benefit their life is using an objective standard. That does not automatically elevate every whim or desire a person happens to have into an objective absolute. Nor does it banish every rational value into the realm of subjectivism as you seem to believe.
There are values that are common to all men as men (e.g. freedom) and there are values that are unique to each individual as individuals (e.g. apples) and both of them are equally objective because the effect to one’s life was the standard used to establish it as desirable.
Correspondence to reality is the standard of objectivity, not the fact that people have different desires. It is a fact that people are different in uncountable ways, but it is also a fact that they are the same in very particular, essential ways, and it is only from those essential characteristics which correspond to all men (not their uncommon and unessential characteristics e.g. apples) that any common, objective, standard of value can be derived.
“The principle of non-aggression, and voluntary government, two of Rand’s stated positions, logically, and inevitably, leads to anarchy”
You have miscalculated here. Non-aggression, in Ayn Rands’ view, is a principle that is derived from a person’s right to act on one’s own judgment, which is derived from a person’s right to his own life, which is derived from the immediately perceivable fact that life is an ultimate end in itself, which is an objective metaphysical fact.
What this means is that any political institution created to implement and apply such principles is an institution dedicated to a rationally objective goal. Those who choose to form such a union have a natural right to do so because it is rights as such that they are coming together to protect.
So then what would it mean to “compete” with such a group? Certainly one could choose to abstain from joining, more power to them. But no one could rationally, logically, objectively, choose to compete for what, exactly, are they competing against? The protection of ones rights? The right to act on one’s own judgment? If that judgment were considered as necessarily subjective, as you do, then it would make sense that you would like to “compete” since it is not objectivity or rationality that you would want but only the “freedom” to pursue whatever subjective desire you happen to want, right or wrong, rational or irrational and at the end of the day a mob who is “competing” for the satisfaction of every whimsical desire is not a society at all.
That is why anarchy is irrational, and it is why no one can legitimately “compete” with a government with a monopoly on the use of force dedicated to the protection of individual rights.
No, “value” in that sense would be objective. “Personal” does not equal non-objective. Each individual who uses their own life as their top value in order to estimate which choices benefit their life is using an objective standard. That does not automatically elevate every whim or desire a person happens to have into an objective absolute. Nor does it banish every rational value into the realm of subjectivism as you seem to believe.
You’re missing the point.
If one’s life and happiness is an objective standard, then you and I and everyone else cannot replace a given individual’s values with our own, even if we believe their values are “whimsical.”
ALL action is necessarily aimed at ends which the actor holds will improve their situation, or else they would not act. There is no artificial divorcing of “rational” action with “irrational” action, or “whimsical” action with “objective-based” action.
Person A’s actions that you do not approve of, or consider to be “whimsical” or “non-objective standard” influenced, is aimed at improving their own life according to what they think. All action is therefore rational.
There are values that are common to all men as men (e.g. freedom) and there are values that are unique to each individual as individuals (e.g. apples) and both of them are equally objective because the effect to one’s life was the standard used to establish it as desirable.
That’s true for all ends sought after by the individual if he is free from violence. The man who finds happiness in gambling with his money, and the man who finds happiness in buying a television, and the man who burns his money, are all acting rationally, all acting in accordance with their life as the standard of value.
Correspondence to reality is the standard of objectivity, not the fact that people have different desires. It is a fact that people are different in uncountable ways, but it is also a fact that they are the same in very particular, essential ways, and it is only from those essential characteristics which correspond to all men (not their uncommon and unessential characteristics e.g. apples) that any common, objective, standard of value can be derived.
Correspondence with reality INCLUDES the reality of their own happiness derived from doing what they want without being coerced. Humans are a part of reality. If an individual human derives happiness from doing an action that you or I or Peikoff would consider to be “whimsical” or “not in accordance with reality”, we would be importing our own value judgments on them, when we have no place to do that. The individual is the ultimate arbiter of what makes them happy and what makes them unhappy. If acting “whimsically” makes them happy, then that IS rational action, in accordance with reality, the reality of their own bodies and what gives them happiness.
You have miscalculated here. Non-aggression, in Ayn Rands’ view, is a principle that is derived from a person’s right to act on one’s own judgment, which is derived from a person’s right to his own life, which is derived from the immediately perceivable fact that life is an ultimate end in itself, which is an objective metaphysical fact.
What this means is that any political institution created to implement and apply such principles is an institution dedicated to a rationally objective goal. Those who choose to form such a union have a natural right to do so because it is rights as such that they are coming together to protect.
So then what would it mean to “compete” with such a group? Certainly one could choose to abstain from joining, more power to them.
That means there can be no territorial monopoly of security and protection of individual rights, and hence no government, and hence there will be anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of a territorial monopoly state.
But no one could rationally, logically, objectively, choose to compete for what, exactly, are they competing against?
Incorrect. One who abstains from soliciting security and protection services from a given group of people claiming to be security and protection providers, could in fact rationally, logically, objectively choose to “compete” with that given group by either soliciting money from those who would like to have security and protection services who happen to live in the same area as the given group of security and protection providers that they are abstaining from soliciting, and hence I myself become a voluntarily financed, security and protection provider, or one could solicit the security and protection services from someone else other than the given group that is being abstained from by people who do not value their service quality.
If the non-aggression principle is consistently followed, then any given group of people offering security and protection services could not themselves initiate violence against anyone else over a given territory of private property demanding that they accept only their protection offer, and not the protection offers from others.
As this occurs, there will be no territorial monopolist of security and protection, and therefore there is no state, and thus there will be anarchy.
The protection of ones rights? The right to act on one’s own judgment? If that judgment were considered as necessarily subjective, as you do, then it would make sense that you would like to “compete” since it is not objectivity or rationality that you would want but only the “freedom” to pursue whatever subjective desire you happen to want, right or wrong, rational or irrational and at the end of the day a mob who is “competing” for the satisfaction of every whimsical desire is not a society at all.
Not at all. It is a defense against the alleged “rational” monopolist of protection and security claiming that if people do not accept their offer, then they are necessarily irrational and should be initiated with violent threats so that they pay the monopolist and not someone else.
I do not hold, and did not claim, that the right to act on one’s own judgment is subjective. That right is objective. As such, the individual who chooses to abstain from paying and hiring a particular group of security and protection providers, and instead chooses to pay and hire another group instead, would imply that for any given area of people, to the extent that the individuals within that area hold that their life and well-being are maximized through soliciting security and protection services from DIFFERENT providers, for example if a particular neighborhood of individual home owners have hired more than one security and protection provider, then in that neighborhood’s geographical territory, there is no monopolist on security and protection, and hence there is anarchy.
That is why anarchy is irrational, and it is why no one can legitimately “compete” with a government with a monopoly on the use of force dedicated to the protection of individual rights.
Non sequitur. You need to check your premises.
If a government is perfectly rational, and does not initiate threats against anyone, then individuals not in that government should be free to abstain from soliciting its services. If they are peaceful, and they solicit security and protection voluntarily from OTHER security and protection providers, who themselves do not initiate violence against anyone, they only use violence to protect their clients from initiations of violence from others, then that is consistent with the non-aggression principle, and that logically implies anarchy, not government.
A group of people could not hold a monopoly on violence if they do not initiate threats of violence against others to ensure that they seek their protection and nobody else’s protection.
If a given group of people calling themselves government is perfectly rational and voluntary, and do not initiate violence against others, then that logically implies that to the extent that individuals seek protection from different voluntary security providers, and not just the one in question, there can be no monopoly on protection, and there can be no government, and there can only be anarchy.
If I hold that group A is the best security and protection provider for me, and you think group B is the best security and protection provider for you, then there can be no single monopoly of violence between you and I. There will be at least two. If I conclude based on reality that your security and protection provider is bad, but you conclude they are good, and I conclude that my security provider is good, but you conclude they are bad, and you continue to always hold that the individual has the right to choose for himself, and not be initiated with violence, then there can be no monopoly of violence. There will be anarchy.
Non-aggression leads to anarchy, not monopoly. The reason why freedom of competing in shoe and PC production results in more than one shoe and PC company, is precisely because individuals have objectively different desires for what makes them happy using their individual lives as an objective standard. It’s why you can like apples and I can like oranges.
If I like group A as security and protection providers, and you like group B, then just like you cannot claim that it is “irrational” for me to like oranges instead of apples, and I cannot claim that it is “irrational” for you to like apples and not oranges, then so too can you not claim that I like group A as security and protection providers, whereas you and others value groups B, C, D, etc as security protection providers.
As long as non-aggression is followed, there will be more than one provider of security and protection, and thus there will be anarchy.
I believe that aggression is wrong.
However, I also believe that allowing someone else to profit from their aggression is also wrong. The point being that when an environment exists that some people can profit from aggression, then inevitably someone will take advantage and exploit that. Thus, if you want to live in a world without aggression, you must do two things: [1] not initiate aggression yourself, [2] support the defense of others against aggressors.
Now, [1] is relatively easy, but [2] can be downright difficult. No one promised this path was a walk in the park.
Consider for example the Iraq war. They first tried to frame it as a defensive act whereby the USA was defending itself against the infamous weapons of mass destruction. Then when that became an obvious deception, the framing shifted to being a defensive act protecting the Iraqi people from their dictatorial government — a legitimate persuit IMHO but no doubt something that could have been done better by other means.
Getting on with the story, we have clear historic evidence that central governments are highly effective at coordinating warfare and driving their people to fight. Libertarian theory needs to take this onboard.
I don’t know who this Konkin character is, but it is looking lik he is simply …
Yes, there’s a lot of room for ways to limit the state’s power while also making yourslef better off. Indeed, that’s Bob’s pitch for whole life insurance banking. (Though I’m a bit sketchy how holding life insurance that invests in low interest, fixed income, state entangled enterprises accomplishes that, but whatever.)
It’s also my pitch for Bitcoin.
Konkin is the guy who ran Treadstone. Apparently he is still running it. I thought he had been taken out in Paris for failing to bring in Jason Bourne when he got too emotional.
This Konkin has VERY HIGH expectations. I have very low expectations.
Just getting Kelly Pickler and the style section newspaper and local TV news girls to understand money dilution and the joys of kid-proof/liberal-proof/redneck-proof private neighborhoods is all we might ever expect so they can then go back to watching “The Bachelor”.
Our message should be: “No, you don’t have to think or change at all. Under our program, everything will be the same except you and your family will be richer and safer.”
“Those already in counter-economics whom you meet can be “let in on” the libertarian philosophy that you hold, that mysterious belief you hold which keeps you so happy and free of guilt.”
This is a Kantian chicken coming home to roost. The Austrian subjective value theory is corrupted by a flawed Kantian epistemological base. If all of human action is based on subjective choices then the knowledge of cause and effect, necessary for selection of alternative actions, must either be a mystically revealed absolute or itself a result of ones allegedly subjective choices in the realm of cognition, which negates the possibility of any logical or rational argument in favor of its adoption. One simply must have “faith” that libertarian intellectual leaders have some special non-perceptual powers that others lack or accept the subjective ideas regardless of their truth or false status. Either way it relegates the entire theory to nothing more than dogma and results in the kind of sly, conspiratorial types of nonsense in this post.
If these libertarians believed in their own ideas and knew them to represent truth and not just their own subjective ramblings then what do they have to hide? Why should “those already in counter economics” be “let in on” these “mysterious beliefs” while others must be kept ignorant. How is the communication of an allegedly honest and truthful (i.e. objective) ideal counter to its general acceptance? If it is really “the truth”, then there is nothing mysterious about it. Moreover, if people are rational and objectivity is possible to men then the “truth” is not their enemy. Clearly these people do not honestly believe in their own ideas for if they did they would not attempt to “trick” people into becoming “honest men” to live in their dystopian world.
It’s clear that these people have truly accepted the subjective value theory and have taken it to its logical extreme and that truth speaks for itself.
RS, well, just to explain what he’s saying there (maybe you already know): Konkin is talking about, say, evangelizing to a drug dealer. So the drug dealer might be doing what he does and deep down think “my mamma told me this is wrong,” but he does it because the money is so good. Konkin is saying that when you encounter people like that, gently test to see whether they want to hear you explain why it’s actually heroic that you are violating drug laws, etc. But if it turns out the drug dealer is a statist and just a hypocrite, don’t tell him your worldview and make yourself a target.
bob, it is much more nefarious than you are projecting, especially in the context of the first paragraph. In talking about recruiting and educating he is explicitly urging people who “believe” that they should encourage other people to take illegal actions with potential risky (i.e. dangerous) outcomes and they should only “explain” the risks/rewards to those who either do not disagree (e.g. “turn on you”) with their agenda or don’t want to be used as a cat’s paw in their revolution. clearly he is talking about USING people against their will, via fraud, by encouraging ignorant or ideological neutral or antagonistic people to take risks for reasons that they would not have chosen on their own.
That sounds a lot like statism to me, only cloaked in libertarian anti-intellectual groupthink. Perhaps Bernie Madoff could have learned a thing or two from these guys.
In talking about recruiting and educating he is explicitly urging people who “believe” that they should encourage other people to take illegal actions with potential risky (i.e. dangerous) outcomes and they should only “explain” the risks/rewards to those who either do not disagree (e.g. “turn on you”) with their agenda or don’t want to be used as a cat’s paw in their revolution. clearly he is talking about USING people against their will, via fraud, by encouraging ignorant or ideological neutral or antagonistic people to take risks for reasons that they would not have chosen on their own.
Not at all. Hank Rearden, Ragnar Danneskjold, two role models in Rand’s novel, purposefully broke the law, and they welcomed any retribution from the government. And, most important of all, John Galt urged producers who “believe” that they should encourage other people to take illegal actions, by moving to Galt’s Gulch and committing all sorts of crimes like failure to pay taxes, failure to obey government regulations, etc, etc.
Konkin is not talking about using people. He is not calling for using people against their will. He is not defrauding them. And if an individual does do something risky, like what Hank Rearden did in refusing to obey the government’s regulations, which Rand approved, then they DID in fact choose to do it on their own. Konkin is not pointing a gun at them, nor is he lying or defrauding them. He is persuading them. The responsibility is thus with the individual.
None of Ayn Rands heroes ever tried to achieve thier ends with the help from other people who did not share their ideas, doing so is dishonest. If peoples actions are motivated by ideas, which is a central theme in ALL of Rands works, then getting people to act contrary to their ideas is immoral.
Konkin is clearly trying to motivate peoples actions so that he can benefit and he explicitly warns against revealing those reasons to the people he is trying to motivate. that is dishonest and immoral.
None of Ayn Rands heroes ever tried to achieve thier ends with the help from other people who did not share their ideas, doing so is dishonest.
No libertarian is doing that, Konkin is not doing that. As long as libertarians abide by the libertarian principle of non-aggression, which which includes no fraud, then it is impossible for libertarians to “use others as means” when they do not agree. Spreading the libertarian message is spreading ideas that libertarians hope others agree with.
And you fallaciously believe that nobody in Atlas Shrugged ever changed their actions and hence their ideas. If Rand’s heroes convinced others after which they agreed, which is certainly the case, then that is no different from libertarians who spread the libertarian message.
If peoples actions are motivated by ideas, which is a central theme in ALL of Rands works, then getting people to act contrary to their ideas is immoral.
You cannot do that unless you initiate force against them.
No libertarian, including Konkin, can ever get others to “act contrary to their ideas.” If no force (fraud) is used, then all action taken by the individual IS in fact directly in line with their ideas. Their actions show what their ideas are.
Konkin is clearly trying to motivate peoples actions so that he can benefit and he explicitly warns against revealing those reasons to the people he is trying to motivate.
There is nothing wrong with benefiting from other people’s actions. And he is not explicitly arguing against revealing reasons. HE WROTE A BOOK for crying out loud. Anyone can see exactly what his reasons are.
Konkin is not advocating for lying or holding back anything.
“If they are intelligent enough and not likely to turn on you, explain risks involved and return expected. Most of all, educate them by your example to the extent you can let them know.”
This is a Kantian chicken coming home to roost. The Austrian subjective value theory is corrupted by a flawed Kantian epistemological base. If all of human action is based on subjective choices then the knowledge of cause and effect, necessary for selection of alternative actions, must either be a mystically revealed absolute or itself a result of ones allegedly subjective choices in the realm of cognition, which negates the possibility of any logical or rational argument in favor of its adoption. One simply must have “faith” that libertarian intellectual leaders have some special non-perceptual powers that others lack or accept the subjective ideas regardless of their truth or false status. Either way it relegates the entire theory to nothing more than dogma and results in the kind of sly, conspiratorial types of nonsense in this post.
Subjective choice does not mean irrational choice. It means the individual decides it, as opposed to some mystical intuition of others, or some deity.
You presented a false dichotomy straw man by claiming that Austrians could only come to knowledge of cause and effect by either mystical intuition, or subjective choice in the sphere of cognition, thus allegedly negating any possibility of a logical or rational argument in favor of its adoption.
The Austrian, neoKantian basis of rationalism is, contrary to Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff, not mystical intuition. It is the real world and very objective nature of human action that anyone can understand if they think.
We humans, as opposed to rocks and twigs and ants, are aware of cause and effect in reality because we ourselves act causally. If we did not act, we could never have come to know cause and effect in reality. We must be aware of ourselves, and what we are objectively, before we can know anything in reality with certainty. We come to know cause and effect in reality not through mystical insight, but through a logical self-reflection of action.
Ayn Rand held a similar belief, but she just chalked this necessity up to “humans have reason, QED.” She did not explain how it is we come to know that reason is capable of integrating concepts perceived in reality. She just said it did. Mises used Kant’s insights to go one step ahead of both Kant and Rand. He showed that what appears to be nothing but idealism in Kant’s philosophy, that is, “So far it has been assumed that our knowledge had to conform to observational reality; instead it should be assumed that observational reality conform to our knowledge,” to show that while we must recognize that such necessary truths are not simply categories of our mind, but that our mind is one of acting persons. Our mental categories have to be understood as ultimately grounded in categories of action.
Action is objective. So there is an objective foundation for Austrian philosophy. It’s not just subjective choice. It’s that choice is grounded in action, and action is objective.
If these libertarians believed in their own ideas and knew them to represent truth and not just their own subjective ramblings then what do they have to hide? Why should “those already in counter economics” be “let in on” these “mysterious beliefs” while others must be kept ignorant. How is the communication of an allegedly honest and truthful (i.e. objective) ideal counter to its general acceptance? If it is really “the truth”, then there is nothing mysterious about it. Moreover, if people are rational and objectivity is possible to men then the “truth” is not their enemy. Clearly these people do not honestly believe in their own ideas for if they did they would not attempt to “trick” people into becoming “honest men” to live in their dystopian world.
Who’s hiding anything? Konkin never said that people should be kept ignorant. He said that those are espousing and believe in counter-economics should be told the truth, exactly what you think you are doing here.
You asked “How is the communication of an allegedly honest and truthful (i.e. objective) ideal counter to its general acceptance?” The answer is, the same reason why Rand’s philosophy is not generally accepted. You have to accept that there are people who refuse to accept reality. The way you are viewing Austrians for example.
It’s clear that these people have truly accepted the subjective value theory and have taken it to its logical extreme and that truth speaks for itself.
And what is that logical extreme, and what is the truth that speaks for itself?
“Ayn Rand held a similar belief, but she just chalked this necessity up to “humans have reason, QED.” She did not explain how it is we come to know that reason is capable of integrating concepts perceived in reality”
Clearly you have not read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, or if you did you did not understand it.
“We must be aware of ourselves, and what we are objectively, before we can know anything in reality with certainty. We come to know cause and effect in reality not through mystical insight, but through a logical self-reflection of action.”
If you had read ITOE you would know that before you can be aware that you are aware you would have to be aware of something else, the external world, only then can you make a distinction between what you are aware of (the object) and that you are aware (the subject). Go read ITOE.
Clearly you have not read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, or if you did you did not understand it.
I’ve read the Introduction, and I do understand it. Nowhere does she explain what I argue she does not explain.
If you had read ITOE you would know that before you can be aware that you are aware you would have to be aware of something else, the external world, only then can you make a distinction between what you are aware of (the object) and that you are aware (the subject). Go read ITOE.
I’ve read the Introduction, and this citation does not answer the question. To be aware that you are aware is one thing. To show how it is that mere awareness can lead to actual knowledge of the real world is quite another.
ok, Ill take you at your word. In that case I will suggest that you read this….
http://www.amazon.com/Logical-Leap-Induction-Physics/dp/0451230051
and this….
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/phil/teach/rand/readings/Binswanger%20-%20Life-based%20teleology%20and%20the%20foundations%20of%20ethics%20(highlights).pdf
It is subjective whim to take my word for anything. One must use facts in order to make objective judgments. You didn’t have your facts straight when you claimed I did not read ITOE.
Thanks very much for the references.
to clarify, I said you either did not read or did not understand. you claim to have done both. fine. Since i dont have direct access to your consciousness all I can do is take your word for it even though there is overwhelming evidence from your other posts that you did not understand it. that being said, its pointless to debate the issue.
To reiterate, none of your three judgments are based on objective knowledge, because I did not display any arguments that would logically convey I did not read ITOE, nor did I display any arguments that would convey I did not understand it, nor is your taking my world for it based on anything objective.
You have not shown anything I have said to be “overwhelming evidence” that I did not read or did not understand ITOE.
I have shown proof that your premises about government are flawed.
on your own grounds, all your “proof” is based on is your own subjective judgments so I dont see how you can make claims to have any objective knowledge, let alone a “proof” of such. for that you would have to admit that you are capable of making objective judgments, which means making choices among alternative possibilites (i.e. true vs false). since you admit that your perception reality is flawed you have no grounds to claim any objective knowledge of it. you can thank Kant for that.
on your own grounds, all your “proof” is based on is your own subjective judgments
No, my judgments are based on objectivity. Your arguments are based on subjective judgments.
so I dont see how you can make claims to have any objective knowledge
I can’t see how you can make any claims to my knowledge when you don’t have objective knowledge of my knowledge.
let alone a “proof” of such. for that you would have to admit that you are capable of making objective judgments, which means making choices among alternative possibilites (i.e. true vs false).
Thanks for admitting that in order to make an objective judgment on government, there has to be alternative possibilities of government.
since you admit that your perception reality is flawed
I did not admit that my perception of reality is flawed.
you can thank Kant for that.
Your views are contradictory as I have shown. You preach one set of values, but then you contradict yourself when preaching another set of values. You claim that individuals should be free to choose, be free from violence, and yet you contradict that position by claiming that I should not have any choice in which security and protection provider to solicit.
You can thank Rand for that.
Control and program your emotional reactions
If your heart is in it, your emotional reactions should be genuine. If your heart is not in it, then faking it doesn’t help anybody. It’s as simple as that. Libertarianism is being true to yourself, not to the cause.
If a new design of state turned up next week that solved all the various legitimate problems with our existing state, I’d be more than happy to sign up and give it a go. Of course, I’d be very careful to check a few things first 😉
@Major Freedom,
Responding to your objective/subjective post from above (too skinny).
You wrote:
“Person A’s actions that you do not approve of, or consider to be “whimsical” or “non-objective standard” influenced, is aimed at improving their own life according to what they think. All action is therefore rational.”
This is nothing more than hedonism and it totally divorces effects from causes. Life is not a floating abstraction that is divorced from the effects of ones actions. Life is a specific process that exists in reality and as such certain actions will have certain effects, positive or negative, on that process, therefore to say that whatever one chooses to do is rational simply because it is what they wish to do, totally evades the very real effects that one’s choices and actions have on that process. Therefore, I can very easily tell you that if you enjoy life then jumping off a cliff would not be a rational value, just like I can tell you that if you enjoy chocolate then eating nothing but chocolate would likewise not be a rational value, both on the standard of life. The simple pleasure and pain mechanisms are not enough to formulate a code of ethical values that would guide a person’s choices and actions with the goal of sustaining his life.
Actions such as excessive gambling or burning ones means to produce/consume (i.e. money) are clearly self-destructive actions because they result in a reduction of the person’s ability to live and as such they could not logically be actions chosen if his life were the standard used to measure the outcome of those actions. They could NOT be in the person’s rational best interest and would therefore be objectively irrational.
You wrote:
“If the non-aggression principle is consistently followed, then any given group of people offering security and protection services could not themselves initiate violence against anyone else over a given territory of private property demanding that they accept only their protection offer, and not the protection offers from others.”
You do understand what a stolen concept is don’t you? The fact that people do aggressive things, the fact that people disagree, make mistakes, break contracts, don’t think ahead, and understand that sometimes unforeseeable shit just happens means that the world is a messy place where non-aggression is never consistently followed because people are fallible and not omniscient and don’t always know where aggression begins and where it ends, which is the reason why an objective means of determining that is needed, which is the purpose of a proper government.
To say that you wish to “compete” against such an institution is not to say that your judgment or your security firm’s judgment is more objective, it is saying that you are against objective judgment as such, that you won’t accept any means buy the means that you choose and objectivity be damned. That is the position of the anarchists. You are not against the state for its monopoly on judgment, for that is exactly what you want to “buy” on a “market”, you are against the state for its monopoly on objective judgment, something that cannot be bought or traded. You want the “freedom” to be “non-objective” i.e. to be irrational and for everyone to “trade” in their prejudices. Nothing but mob rule and chaos will ever come from that.
This is nothing more than hedonism and it totally divorces effects from causes.
No, it is not hedonism. It is an objective relationship between cause and effect. The causes known and selected by the individual as means generate the effect of happiness of the individual, which is the highest standard of value.
The individual who likes apples cannot call the individual who likes oranges “hedonistic” merely because they derive the same effect of happiness from different causes.
Life is not a floating abstraction that is divorced from the effects of ones actions. Life is a specific process that exists in reality and as such certain actions will have certain effects, positive or negative, on that process, therefore to say that whatever one chooses to do is rational simply because it is what they wish to do, totally evades the very real effects that one’s choices and actions have on that process..
Your definition of rational is not the same definition I used when I made the argument. I never said that “whatever one wishes to do” is rational. I said that an action taken for the purpose of increasing one’s happiness, is rational action. You cannot respond by saying “that’s not rational,” unless you want to argue over the definition of rational, in which case you won’t have to, because I already know how Rand defined it.
If an individual engages in a specific action in order to increase their happiness, that is the individual utilizing cause and effect in reality. They might fail, or they might succeed in achieving happiness in what they choose to do.
It is not just any old action that is rational. It is an action taken for the purposes of increasing one’s happiness, which is the standard of value for the individual.
Therefore, I can very easily tell you that if you enjoy life then jumping off a cliff would not be a rational value, just like I can tell you that if you enjoy chocolate then eating nothing but chocolate would likewise not be a rational value, both on the standard of life.
If I enjoyed life then I would not jump off a cliff because I know that the effect of such action will not increase my happiness. That example is too easy because I already have that cause and effect knowledge. Nobody who has such knowledge of the effect of jumping off a cliff will jump off a cliff if their goal is to live.
Suppose I didn’t have enough knowledge concerning the effect of my action, because I am an entrepreneur. Suppose I have the option of choosing between project B and project A. I don’t know which project will generate more profits because I don’t know the effect from the causes of each project, and so I make an expectation. If my goal is to earn maximum profits, then which action is the “rational” action to take? The one that I think will make more profits of course. The fact that I was free from violence ipso facto implies my selection is the one that I think will gain me the most happiness. But a selection does not mean I will be correct. I could be wrong.
The simple pleasure and pain mechanisms are not enough to formulate a code of ethical values that would guide a person’s choices and actions with the goal of sustaining his life.
I am not claiming action directed towards increasing one’s happiness is merely pleasure and pain oriented. One could derive pleasure from knowing that the pain one is experiencing (exercising for example) will lead to a better outcome in the end. If on the other hand an individual would prefer not to feel such pain, because their values are different, although their value of life is the same, then they might not want to exercise and instead just eat less, or eat more healthy food.
Actions such as excessive gambling or burning ones means to produce/consume (i.e. money) are clearly self-destructive actions because they result in a reduction of the person’s ability to live and as such they could not logically be actions chosen if his life were the standard used to measure the outcome of those actions.
Subjective nonsense. You do not define what is “excessive” gambling for another. There is no such thing as objective excessive gambling. You are just trying to arrogate your personal judgment of valuation of what constitutes enough gambling for yourself, into some objective truth of an objective quantity of gambling whereby $10,000 is not excessive whereas $10,000.01 is excessive.
If an individual derives happiness from gambling, then choosing to gamble is a rational action.
What is excessive and what is not excessive depends on the cause and effect
There is no single effect. There are 6.5 billion potential effects in the world. There is no excessive quantity of gambling if all individuals are free from violence and are not forced to gamble. There will be 6.5 billion potential quantities of gambling, which might change over time depending on what gives the individuals happiness.
A person who is unhappy by not gambling, and happy by gambling, would not be acting rationally
Incorrect. A person who is happy by not gambling, and a person who is happy by gambling, are acting equally rationally, because each are making the choice based on the objective cause and effect of what derives them with happiness.
Gambling is not an irrational action. The fact that Rand personally disliked gambling does not mean gambling is irrational. It means it was rational for her to do what made her happy, instead of doing what made her unhappy. If someone derives happiness by gambling $100 and eating a modest dinner, instead of buying a nice dinner and not gambling, is a rational action.
They could NOT be in the person’s rational best interest and would therefore be objectively irrational.
If gambling made someone happy, and not gambling made them unhappy, then it IS in the person’s rational self-interest to gamble and they would therefore be acting rationally.
You do understand what a stolen concept is don’t you?
I know very well what it is. I did not “steal” any concept.
The fact that people do aggressive things, the fact that people disagree, make mistakes, break contracts, don’t think ahead, and understand that sometimes unforeseeable shit just happens means that the world is a messy place where non-aggression is never consistently followed because people are fallible and not omniscient and don’t always know where aggression begins and where it ends, which is the reason why an objective means of determining that is needed, which is the purpose of a proper government.
You don’t know what a self-contradictory non sequitur is, do you? That people make mistakes, break contracts, disagree, and do not always follow non-aggression, does NOT in any way logically imply that everyone must live under one government only. All these premises, and more, actually lead to the conclusion that there ought not be a single mandatory government.
To say that you wish to “compete” against such an institution is not to say that your judgment or your security firm’s judgment is more objective, it is saying that you are against objective judgment as such, that you won’t accept any means buy the means that you choose and objectivity be damned.
You are fallaciously assuming that a single mandatory government is composed of individuals who are necessarily more rational than myself and others. That is not the case. You are imagining a government that cannot possibly exist in reality. The sum total of objective knowledge held by all individuals in society always exceeds the knowledge of a given individual or group of individuals. Because of this, for technological reasons, even a single government dedicated to ONLY protecting individual rights, and never itself initiating violence against others, will not necessarily have the MEANS to successfully accomplish the goal of protecting individual rights, because their KNOWLEDGE is inferior to the sum total of knowledge held by individuals in the rest of society. As such, and including all the premises you listed above, a given monopoly government will fail to do its job 100%, and if individuals in society can achieve their goal of protecting their lives by soliciting the services of ANOTHER group of security and protection providers, due to the monopolist failing because of resource and technological constraints, then it is objectively rational for there to be more than one government.
There has never been, and never will be, a government of the type you are imagining. As long as humans learn over time, then a single voluntary institution of security and protection will always lag in terms of their knowledge and resources relative to the rest of the world’s individuals that can enable them to accomplish their purpose of protecting individual rights.
If a government is NOT doing what you say they should do, or can do, if government IS initiating violence against others, which has been the case in EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE OF GOVERNMENT throughout history, as well as every single government today, then there CANNOT be a single monopoly government even according to your own flawed premises.
The very fact that individuals are not always peaceful, not always abiding by contracts, not always following non-aggression, is exactly why there cannot be a monopoly of security and protection.
Your arguments did not at all explain how governments come into existence, you just imagined a government to appear out of thin air. If you bothered to ask yourself how in a raw society of say 1 million individual property owners, with no government at all, can establish a single monopoly government without the non-aggression principle being violated.
All you have in your mind is an imaginary construct of perfect government, and then claiming that anyone who competes with said perfect government must be evil, irrational, non-objective, etc. But that is just you stacking the deck in your favor. If I did the same thing, and argued that there exists a rational, objective, perfect method of government, which is competing governments, where the fallibility of individuals you admit exists results in a continual process of improvement in the quality of government, then any attempt by you or any other statist to establish a monopoly on security and protection over a given area, such that everyone MUST pay you and hire you, would be an irrational, non-objective, violent act that violates the non-aggression principle.
That is the position of the anarchists. You are not against the state for its monopoly on judgment, for that is exactly what you want to “buy” on a “market”, you are against the state for its monopoly on objective judgment, something that cannot be bought or traded.
No, I am against your fallacious claim that monopoly government is necessarily objective in its judgments. The state’s judgments are not necessarily objective. In fact, in every single case in recorded history, the state’s judgments have contained non-objective judgments.
States do not have a monopoly on objective judgments. They have a monopoly of violence. That’s it.
You want the “freedom” to be “non-objective” i.e. to be irrational and for everyone to “trade” in their prejudices.
No, it is precisely because freedom is objective, that states cannot arise unless subjective whims replace objective principles of non-aggression and respect for private property rights. The formation of the state is the result of subjective whims masquerading as objective values and actions. In order for any state to form, individuals have to initiate violence against innocent people and declare themselves a monopoly, and back that monopoly by violent threats.
You want freedom to be eliminated, and for everyone to “obey” the state no matter what the state does. You want to pretend to yourself that a state is necessarily objective because it has a monopoly of violence.
Nothing but mob rule and chaos will ever come from that.
It is precisely monopoly states out of which mob rule and chaos can have “legal authority.”
To claim that states must be obeyed no matter what, to not question them because they are “objective”, is precisely why Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia arose in the world.
States are not the product of objective judgment. They are the product of subjective whims pretending to be objective judgments. Look around you. There is no state that exists today, no state that has ever existed, and no state that can ever exist, which abides by the non-aggression principle and respect for private property rights. States are a movement away from an objective standard of judgment.
You claim that humans are fallible, make mistakes, break contracts, aggress against others, and yet you hilariously believe that government is infallible, perfect, do not break contracts, do not aggress against others. You are contradicting yourself. You should check your premises.
@ Major Freedom
Oh, and I forgto this little gem:
“I do not hold, and did not claim, that the right to act on one’s own judgment is subjective. That right is objective.”
How can one arrive at an “objective” right by using one’s own subjective judgment?
To elaborate on this.
Person A subjectively chooses to use logic to arrive at action(s) X, Person B subjectively chooses to NOT use logic to arrive at action(s) Y.
If the choice to use logic is nothing more than a subjective whim then on what grounds can any set of actions be preferable over another?
If the choice to use logic is nothing more than a subjective whim then on what grounds can any set of actions be preferable over another?
If the choice to obey government is nothing more than objective respect for objective judgment, then on what grounds can one government be preferable to another?
Person A objectively chooses voluntary government B because government A is objectively initiating violence against Person A.
Person A then solicits the security and protection of voluntary government B, which you then label as “competing against objectivity” when in reality it is competing against subjectivity.
“If the choice to obey government is nothing more than objective respect for objective judgment, then on what grounds can one government be preferable to another?”
Hello? On the grounds that the government selected respects objectivity (i.e. individual rights), otherwise the person would be best served to find one that does. Granted, there can and usually is a large vairiation in degree (e.g. 19th Century US vs 20th Century Russia) but in NO case is one to reject the need for government entirely as the anarchists do.
“Person A objectively chooses voluntary government B because government A is objectively initiating violence against Person A.”
The above contains a contradition. Government A could not “objectively” initiate violence against person A unless person A initiated violence first, therefore person A would be a criminal, assuming he initiated violence first (i.e. terrorist) and government B would be a state harborer of terrorist A (Afganistan) and government A would be well within its moral rights to wipe government B off of the Map to prevent further violations of its citizens rights. Thus, peace and prosperity will continue for all of those who choose to be part of an objective government 😉
Hello? On the grounds that the government selected respects objectivity (i.e. individual rights), otherwise the person would be best served to find one that does.
As an aside, when I ask you questions, it is not because I don’t know the answer. I ask them because I don’t believe you are thinking enough about it.
If individuals are free to keep soliciting better and better government over time, that is, abstaining from soliciting inferior government and seeking superior government, on the objective grounds that the other government is not only respecting individual rights, not only following the objective moral code, but having superior knowledge and technological capability than the other government, than the standard of objectivity logically shows that abstaining from soliciting the first government, and seeking the services of the other government, is not irrational, it is not non-objective, it is not competing with objectivity. It is rational, objective, and in line with objectivity.
My position is that because knowledge and technological innovation occur not only within a given government, but in the minds of individuals not in the given government, it means that there is no objective basis for there to ever be a single monopoly government. Innovation and knowledge acquisition imply that a rational and objective society of men will enable individuals to keep choosing better and better government, and that logically implies competition, not monopoly.
If you admit that I am acting rationally by abstaining from soliciting the security and protection services of an inferior government (even though their moral code is objective, they are not doing their job well as other security and protection providers) and I thus change my mind and choose to solicit the security and protection services of a better government (their moral code is also objective, they just know more and are better at doing their job than the first government), then you must respect that anarchy is necessary for people to select better government.
If there is one world government, and they are not doing their job, if they are violating individual rights, then what are the people supposed to do? The only solution is for the people to compete with the world government, which you said is necessarily irrational.
Granted, there can and usually is a large vairiation in degree (e.g. 19th Century US vs 20th Century Russia) but in NO case is one to reject the need for government entirely as the anarchists do.
Anarchists do not reject voluntary government. Anarchist reject INvoluntary government, which of course means government qua government.
Voluntary government, which is what Rand wanted, actually means no government at all. It means voluntary private security and protection agencies.
You do not understand the nature of government. Government is not an institution that protects individual rights. Government is and only is a territorial monopoly of violence. This is why you see “varying degrees” of government from 18th century US government to 20th USSR government. We call them both government because of the territorial monopoly of violence attribute they practice.
A world of voluntary government is an anarchist world. There would be no territorial monopoly of violence if “government” was voluntary.
The only reason why the US government could even be founded was because the founding fathers COMPETED with the British Monarchy government. The only problem of course is that they just replaced one immoral and irrational institution with another. Instead of the British monarchy initiating violence against innocent people in the US, the founding fathers established an institution that initiated violence against innocent people in the US. The establishment of the US federal government was a violation of the non-aggression principle, because the individuals in the state started to steal money from those who earned it (taxation) and they initiated violence against anyone who wanted to opt out in peace, or solicit the security and protection services of VOLUNTARY government that the US federal government initiated with force to stop.
Government simply cannot form if the non-aggression principle is strictly followed. Government, properly understood, is necessarily a subjectivist movement of justifying the irrational and non-objective moral code of initiations of violence.
Voluntary government is an oxymoron. Voluntary government is just another word for anarchy.
“Person A objectively chooses voluntary government B because government A is objectively initiating violence against Person A.”
The above contains a contradition. Government A could not “objectively” initiate violence against person A unless person A initiated violence first, therefore person A would be a criminal, assuming he initiated violence first (i.e. terrorist) and government B would be a state harborer of terrorist A (Afganistan) and government A would be well within its moral rights to wipe government B off of the Map to prevent further violations of its citizens rights. Thus, peace and prosperity will continue for all of those who choose to be part of an objective government
Your claim contains a blatant falsehood. When I said that government A objectively initiates violence against me, I mean initiating violence against me is what they are actually doing in objective reality. The US government is stealing my money against my will, and they are threatening me with physical violence to get me to obey their non-objectivity based laws.
If I don’t pay up, then they will send armed goons to my door, who will handcuff me, kidnap me, and throw me into a cage. This is the case even if I do not initiate violence against anyone else, and merely choose an objectively superior security and protection provider and abstain from the US government’s terrible services and gross violations of my individual rights.
Peaceful government is impossible. Government is by its very nature a criminal violent gang. The founding fathers came closest to a true objective society by making government small, but because they held that initiations of violence against innocent people is justified (taxation theft, violent threats to coerce people into obeying the US government no matter what the government demands) they planted a subjective seed that could only grow into the monstrosity that exists today.
You statists are wrong about government. Your fallacious jump is assuming that because individual rights are objective, that it necessitates monopoly government, when in reality, objective individual rights requires an objective METHOD of acquiring knowledge in how to best achieve that goal. That means competition, not monopoly.
You chastise the anarchist on the basis that people are not perfect. But then you do a 180 and claim that perfect government is possible. You contradict yourself.
I am contradicting myself!?! holy cow! you keep claiming that all government is aggressive by its very nature and then claim to want to “improve” this by haveing a competition in aggression? and that is not a contradiction?
the fact is that gaining knowledge and improving technology, the things you claim to want, only happens when arbitrary force is removed from society, not “force” as such but arbitrary force. a competition of force users, like governments, does not create an environment that has less arbitrary force, it creates MORE.
what is needed is one government that attempts to implement objective controls over the arbitrary use of force, which will necessarily require it to have a monopoly on its use. consider it a matter of a division of labor. people in general are not “specialized” objective force users, thus any “competition” to find out who is necessarily results in mass death. the only way to put the use of force under objective control is through a monopoly. that is not statist, it is required to protect people from the arbitrary use of force.
“I am contradicting myself!?!”
YES!!!!!!
“holy cow!”
I KNOW!!
“you keep claiming that all government is aggressive by its very nature and then claim to want to “improve” this by haveing a competition in aggression?”
Holy shit. What ignorance. You’re actually claiming that using violence to protect oneself against initiations of violence from others is itself immoral aggression? You’re out of your mind.
Rand held that it is moral and just to use violence to protect oneself against initiations of violence.
Government is by nature aggressive, therefore any DEFENSIVE uses of violence to stop their aggression is not itself aggressive.
“and that is not a contradiction?”
No, it is not. You are fallaciously conflating defensive uses of force with INITIATIONS of force.
By your own nonsensical logic, if an “objective” government used violence to stop initiations of violence in society, then it would be acting aggressively just like you are claiming a civilian is acting aggressively by protecting himself from governmental initiations of violence.
Oh, I forgot, governments don’t ever initiate violence against innocent people, they only ever use violence to protect people.
“the fact is that gaining knowledge and improving technology, the things you claim to want, only happens when arbitrary force is removed from society, not “force” as such but arbitrary force.”
Incorrect. There are arbitrary uses of force today and have been since the dawn of mankind, but knowledge and technological progress takes place. This is not an advocacy, it is a fact.
Secondly, government is by nature an arbitrary imposition of violence. It arbitrarily initiates violence against innocent people in order to coerce them into coming to them and only them for security and protection. They use violence to get people to pay taxes, and they use violence to impose their monopoly of security and protection, a contradiction in terms.
Third, you completely misunderstood my argument. My argument is that because a given monopoly government can never have as much knowledge and technological knowhow that is contained in the minds of all individuals together, it means that even a rational, objective, and moral government cannot be at the forefront of what is known technologically in the realm of security and protection against violence.
There will always be knowledge discovered by those not in the given government, that can improve the efficacy of security and protection services. Only if myself as an individual am free to solicit continually improving security and protection providers OTHER THAN the given government you claim I should be initiated with violence to pay and to obey, which is against my individual rights, can I make objectively rational choices on which government is best for my life.
“a competition of force users, like governments, does not create an environment that has less arbitrary force, it creates MORE.”
Then you are logically obligated to advocate for a one world government. You are logically obligated to advocate that the American people surrender their sovereignty to the whims of a world government.
Your argument is wrong. A competition of security and protection providers creates an environment of LESS arbitrary force, not more. If a given security and protection provider initiates force against others, then people would have the option to seek security and protection from better providers.
A world of city states would be far less violent than a world with one government, for the same reason a world of no states would be far less violent than a world with no states.
In a world with one world government, there is very little incentive for the individuals in government to avoid initiating violence against innocent people, because they know that people could not escape the world to seek security and protection from a better government.
If a group of individuals controlling a small city-state know that should they become too violent, the people will vote with their feet and move to some other nearby city state, then the incentive to initiate violence is less.
If a security and protection provider has no monopoly at all, that is, if there are not only no world state, but no city states either, then the incentive to provide superior quality security and protection is only that much greater.
“what is needed is one government that attempts to implement objective controls over the arbitrary use of force, which will necessarily require it to have a monopoly on its use.”
And what if I am peaceful, do not initiate violence against anyone else, I simply REFUSE TO COOPERATE with said world government?
What will happen to me? Will the government initiate violence against me, steal my money, impose its laws on me against my will? Or will the world government respect my freedom?
You are seriously confused. You want a world government, which is world tyranny.
What happens when that one world government becomes tyrannical like Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany? Then what? What if they cease respecting the democratic process? Your view of humanity is seriously naive and extremely dangerous.
“consider it a matter of a division of labor.”
Contradiction. A one world government is a centralization, not a division of labor in security and protection.
“people in general are not “specialized” objective force users”
A world of anarchy does not require people in general to be experts in the use of force, any more than a world of competitive production of computers does not require people in general to be experts in computers.
“thus any “competition” to find out who is necessarily results in mass death.”
No, government creation results in mass death. Governments are the world’s greatest murderers that ever existed. No other institution has killed more, tortured more, stole more, than government. During the 20th century alone, governments killed over 100 million people.
Competition in security and protection leads to LESS violence, not more violence. The reason why the US was as successful as it was up until the growth in centralization during the last centiry (which you think is “rational”) is because of the existence of 50 small states competing for citizens. That put a lid on the violence coming from the states. If one state government initiated violence by too much, then the people would move to another state. It wasn’t until the growth the in federal government that initiations of violence from the government grew substantially and rapidly. The federal government killed hundreds of thousands of people during the Civil War, which was a war against federal tyranny. Today, the federal government has killed hundreds of thousands of people overseas in nations that represented no threat to us.
The larger government gets, the more tyrannical they become. This is a provable, demonstrable fact.
“the only way to put the use of force under objective control is through a monopoly.”
No, the only way to put security and protection services in an objective footing, in a world of knowledge accumulation and technological progress, is to have competing security and protection providers, not monopolies.
“that is not statist, it is required to protect people from the arbitrary use of force.”
But all monopoly governments initiate violence against those who are peaceful and do not consent to the government’s authority. If they did not, then they could not be government.
Ask yourself what will happen to you if you stopped paying taxes, and stopped obeying the government, but you went ahead in your life totally peaceful, not initiating violence against anyone, and only using violence when others initiate violence against you.
Forming a government is the formation of an institution that initiates arbitrary violence against innocent people.
I did not claim nor imply that one comes to know that via subjective judgment. I hold that one comes to know that through objective judgment.
then “objective judgement” in your view must preclude the possibility of choice so then either volition is impossible or man must be infalliable. clearly you have made a mistake.
how does one acquire objective knowledge without making any choices?
how does one acquire objective knowledge without making any choices?
How does one acquire the services of a superior morally objective government over inferior morally objective governments, without being able to choose who to pay and hire, and who to abstain from paying and hiring?
through the deomocratic process.
Hahahaha
Democracy is the majority violating the individual rights of the minority.
Thus the democratic process cannot serve as an alternative to a democratic government that violates individual rights.
The hilarious irony in your response is that the founding fathers vehemently disliked democracy. That’s why they created a constitutional republic.
The democratic process is incapable of eliminating governmental violence against innocent individuals, because democratic government is based on majorities imposing their will and thus violating the rights of minorities.