Anarcho-Capitalists realize that people can choose to voluntarily join government-like institutions — homeowners’ associations, charter cities, churches, secular mutual aid societies, family contracts, and even socialist communes — just as long as they are paid for voluntarily, all adults are there by choice, and all children / dependents can be monitored to make sure their Right to Emancipation isn’t being violated. Most people will choose to join some such institutions, which will be subject to competition with each-other, and if Objectivists are correct in their belief that a minarchist government is ideal then their charter cities / etc will attract the most brains and capital, and their ideas will spread while less functional ideas shrink.

Objectivists need to realize that Rights enforcement gains only a limited benefit from economy of scale, but the bigger the government is the more likely it is to gradually encroach on ever-more liberties, manufacturing non-existent enemies and threats if needed. All of American history is a story with one moral lesson being repeated over and over again: constitutional restraints on government do not work! All government institutions are ultimately in the same boat, so “checks and balances” don’t work! Governments will always be able to influence the people more than the people can influence “their” government! Power corrupts!

Another thing government defenders (including minarchists) need to understand is that we are talking about 21st century societies, not 20th century ones. You should start thinking in terms of non-lethal self-defense weapons, networks of billions of video cameras and other sensors, “open source” satellite video feeds, AI target tracking, face recognition, augmented reality eyeglasses which can instantly tell you the reputation of the person / business you are dealing with, seasteads, domed neighborhoods, etc, etc, etc. In an anarchist society all those technological advances benefit the property owners, making crime ever-more-difficult to get away with. In a minarchist society, the government can monopolize this technology for its own ends to turn Earth into a homogenized Big Brother prison planet from which there is no escape!
.-= Alex Libman´s last blog ..Great Speakers Announced for PorcFest 2010 =-.

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… =-.

A rational man cannot survive in an anarchic society where there is no definite, objective rule for man.

The 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.

Anarchism is incompatible with Capitalism as it is incompatible with man’s freedom. Anarchism is a prelude to everything that man should fear- socialism, communism, fascism and every derivative of collectivism. A rational man cannot survive in an anarchic society where there is no definite, objective rule for man. You cannot put man’s fate at the mercy or generosity of a gang of savages who either harbor evil or altruistic intent and who have mustered enough power to rule and enslave men who don’t have the capacity to protect themselves. In a free society, we need the aid and protection of a government with a limited power. This is what Ayn Rand envisions, which is against anarcho-capitalism proposed by Murray Rothbard and his fellow anarchists. What we need is a separation of state and economy. In an anarchic society, there is no protection of contracts, individual rights, and mutual agreements between parties. This social system will only lead to barbarism and social chaos wherein power is available to those who have the means to use force against other men.
We cannot allow hitchhikers to appropriate and even desecrate the philosophy and ideals of Ayn Rand. This method is “infiltration” at best.

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 =-.