Even Childs recanted his own anarchist position when he realized that he had no way to make it work in reality. Others saw that and a lot more wrong with his rationalizations far sooner, which is why the whole thing remains on the fantasy fringe, with no connection to the real world of today's problems or anything other time or place. These parasites of the gulch are wasting other people's time with this attempt at cult resurrection.

As soon as you have rules you have a government. As soon as some people have the right to use force to enforce rules you have a government. Calling it private does not change the fact. Rand was right.

I want to debate the essentials of Childs' argument against Rand's justification of the State. Childs clearly shows in this article that she is caught in a contradiction, which is: the State exists by the vice of initiated force and therefore cannot be morally justified. Rand never responded to Childs' or other anarch-libertarians' arguments that the State can only exist by employing initiated force and the threat of it. And since Rand was explicitly against the use of initiated force she is caught in a contradiction. Debate this.

I love you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0jReeAe3...

This one is pretty easy to poke some serious holes in. The author completely forgets to define government at its base level, and in so doing leaves his entire rationale subject to the most fundamental rebuttal - one of definition.

Government is nothing more than people getting together to agree to common rules for interaction. Whether they appoint a king, elect a mayor, or even establish a security force, etc. they are simply agreeing to a certain set of base tenets and setting up an authority for mediating disputes, are they not?

Anarchy is at its very heart a repudiation of common goals, so the idea of a "free market anarchism" is inherently contradictory. Every business transaction is in fact a contract between buyer and seller - an agreement with certain claims and certain liabilities undertaken on both sides. What the author completely fails to account for is that in any contract, there must be a method for appeal to a third party to arbitrate contract disputes! Thus inherent in any business dealing is the notion of government!

I also love the nonsense he introduces with competing governments in overwatch on the same subjects! Another inherent contradiction. A person can only owe allegiance to one government at a time, i.e. for any contractual matter, there may be only one agreed-upon arbiter in a dispute!

As to the rest of his points, his logic is quite shaky. He really should spend more time on his logic and less on elocution lessons, as the confuses substance with theory.

1. With respect to a police force, as alluded to prior and based on the principle that we can only owe allegiance to a single governing body at a time, the notion of competing entities for providing self-protection is similarly nonsensical. To boot, from a practical perspective, ask Ike how practical it was to place him as Commander-in-Chief of the Allied armies when Montgomery went off and did his own thing, Patton did his own, and Stalin did his own!

2. In this one, he misunderstand's Rand's basic argument entirely. They are actually in agreement, whether he knows it or not.

3. This argument again is based on the inherently contradictory position that one can have government and no government at the same time.

4. I have a problem with both arguments here, because each presumes the supposition of knowledge when ignorance is more than often the case.

5. This one again is based on the false separation of "government" from "competing agencies of protection" in addition to the fallacy that one can have more than one governing body overseeing a single person, group, community, or society.

While I give him a B- for effort, I give him a solid D for efficacy. I couldn't find a single one of his arguments that wasn't severely and fatally flawed. What was more egregious was that the flaws were not that difficult to identify.

This discussion, while interesting, is premature. Let's forget about nations and governments for a while and concentrate on the really Big picture. the human race. We (the race) are not mature enough for any form of anarchy at present. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't struggle toward what is pro-life and anti-death. Since it is not possible to achieve or sustain any form of anarchy today, what we must do is judge what's going on and use our reasoning power and whatever other attributes we can spare to determine what promotes freedom and what works to destroy freedom. Then we must use our minds to work toward freedom by the use of actions that will promote it.

While it never hurts to have discussions of this sort, it is way too far ahead of its time. If the Obama regime and its ilk continue to make the sort of progress it has in the last 50 years, it may well be many hundreds of years of struggle before we crawl out of a new Dark Ages and make this discussion relevant. If the regime falters, and we can contribute to the trend toward freedom, then we must do so.
I'm betting on the latter.

Objectivism deals with the rational realization of reality in all things. We are so far away from a society, culture, and morality of the protection of individual natural rights, if we can ever reach such.

Belief in simple answers and short cuts, for something as complex as belief and pride in oneself and one's accomplishments, have to a large extent led us into the type of system we all have to live in today. The task ahead is indeed daunting, but until faced and as db says, a foundation sufficient for a working Objectivist life is laid, everything else is just pie in the sky dreaming.

Beware of those that promise simple and shortcut answers. Such usually derive from shallow thinking and wishes, not reason and recognitions of reality.

Your premise is Constitutional, but based on the assumption that those in power respect the Constitution and the limits it places on the use of power!

Our current President has already tried to create his own police force. Since that was an overt try that got immediately shot down, he has been doing it covertly through the various bureaucracies. Why else is the IRS buying weapons and ammo to outfit itself (proven, btw - not a conspiracy theory). What about the BLM - who showed up on the Bundy Ranch with its own military SWAT team, snipers, and armored vehicles? What about the DHS' purchase of more .45 hollow-point ammo than the Army uses in target practice in 5 years (also NOT a conspiracy theory).

In a government that actually respects its Constitutional restrictions, we don't have to worry. But then, neither did the Germans of the late 1920's - or so they thought. Neither did the Russians of the 1940's - or so they thought. Neither did the Chinese of the 1940's - or so they thought.

I said effectively abandon, not actually and by any resolution of law. You're right, the Chicago Police Department, or at least the Mayor and several Aldermen, did take bribes, presumably from both sides in the Capone-Moran feud.

To be more specific, Al Capone enjoyed the protection of the Unione Sicilione, more on account of shared Italian heritage than anything else. Moran was Irish. But I take your point: they were organized criminals. But the CPD took those bribes, and effectively ignored the tension between the two gangs, because the people of Chicago wanted it that way. They didn't give a swizzle stick for anyone "not doing his sworn duty." Very likely they were some of the same people saying the passwords at speakeasies all over town every night.

Here's the point: the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, and the Capone-Moran feud, are what ordinary people are going to think of, whenever they think of privately contracting protection organizations. That's what you're fighting. If possession is nine points of the civil law, perception is nine points of any debate, especially in political philosophy, as opposed to a choice between political candidates.

That said, the most famous documentary on the Capone-Moran feud (with Jason Robards as Capone) did say absolutely everyone who took part in the Massacre came to a sad end. That includes Capone, who died insane from late syphilis. But most people aren't going to make that kind of connection.

It's one thing to present your case here; quite another to take it before the people.

You cannot create a free society separate from reason, you cannot create a free society separate from property rights. NAP is building on a foundation of sand. Yes reason will end up with non-aggression, but that is not the foundation.

Most people who try to judge between limited government and free market Anarchy employ a form of circular reasoning. They forget that the free market anarchist model that Mr. Childs hinted at would change radically the allocation of certain military and other resources. For instance, in the absence of the police, private security forces would be much better arms, and probably watch better trained, than they are today. And in the absence of a public Navy, international exporters and importers would either have their own private navies or would contract with a firm dedicated to providing naval services.

The problem Mr Childs never acknowledged, what is that certain cities in the United States tried something close to free market anarchism. Chicago in the 1920s was an example. Two rival empires, specializing in the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages, competed not only for distribution but also for the right to protect their respective businesses. The heads of those firms were, of course, Al Capone and Bugs Moran. We all remember how that ended, on February 14th, 1929. After that episode, the People demanded a return of the police to their proper role, which they had effectively abandoned.

Any advocates of free market anarchy must say why it would not be in the rational self-interest either to be an Al Capone, or to tolerate one.

Did I miss this in history, or are you actually claiming that the police force in Chicago in the 1920s completely and officially shut down, and no taxes were collected to fund it? I have to suspect the reality is that a functioning, taxpayer-funded police force decided to "effectively abandon" the work they were being paid to do, presumably to also collect bribes on the side in addition to the salary they weren't earning. If this is the case, it is not anywhere near an example of anarchy, but rather more evidence of the easy corruptibility of government given its monopoly status. It's also a clear demonstration that the system of government can't be trusted to reliably perform its single alleged raison d'etre: protection from bad guys. Two Mafiosos doing nothing but "protect[ing] their respective businesses" are not an an example of a protection service available for individuals to hire in free-market anarchy. And, of course, government enacted prohibition in the first place, creating the environment where profits could be made by ruthless people.

It's not in anyone's rational self-interest to either be an Al Capone or tolerate one because it is immoral and unhealthy to live for another's sake or ask him or her to live for yours. (Threatening and using force, or stealing property, entail a person living for someone else's sake.) I read a psychological study which showed that people who consume more value than they produce end up depressed. Yes, there's an actual karmic aspect to Ayn Rand's philosophy, in case you haven't already experienced it yourself.

Hello helidrvr,
I wish I had that much faith in my fellow man, but...

Whensoever man has tried to coexist there have been those that would rule, by whatever means necessary. Attilas will rise. Tyranny is the result. Men are not all fit or ready for anarchy.

“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.”
Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Civil Government. 1690.

“The great end of men's entering into society, being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society; the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power...”
Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Civil Government. 1690.
This of course implies a need for an enforcement mechanism, i.e., a police force.

Is limited government a floating abstraction? I believe it is concrete, actual enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYahVMMx...

Whatever it is, if it can be maintained, it is the best way yet devised for generally peaceful coexistence. It may be that it cannot be maintained without periodic revolution. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

Respectfully,
O.A.

Some Humans will adhere to a code of conduct, others will only refrain from violating the code if they can get away with it.

Other nations, cyber hackers and terrorists will attack.

Therefore force, National military, police, legal system for victim compensation are all necessary.

Those who advocate anarchy without enforcement are denying reality (which Ayn said is the root of evil)

Conspiracy theories about ammo purchases aside, yes you can form dispute resolution services, mediation etc. You can have private security, bodyguard, community watch etc.

Anyone have an answer to my question, not just looking to vent against the government?.

Are you allowed to form a competing protection or dispute resolution service, either locally or nationally, without having the government attack and punish you? No, the state will protect their monopoly on these services. It is a "protection racket" like the Mafia. And what are the results of a monopoly? Lack of efficiency, innovation or accountability, abuse of power.

With all that was said in the article, I cannot see how any of the arguments could hinge on the fact that "the US military is not allowed domestically." Semantics aside, have you seen the ammo and weapon purchases by the various domestic government departments? The armored vehicles on the streets? These are not for foreign use.

Don't we need a simple answer though? Short cuts aren't always a bad thing, some times they can be more efficient. The task ahead of us is daunting, and trying to educate millions of people on natural rights is highly inefficient. Most people don't have the stomach to actually learn about philosophy, others just don't have the time, and for good reason, there are more important issues to many people than the definition of rights, and that will be the case for forever as far as I can see.

Discussing things like this is fun for me, and I hope you derive at least some enjoyment out of it, but I just want to be clear that I'm in full support of an objectivist style government and will do what I can to bring that about.

The entire argument is based on a false premise. The US military is not allowed domestically. It is only against foreign enemies.

The states police internally and each community hires it's own police force. So what is this guy talking about?

I have responded with reason all over this post. You have done nothing but ad hominem attacks and mystical analogies

Oh cheese, i hurt your feelings, here I thought you were a thinker! If you identify with the pigeons and bait takers, well and good. Read Child and respond with reason not your hurt feelings! CHeers from CHina, FreeEach:)

Rozar,

I agree about the police of today, but they were not always that way. This is result of philosophy, which is then reflected in culture. Changing the procedural systems will not create or save freedom, only winning the philosophical battle will do that. The NAP is an attempt to shortcut the process. It uses the results of a complex philosophical system for freedom and attempts to ignore the foundation, with the same disastrous results of trying to build a skyscraper without a foundation.

Well done TOLFA! You have set the cat among the pigeons! I put the cheese in the rattrap earlier here but no one was was sniffing it:

"Rand never grew up. Although she relinquished God, she still believed in Government. Read the finest book written to demonstrate her adolescence: The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill (https://mises.org/books/marketforliberty......) and listen to Roy Child’s gentle chiding and deserved hiding of Rand in his “An Open Letter to Ayn Rand” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se0VmSaJD...... and http://www.dailypaul.com/54196/objectivi...... ). Then come and view me at: www.ResourceForYourSource.com and perhaps you will be interested in joining with me to create a “Galt’s Gulch” of the Mind, in which case, email me at: themesofjack@gmail.com and I will respond.
CHeers, FreeEach/Jack, in CHarming and CHaotic CHina where Responsible Freedom is CHurning a CHange."

Let's see who takes the bait now!

You are only as free as you take the responsibility to be.

speaking for myself, I respond well to being called "pigeon" and "bait taker" good luck with that