- This topic has 7 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Leonard Peinkoff describes Ayn Rand’s view on government very well. However, two things triggered me.
1. “It is a contradiction to assert one’s right to use force as one chooses while demanding that others refrain from organizing and protecting themselves. Whoever breaks the laws of a proper government, no matter what philosophic reasons becomes thereby a criminal, and men are morally bound to treat him as such.” This is incompatible with voluntary action. She made a mistake.
2. ‘This leads to the essential function of government: the protection and enforcement of contracts, including the resolution if disputes that arise therefrom- their impartial resolution, by objectively defined laws” Why government? There have been and still are brilliant examples of voluntary negotiators.Catherine,
1. How do you define “voluntary action” and which part of the quote is incompatible with it (and how)?
2. If by “voluntary negotiators” you mean private dispute resolution firms, then this is a perfectly valid service to offer on the market. If memory serves, Peikoff mentions these approvingly, along with hiring private security, in a lecture or Q&A (either the 1976 lectures upon which the book was based or the advanced seminars he gave around the time of its publication). However, if by “voluntary negotiators” you mean that private firms should entirely replace the government, then the problem with that “solution” is baked into the very phrase “voluntary negotiators.” The purpose of objective law is to set objectively defined boundaries between people, such that one cannot legally violate the rights of another, even if the violator does not care about or recognize those rights, including rights a person gains via contract. But if negotiations are merely voluntary and a person may decide either not to negotiate or not to carry out whatever the mediator rules—if there is no backstop for addressing rights-violating actions, the result is an unjust society that does not uphold the principle of individual rights. Because such a government does not extract force from social relationships, it also fails to create the conditions for a free market: A free market is one in which rights are respected and protected. Those who advocate that society, as a matter of policy, replace objective law courts with “voluntary negotiators” on the premise that “free markets are better than governments” are thus working with invalid definitions of both terms. Free markets only exist where freedom—meaning, individual rights—are protected by government.
I have read and thought about the libertarian (Rothbardian) argument that individuals should have the freedom to choose which defence agency they want for protection of their rights. To try and resolve it I engaged in a “thought experiment” a bit similar to that which Rand mentions ie the competing agencies showing up at your front door following a dispute with your neighbour. To take the libertarian argument to its logical conclusion, each individual would presumably also have the freedom to not contract with any defence agency ie would have the right to individual self-defence. Obviously this would result in pure anarchy – the opposite of a society in which individual rights are protected by objective law. Based on this I rejected the Rothbardian argument and agreed with Rand’s position of the need for a limited constitutional government with a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force in the given geographic area.
Voluntary action is the one which is made without use of coercion. If people are mandates to submit to an entity which rules by coercion its not a voluntary choice. Ofcourse we can’t avoid being born into the world and it’s organization, we benefit or suffer from legacy, yet being born into system which was voluntary selected through principles of natural “evolution” by human voluntary choices is very different.
I assume the disagreement occurs as we believe that only market mechanism can provide the most individual respecting systems. Statist believe market is disorganized and needs to be “maintained”.
Catherine, agreed that it’s great we still have (substantial) freedom of speech!
I don’t think a market needs to be “maintained” in the sense of requiring regulation. I just think a true free market doesn’t exist until force has been extracted from social relations. A legitimate government is one whose sole function is to extract force from social relationships and thereby protect rights. In that case, what would it mean, as you say, “to submit to an entity which rules by coercion its not a voluntary choice”?
In my view, it would mean only that if one initiates force, one will be met with force. In a “state of nature” prior to the organization of a government, that force would be wielded by whomever happened to take it upon himself to respond to me, and there would be no preset limits on what his response should be. By contrast, a legitimate government puts objective limits on the use of retaliatory force, such that responses to force are measured and fair. I don’t see how that is an imposition on anyone.
Catherine, agreed that it’s great we still have (substantial) freedom of speech!
I don’t think a market needs to be “maintained” in the sense of requiring regulation. I just think a true free market doesn’t exist until force has been extracted from social relations. A legitimate government is one whose sole function is to extract force from social relationships and thereby protect rights. In that case, what would it mean, as you say, “to submit to an entity which rules by coercion its not a voluntary choice”?
In my view, it would mean only that if one initiates force, one will be met with force. In a “state of nature” prior to the organization of a government, that force would be wielded by whomever happened to take it upon himself to respond to me, and there would be no preset limits on what his response should be. By contrast, a legitimate government puts objective limits on the use of retaliatory force, such that responses to force are measured and fair. I don’t see how that is an imposition on anyone.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.