Jan
25
Laissez-Faire-Lounge
I am a staunch objectivist. And here is my case against Anarcho-capitalists.
First of all, let’s discuss about the stand of Anarcho-capitalists in terms of Objectivists.
The instigation of force and coercion is immoral, and the democratic government is a legal monopolist institution on the corrective use of force in a given geographical area.
Anarcho-capitalists say that to maintain monopoly on corrective use of force, the government must initiate coercive force to eliminate competition. Hence, to exist as a legal monopoly on the corrective use of force, a government must use immoral means. Thus government itself is immoral.
On first hand, it seems so reasonable and sounds so right*.
Let’s consider it a little deeper though.
Who decides what is bullying and what force is corrective? Who decides if in any instance of application of force, violation of rights is being done? Who decides who is exploiter and who is sufferer?
How will one decide that which agency is “protective agency” and which agency is group of exploiting gangsters?
Anarchists predominantly believe that it will remain a competition of protection of individual rights. They ignore the simple fact that it will soon become a competition to define rights.
The sovereign people will start defining liberty, property rights, self-defense, aggression, justice, liberty etc on their own arbitrary interpretations. For that, my Anarcho-capitalist friend said that the arbitrary third party will decide that. (That is jurisdiction is also privatized and it will again work on same competition for protecting Individual rights)
But the problem remains same. Why won’t the third party be corrupted to give a biased decision? And why will the engaged individual accept that the third party is interpreting the rights correctly?
In absence of a rational and logical agreement, “competing agencies” whose motive will be to make the most of earnings by providing satisfaction to the consumer will provide competitive definitions of rights and liberty (which may lead to improvement or it may destroy too) and that agency will gain most profit which can satisfy the consumers’ demand, the one which can enforce its own interpretation of “aggression” and “self-defense” on other competing agencies. Why will one employ an agency which cannot protect his own interpretations of rights and wrongs? It will be just like the current situation of lawyers. When people today say, they need a good lawyer, do they mean they need an honest truth-seeking lawyer …or do they mean that they need a guy who can win the case for them?
Why won’t they get exactly same type of job in Anarcho-capitalist system? They’ll protect any customer for dough, using any argument, any ploy to enhance their probability of winning, truth be damned.
Then why to think that only such lawyers will get involved in such immoral activities? Why won’t a significant number of “protective agencies” of Anarcho-capitalism act on similar immoral grounds?
At present, a democratic monopoly exists to put unscrupulous corrupt private detectives blackmailers, coercers, criminals, crooks and extortionists in jails. It serves as a concluding judge on the use of force in society. Although it is agreeable that it does not perform a very satisfactory job in many cases; but it’s there. What happens when it isn’t? Or worse: when the unscrupulous corrupt private detectives blackmailers, coercers, criminals, crooks and extortionists has replaced it, in a marketplace where profits depend on fulfilling the prejudiced desires of disturbing clients?
Anarchists call it unrealistic and even pessimistic. Anarchists say that people “naturally” search for their self-interest based on reasons and once the government is removed, the people will cooperate and things will become reasonable by themselves.
But if it holds any truth, then why is there any need of any protective agency, be it governmental or private? One billion people of India are unable to naturally cooperate without any legal or institutional framework to resolve disputes, that’s why there are disputes. The major dilemma is everyone has his own terms and definitions for rational self-interest. Ask an Islamist, he will tell his own rational self-interest, or ask a Hindu, he will give his own definition, or ask a Buddhist or Christian, he will state his own. Same difference remains on other patterns.
So, how can the whimsical use of force by those who are naturally inclined to disagree over the definitions of rational self-interest be limited?
It can be achieved only by Laissez-Faire system, and democracy.
In an Anarcho-capitalism, the people are known as the market, which votes by its money to have its way about the use of force in society. In a democratic political system the public is called a political constituency, which votes with ballots in order to have its way about the use of force in society.
But in democratic system, the government is constitutionally restricted. The aggressive/corrupt masses are sincerely stopped in having their line of attack at the expense of others. They can’t use force to do anything they want. As private criminals, their acts are limited by the government. And government agents are limited by constitution.
What is needed is to apply Laissez-Faire system, to limit the government for doing only “protective work” rather than controlling the production houses. What is needed is, to limit government only to maintain Individual Rights of every Individual and stop instigation of force by anyone and remove government from controlling the property rights.
What is needed is economical, philosophical and sexual freedom. Once the situation will occur when the differences between the definitions of rational-self-interest will gain an objectivistic reality, the need of any governmental or even private security agency will cease to exist, and then it can be removed too.
What is needed is to deny compulsory taxation, so that government may not get lazy or unconcerned about individual rights for its tenure, but to provide voluntary taxation, to further limit government’s arbitrarily wrong actions.
In market, what holds the thugs and on what basis? No private company will deliberately restrict itself and limit to reasons and rights. After all, some different company may gain profits by acting on a groups interpretations of rights. Why any security agency would restrain itself, when the dodgy, dishonest Dawood Ibrahim Protective Agency across town is just longing for the same consumer contracts, and willing to promise customers no limits bar?
Anarchists believe that all the protection and security companies will always act rationally and will bring peace about. But they forget that most of the crime and violence is done by similar groups who deny government on all issues. Furthermore, lawyers, protection rackets, software pirates, hackers, plagiarists all are already working on market demand.
The notion of anarchists that peace is what everybody demands is actually a false. And when violence is in demand, how can protective agencies will act rationally?
First of all, let’s discuss about the stand of Anarcho-capitalists in terms of Objectivists.
The instigation of force and coercion is immoral, and the democratic government is a legal monopolist institution on the corrective use of force in a given geographical area.
Anarcho-capitalists say that to maintain monopoly on corrective use of force, the government must initiate coercive force to eliminate competition. Hence, to exist as a legal monopoly on the corrective use of force, a government must use immoral means. Thus government itself is immoral.
On first hand, it seems so reasonable and sounds so right*.
Let’s consider it a little deeper though.
Who decides what is bullying and what force is corrective? Who decides if in any instance of application of force, violation of rights is being done? Who decides who is exploiter and who is sufferer?
How will one decide that which agency is “protective agency” and which agency is group of exploiting gangsters?
Anarchists predominantly believe that it will remain a competition of protection of individual rights. They ignore the simple fact that it will soon become a competition to define rights.
The sovereign people will start defining liberty, property rights, self-defense, aggression, justice, liberty etc on their own arbitrary interpretations. For that, my Anarcho-capitalist friend said that the arbitrary third party will decide that. (That is jurisdiction is also privatized and it will again work on same competition for protecting Individual rights)
But the problem remains same. Why won’t the third party be corrupted to give a biased decision? And why will the engaged individual accept that the third party is interpreting the rights correctly?
In absence of a rational and logical agreement, “competing agencies” whose motive will be to make the most of earnings by providing satisfaction to the consumer will provide competitive definitions of rights and liberty (which may lead to improvement or it may destroy too) and that agency will gain most profit which can satisfy the consumers’ demand, the one which can enforce its own interpretation of “aggression” and “self-defense” on other competing agencies. Why will one employ an agency which cannot protect his own interpretations of rights and wrongs? It will be just like the current situation of lawyers. When people today say, they need a good lawyer, do they mean they need an honest truth-seeking lawyer …or do they mean that they need a guy who can win the case for them?
Why won’t they get exactly same type of job in Anarcho-capitalist system? They’ll protect any customer for dough, using any argument, any ploy to enhance their probability of winning, truth be damned.
Then why to think that only such lawyers will get involved in such immoral activities? Why won’t a significant number of “protective agencies” of Anarcho-capitalism act on similar immoral grounds?
At present, a democratic monopoly exists to put unscrupulous corrupt private detectives blackmailers, coercers, criminals, crooks and extortionists in jails. It serves as a concluding judge on the use of force in society. Although it is agreeable that it does not perform a very satisfactory job in many cases; but it’s there. What happens when it isn’t? Or worse: when the unscrupulous corrupt private detectives blackmailers, coercers, criminals, crooks and extortionists has replaced it, in a marketplace where profits depend on fulfilling the prejudiced desires of disturbing clients?
Anarchists call it unrealistic and even pessimistic. Anarchists say that people “naturally” search for their self-interest based on reasons and once the government is removed, the people will cooperate and things will become reasonable by themselves.
But if it holds any truth, then why is there any need of any protective agency, be it governmental or private? One billion people of India are unable to naturally cooperate without any legal or institutional framework to resolve disputes, that’s why there are disputes. The major dilemma is everyone has his own terms and definitions for rational self-interest. Ask an Islamist, he will tell his own rational self-interest, or ask a Hindu, he will give his own definition, or ask a Buddhist or Christian, he will state his own. Same difference remains on other patterns.
So, how can the whimsical use of force by those who are naturally inclined to disagree over the definitions of rational self-interest be limited?
It can be achieved only by Laissez-Faire system, and democracy.
In an Anarcho-capitalism, the people are known as the market, which votes by its money to have its way about the use of force in society. In a democratic political system the public is called a political constituency, which votes with ballots in order to have its way about the use of force in society.
But in democratic system, the government is constitutionally restricted. The aggressive/corrupt masses are sincerely stopped in having their line of attack at the expense of others. They can’t use force to do anything they want. As private criminals, their acts are limited by the government. And government agents are limited by constitution.
What is needed is to apply Laissez-Faire system, to limit the government for doing only “protective work” rather than controlling the production houses. What is needed is, to limit government only to maintain Individual Rights of every Individual and stop instigation of force by anyone and remove government from controlling the property rights.
What is needed is economical, philosophical and sexual freedom. Once the situation will occur when the differences between the definitions of rational-self-interest will gain an objectivistic reality, the need of any governmental or even private security agency will cease to exist, and then it can be removed too.
What is needed is to deny compulsory taxation, so that government may not get lazy or unconcerned about individual rights for its tenure, but to provide voluntary taxation, to further limit government’s arbitrarily wrong actions.
In market, what holds the thugs and on what basis? No private company will deliberately restrict itself and limit to reasons and rights. After all, some different company may gain profits by acting on a groups interpretations of rights. Why any security agency would restrain itself, when the dodgy, dishonest Dawood Ibrahim Protective Agency across town is just longing for the same consumer contracts, and willing to promise customers no limits bar?
Anarchists believe that all the protection and security companies will always act rationally and will bring peace about. But they forget that most of the crime and violence is done by similar groups who deny government on all issues. Furthermore, lawyers, protection rackets, software pirates, hackers, plagiarists all are already working on market demand.
The notion of anarchists that peace is what everybody demands is actually a false. And when violence is in demand, how can protective agencies will act rationally?
Related Posts
1 views6 Responses to “Anarcho-Capitalism”
Leave a Reply
Violation of Copyright is Illegal! | Reason for Liberty Says:
June 13th, 2008 at 9:50 pm[…] Although, I do not agree with Rothbard on question of Anarchocapitalism ( which I opposed here AnarchoCapitalism) and I Strictly support Miniarchy yet, I would like to clarify that the basic Anarchocapitalist, […]
Ecnarb Says:
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:14 amPia,
Thank you for this wonderful article. I checked your blog to see if you have twitter, but apparently you may not have one.
Going Galt,
Brance
Froilan Vincent Bersamina Says:
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:13 amHi! I stumbled on your website and I like your argument against anarcho-capitalism. I consider myself an Objectivism, however it is my first time to argue with someone on Facebook about the validity or morality of anarcho-capitalism. I posted a discussion on an Ayn Rand group on FC entitled- To allow the mixing of Objectivism and Anarcho-Capitalism: An Art of INFILTRATION. I did not read that article of Ayn Rand against anarcho-capitalism. Such a term is a new concept to me and I didn’t know she tackled this in one of her books. I just thought that she was against it.
In that discussion, I presented by original argument against anarcho=capitalism and I must say that it came from my subconscious mind with reference to the teachings of Ayn Rand.
Here’s what I posted:
Someone in that group stated that Murray Rothbard is the proponent of anarcho-capitalism, and to me the name reminds me of an article branding Ayn Rand as a cult. I thought such an accusation is unfair, illogical and unfounded. I read it. I was surprised to know that when I read Rand’s argument against anarcho-capitalism, it was almost the same as my original argument.
Your argument is also wonderful and glad to know that not all those who read Ayn Rand have sold out to the idea of anarcho-capitalism. What I’d like to say is that I couldn’t have made any rational argument without the things I’ve learned from the works of Ayn Rand. Kudos!
Froilan Vincent Bersamina´s last blog ..The Moral Base of the Filipino Nation and Philippine’s Intellectual Bankruptcy
renegade_division Says:
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 pmThe reason why ‘objectivism’ does not support any form of socialism is because Socialism is distorting the objective reality. The reason why Socialism distorts reality and is irrational is because it tries to achieve things it thinks would be better for the society. They try to achieve that by distorting the reality.
When Rand and Rand followers oppose anarchism(and there is increasing number of Objectivists who now believe that even Rand could be wrong on objectivism)on the grounds that it will not help them achieve some end result, then they do the same mistake as socialists do. Distorting the reality to cater to some end result isn’t really objectivism.
If lets say accepting the objective reality results in destruction of mankind, and not distorting the objective reality results in us being in a better condition, should we accept the distorted reality?
If you say that its ok to distort the reality for the betterment of our society then yes you are right in pushing for a non-anarchist society.
But if its not ok to distort the reality for a preferable end-result then stop talking about the end-result and make an argument WITHOUT talking about the end-result.
All the anti-Anarchist arguments made by the Objectivists talk about if we have an anarchist society no rights will be preserved. Well that’s an end-result you are talking about. The truth is every man has a right to choose the security, justice agency he wants. If acknowledging this right results in non-existence of other natural rights then that’s what the objective reality of the universe is, and there is nothing an objectivist can do about.
The choice of a security agency is a man’s right, a man has a right to his complete labor, then you cannot say in the next sentence “but to allow him to keep most of his labor we need to take a little bit labor out of that complete labor” well then don’t say that man has a right to his complete labor. Don’t say you are an Objectivist say you are a Minobjectivist.
barun Says:
September 17th, 2009 at 8:15 pmHello, I just found your interesting article. Just last month, a friend and I were discussing the dangers of anarcho-capitalism, as a contradiction in terms.
I would like to invite you to explore our Ayn Rand in India initiative at http://www.AynRand.in and http://www.InDefenceofLiberty.org.
Also, please check our initiative on democracy - Empowering India at http://www.EmpoweringIndia.org
We look at democracy and free market as complementary, both enhance freedom of choice.
Zip Says:
November 13th, 2009 at 11:25 pmIt’s worse than who will provide the force in Anarcho-capitalism… The real question is what is the law?
Who decides? What constitutes a fair objective punishment? Is murder a “hanging offence” or merely constitute a life imprisoned?
Zip´s last blog ..Doomed to Repeat it…