Ayn Rand on capitalism and anarchy

[malkusm]

In her essay, The Property Status of Airwaves:

"Collectivists frequently cite the early years of radio as an example of the failure of free enterprise. In those years, when broadcasters had no property rights in radio, no legal protection or recourse, the airwaves were a chaotic no man's land where anyone could use any frequency he pleased and jam anyone else. Some professional broadcasters tried to divide their frequencies by private agreements, which they could not enforce on others; nor could they fight the interference of stray, maliciously mischievous adventurers. This state of affairs was used, then and now, to urge and justify government control of radio.

This is an instance of capitalism taking the blame for the evils of its enemies.

The chaos of the airwaves was an example, not of free enterprise, but of anarchy. It was caused, not by private property rights, but by their absence. It demonstrated why capitalism is incompatible with anarchism, why men do need a government and what is a government's proper function. What was needed was legality, not controls."

------------

Discuss.

[heavenlyboy34]

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. She falsely assumes here that Government regulation brings about order. We know from experience (like the Leviathan media corporations, i.e. ClearChannel and big Pharma) that government regulation results in cartels and inefficiency. The self-regulating nature of the internet is further proof of her error.

[malkusm]

She falsely assumes here that Government regulation brings about order. We know from experience (like the Leviathan media corporations, i.e. ClearChannel) that government regulation results in cartels and inefficiency.

Negative - her point in this essay is that the government intervention (the FCC) came about due to the point of view that "free enterprise" had caused the chaos seen in the early days of radio. In actuality, her point was that "free enterprise" cannot occur in an anarchy where there is no protection of property rights.


The self-regulating nature of the internet is further proof of her error.

Actually, property rights are protected on the internet; if anyone were to try to take the domain name "www.google.com" right now, they would not be able to, as it is considered the private property of its current owners. I'd venture to say that, should anyone try to hack and take control of a domain name (especially one of such a high profile) that they would be rightfully sued and/or persued on criminal charges.

[tremendoustie]

In her essay, The Property Status of Airwaves:

"Collectivists frequently cite the early years of radio as an example of the failure of free enterprise. In those years, when broadcasters had no property rights in radio, no legal protection or recourse, the airwaves were a chaotic no man's land where anyone could use any frequency he pleased and jam anyone else. Some professional broadcasters tried to divide their frequencies by private agreements, which they could not enforce on others; nor could they fight the interference of stray, maliciously mischievous adventurers. This state of affairs was used, then and now, to urge and justify government control of radio.

This is an instance of capitalism taking the blame for the evils of its enemies.

The chaos of the airwaves was an example, not of free enterprise, but of anarchy. It was caused, not by private property rights, but by their absence. It demonstrated why capitalism is incompatible with anarchism, why men do need a government and what is a government's proper function. What was needed was legality, not controls."

------------

Discuss.


She supposes that anarchy does not include property rights. Depending on your definition of anarchy, she's not necessarily wrong. That's why I don't consider myself an anarchist. I am a voluntaryist, which by definition includes respect for property rights.

Unfortunately, it seems like many around here still insist on calling ancap, and voluntaryism -- both of which respect property rights -- "anarchy", when it's untrue. Voluntaryism is NOT another word for anarchy. I believe in rules, and order.

[malkusm]

Unfortunately, it seems like many around here still insist on calling ancap, and voluntaryism -- both of which respect property rights -- "anarchy", when it's untrue. Voluntaryism is NOT another word for anarchy. I believe in rules, and order.

I don't believe that Ayn Rand was discussing voluntaryism at all; however, I've never read anything that leads me to believe that property rights are enforceable on a voluntary basis. A voluntary system would necessarily lead to a subjective, rather than objective, arbitrator of property rights (or, rather, several competing subjective arbitrators); the same corruption and incentives that lead government to take favors and grant biased judicial opinions would be much greater in a system where those incentives are more direct.

That's off-topic, though, and that's my view of voluntaryism, not Ayn Rand's. Her view on anarchy (which I define as the absence of government), however, is that it is incompatible with capitalism and free enterprise because of the necessity of the enforcement of property rights. This is the point that I find compelling and would like to discuss.

[heavenlyboy34]

She supposes that anarchy does not include property rights. Depending on your definition of anarchy, she's not necessarily wrong. That's why I don't consider myself an anarchist. I am a voluntaryist, which by definition includes respect for property rights.

Unfortunately, it seems like many around here still insist on calling ancap, and voluntaryism -- both of which respect property rights -- "anarchy", when it's untrue. Voluntaryism is NOT another word for anarchy. I believe in rules, and order.

Well said. Perhaps I should adopt that Voluntaryist label. I'll look into it. :cool:

[malkusm]

"Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and favors the absence of the state (anarchy)."

--------

"Libertarian theory, relying upon the self-ownership and homesteading axioms, condemns all invasive acts and rejects the initiation of violence. Anarchists, in particular, assert that the state acts aggressively when it engages in taxation and coercively monopolizes the provision of certain public services such as the roads, courts, police, and armed forces. It is this anarchist outlook that the state is inherently and necessarily an invasive institution - which distinguishes the anarchist from other libertarians.

By this definition, voluntaryists are peaceful anarchists."

--------

Voluntaryism = a form of anarchism that strongly believes in property rights, but has no way of enforcing them. (IMO)

I didn't intend this to be a thread about voluntaryism, so if you'd like to fill me in on how said property rights are protected in a separate thread, I'd be happy to debate that point there.

[tremendoustie]

I don't believe that Ayn Rand was discussing voluntaryism at all; however, I've never read anything that leads me to believe that property rights are enforceable on a voluntary basis. A voluntary system would necessarily lead to a subjective, rather than objective, arbitrator of property rights (or, rather, several competing subjective arbitrators);


Actually, it would be far more objective, because rather than legality being defined by whatever arbitrary diktats a bureaucrat or politician happen to write down, it would be based on the non aggression principle.



the same corruption and incentives that lead government to take favors and grant biased judicial opinions would be much greater in a system where those incentives are more direct.


The opposite is the case. Government is unaccountable because people cannot withdraw their support, and this unaccountability directly leads to waste and corruption. By contrast, in a free system people could immediately withdraw funding at the hint of corruption, and switch to a competitor. Competition increases accountability, efficiency, and improves service.



That's off-topic, though, and that's my view of voluntaryism, not Ayn Rand's. Her view on anarchy (which I define as the absence of government), however, is that it is incompatible with capitalism and free enterprise because of the necessity of the enforcement of property rights. This is the point that I find compelling and would like to discuss.

Voluntarism also excludes the possibility of government as we know it, which uses aggressive force/violence. The idea that property rights can only be enforced by an aggressively violent monopoly is frankly silly.

But, if you suppose a situation where property rights are not respected, or enforced, as Rand seems to, then what she says is true. Property rights are vital.

[heavenlyboy34]

Property rights are vital.

This is an important point. I would like to make a piggyback point-government systematically violates property rights through taxation, inflation, regulation, and so forth.

[malkusm]

Actually, it would be far more objective, because rather than legality being defined by whatever arbitrary diktats a bureaucrat or politician happen to write down, it would be based on the non aggression principle.

You are making the assumption that a government must necessarily make arbitrary laws or overstep their bounds as stated by the Constitution, which is to enforce property rights and individual freedoms. Or, if you have issues with the Constitution (as I have a few myself), we could define a new government in which the only goals are the enforcement of property rights, individual freedoms, private contracts, etc. Either way, that's a fallacious assumption.


The opposite is the case. Government is unaccountable because people cannot withdraw their support, and this unaccountability directly leads to waste and corruption. By contrast, in a free system people could immediately withdraw funding at the hint of corruption, and switch to a competitor. Competition increases accountability, efficiency, and improves service.

Let's say I am a victim of a crime; do I, as the prosecuting body, get to choose the "competitor" that will arbitrate the dispute? Does the defendent? Does a third party? If a third party, who chooses the third party? If either me or the defendent, how do you consider the other party's participation in that system any less compulsory than a government from which we cannot "withdraw support?"


Voluntarism also excludes the possibility of government as we know it, which uses aggressive force/violence. The idea that property rights can only be enforced by an aggressively violent monopoly is frankly silly.

But, if you suppose a situation where property rights are not respected, or enforced, as Rand seems to, then what she says is true. Property rights are vital.

Do you believe that all people inherently believe in property rights? In other words, people only commit crimes against others because of the existence of a government?

[malkusm]

This is an important point. I would like to make a piggyback point-government systematically violates property rights through taxation, inflation, regulation, and so forth.

No, just because the current governments of the world do this does not mean that it is a necessity for government to exist. I agree that taxation, inflation, and regulations of the free market are violations of property rights; your statement does nothing to negate Rand's point.

[tremendoustie]

You are making the assumption that a government must necessarily make arbitrary laws or overstep their bounds as stated by the Constitution, which is to enforce property rights and individual freedoms. Or, if you have issues with the Constitution (as I have a few myself), we could define a new government in which the only goals are the enforcement of property rights, individual freedoms, private contracts, etc. Either way, that's a fallacious assumption.


The most key component for me is forced taxation, and the close second is forced monopoly. I think these constitute abuse in and of themselves, and inevitably lead to further abuse.



Let's say I am a victim of a crime; do I, as the prosecuting body, get to choose the "competitor" that will arbitrate the dispute? Does the defendent? Does a third party? If a third party, who chooses the third party? If either me or the defendent, how do you consider the other party's participation in that system any less compulsory than a government from which we cannot "withdraw support?"


Most likely, both you and the perpetrator would subscribe to protection agencies, and these protection agencies would have a designated series of courts of arbitration to handle disputes between them. This is where the conflict would be resolved, with your protection agency providing prosecutorial services, and the perpetrator's providing defense.




Do you believe that all people inherently believe in property rights? In other words, people only commit crimes against others because of the existence of a government?

No, that's why my goal is not to end government, it is to convince people to support individual liberty, and take a principled stand against aggressive violence. If enough people do so, yes, coercive government will be unsustainable, but simply ending government with a population the overwhelming majority of which is still bent on ruling over each other would only lead to chaos, violence, and a new form of tyranny.

I do believe government exacerbates the problem of disrespect for property rights, however -- many people who support socialism would never actually break into their neighbor's house and steal his TV, for example.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, just because the current governments of the world do this does not mean that it is a necessity for government to exist. I agree that taxation, inflation, and regulations of the free market are violations of property rights; your statement does nothing to negate Rand's point.

Yes it does, because she is arguing for government to 'protect' society (the defense/protection myth of the State), and as you saw in my counterpoint, this is not the case.

[malkusm]

You are making the assumption that a government must necessarily make arbitrary laws or overstep their bounds as stated by the Constitution, which is to enforce property rights and individual freedoms. Or, if you have issues with the Constitution (as I have a few myself), we could define a new government in which the only goals are the enforcement of property rights, individual freedoms, private contracts, etc. Either way, that's a fallacious assumption.


The most key component for me is forced taxation, and the close second is forced monopoly. I think these constitute abuse in and of themselves, and inevitably lead to further abuse.


No, just because the current governments of the world do this does not mean that it is a necessity for government to exist. I agree that taxation, inflation, and regulations of the free market are violations of property rights; your statement does nothing to negate Rand's point.

Please address Rand's point that a government is necessary to enforce property rights, and drop the assumptions that governments necessarily will enforce taxation and/or restrictions on a free economy.

[malkusm]

Let's say I am a victim of a crime; do I, as the prosecuting body, get to choose the "competitor" that will arbitrate the dispute? Does the defendent? Does a third party? If a third party, who chooses the third party? If either me or the defendent, how do you consider the other party's participation in that system any less compulsory than a government from which we cannot "withdraw support?"


Most likely, both you and the perpetrator would subscribe to protection agencies, and these protection agencies would have a designated series of courts of arbitration to handle disputes between them. This is where the conflict would be resolved, with your protection agency providing prosecutorial services, and the perpetrator's providing defense.

Let's say your neighbor steals your car in the middle of the night, and does nothing to conceal this; he parks it right next to your house. Should your only course of action be to hire a "protection agency" to defend your rightful property? Furthermore, let's assume your neighbor has a vast amount of resources, far more than yours. Would he not be able to hire a superior "protection agency" with those resources - especially now that he has your car, which he has no rightful claim to, to use as part of his own wealth towards obtaining that goal?

Let's say your neighbor takes your life; does your family take the responsibility of hiring a "protection agency" in your defense?

Let's say your neighbor happens to be best friends with the owner/operator of the top "protection agency" within 100 miles of your residence, and he/she agrees to offer legal counsel for free to the criminal. Should the defense of your property be at the mercy of such an agreement?

And on, and on....there are many problems with such a system.

[heavenlyboy34]

Let's say your neighbor steals your car in the middle of the night, and does nothing to conceal this; he parks it right next to your house. Should your only course of action be to hire a "protection agency" to defend your rightful property? Furthermore, let's assume your neighbor has a vast amount of resources, far more than yours. Would he not be able to hire a superior "protection agency" with those resources - especially now that he has your car, which he has no rightful claim to, to use as part of his own wealth towards obtaining that goal?

Let's say your neighbor takes your life; does your family take the responsibility of hiring a "protection agency" in your defense?

Let's say your neighbor happens to be best friends with the owner/operator of the top "protection agency" within 100 miles of your residence, and he/she agrees to offer legal counsel for free to the criminal. Should the defense of your property be at the mercy of such an agreement?

And on, and on....there are many problems with such a system.


We've had videos of police committing crimes on this very site. So, if you are arguing that the police are a superior alternative, this inevitably fails.

And it is possible that a wealthy person might be able to hire a more elaborate defense agency, yes, but assuming this is a truly ancap society, there would be enough competition in the market that average people could eventually afford the superior company (just as soccer moms can now drive SUVs).

Sorry for the short answer, but I'm busy right now. ttyl.

[ScoutsHonor]

I don't believe that Ayn Rand was discussing voluntaryism at all; however, I've never read anything that leads me to believe that property rights are enforceable on a voluntary basis. A voluntary system would necessarily lead to a subjective, rather than objective, arbitrator of property rights (or, rather, several competing subjective arbitrators); the same corruption and incentives that lead government to take favors and grant biased judicial opinions would be much greater in a system where those incentives are more direct.

That's off-topic, though, and that's my view of voluntaryism, not Ayn Rand's. Her view on anarchy (which I define as the absence of government), however, is that it is incompatible with capitalism and free enterprise because of the necessity of the enforcement of property rights. This is the point that I find compelling and would like to discuss.

+1

[malkusm]

No, just because the current governments of the world do this does not mean that it is a necessity for government to exist. I agree that taxation, inflation, and regulations of the free market are violations of property rights; your statement does nothing to negate Rand's point.


Yes it does, because she is arguing for government to 'protect' society (the defense/protection myth of the State), and as you saw in my counterpoint, this is not the case.

What counterpoint are you talking about? I'll quote your other posts in this thread as a reference:


Well said. Perhaps I should adopt that Voluntaryist label. I'll look into it. :cool:


Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. She falsely assumes here that Government regulation brings about order. We know from experience (like the Leviathan media corporations, i.e. ClearChannel and big Pharma) that government regulation results in cartels and inefficiency. The self-regulating nature of the internet is further proof of her error.

---------

Furthermore, she never assumed that government regulation brought about order. If you read the essay in its entirely, the main theme is that statists used the anarchy of radio airwaves in order to take control of them; her point is that property rights cannot be defended in such an anarchy, and that an objective arbitrator for those rights must exist in order for the rights themselves to exist. You've done nothing to disprove this point that I've seen - you've misrepresented her position and then moved on to things like taxation, etc. which have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

[malkusm]

We've had videos of police committing crimes on this very site. So, if you are arguing that the police are a superior alternative, this inevitably fails.

And it is possible that a wealthy person might be able to hire a more elaborate defense agency, yes, but assuming this is a truly ancap society, there would be enough competition in the market that average people could eventually afford the superior company (just as soccer moms can now drive SUVs).

Sorry for the short answer, but I'm busy right now. ttyl.

Again, you're assuming that the current government = all governments, or the concept of government itself. This is not the case.

As to your second point - a soccer mom can drive an SUV, but can she afford a Ferrari? Isn't the issue of property rights far more necessary to protect than what car you can afford to drive?

If the goal of individual rights is to protect all as equal individuals; if property rights are inherent to individuals, and not things that can be bought and paid for; then how can we argue the fact that a society which treats property rights as a good to be sold to the highest bidder on a market can possibly be just?

[tremendoustie]

Please address Rand's point that a government is necessary to enforce property rights, and drop the assumptions that governments necessarily will enforce taxation and/or restrictions on a free economy.

I am not sure what your definition of government is, then, if it does not necessarily include taxation or an enforced monopoly. What, to you, constitutes government?

[heavenlyboy34]

What counterpoint are you talking about? I'll quote your other posts in this thread as a reference:



this one ->Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. She falsely assumes here that Government regulation brings about order. We know from experience (like the Leviathan media corporations, i.e. ClearChannel and big Pharma) that government regulation results in cartels and inefficiency. The self-regulating nature of the internet is further proof of her error.

[tremendoustie]

Of course, these are only my views about how things would work -- I don't have it all figured out, and I am sure there will be solutions which have not occurred to me.


Let's say your neighbor steals your car in the middle of the night, and does nothing to conceal this; he parks it right next to your house. Should your only course of action be to hire a "protection agency" to defend your rightful property?

No, you could simply take the car back yourself. Acting on a vigilante basis might open you up to liability, though, if you act wrongly.

Also, I think a protection agency would be something subscribed to on a regular basis, as a kind of combination police/insurance, rather then something hired after the fact.



Furthermore, let's assume your neighbor has a vast amount of resources, far more than yours. Would he not be able to hire a superior "protection agency" with those resources - especially now that he has your car, which he has no rightful claim to, to use as part of his own wealth towards obtaining that goal?


The most powerful protection agencies would be responsible, and use well respected courts of arbitration, because the economic power of people who simply want to be treated fairly and left alone dwarfs that of wannabe gangsters interested in stealing from their neighbors.

If a protection agency, or court or arbitration, is perceived to be corrupt or unjust, they will immediately lose business. Unlike government, these groups can be held accountable, because people are free to withdraw support.

I think we both recognize that the only way government can be held accountable is by the vigilance of the people. The same principle applies here, except that the people are empowered by their ability to redirect their resources as they choose.



Let's say your neighbor takes your life; does your family take the responsibility of hiring a "protection agency" in your defense?


You would probably already subscribe to one, or some of your family members would. If they did not, it is likely that an agency would be willing to help you on a pro bono basis, or a charity might help. The case would be taken to arbitration, and the perpetrator forced to make restitution to the family of the victim. In the case of murder, this would be quite severe.

Or, you could act on a vigilante basis, but again, you would open yourself up to possible liability.



Let's say your neighbor happens to be best friends with the owner/operator of the top "protection agency" within 100 miles of your residence, and he/she agrees to offer legal counsel for free to the criminal. Should the defense of your property be at the mercy of such an agreement?


If the protection agency is perceived as corrupt, or even more so a court of arbitration, honest citizens would drop it like a hot potato.



And on, and on....there are many problems with such a system.

Of course, no system is perfect, but I think it affords far more accountability to average people, to hold powers in check, than the government does. I recommend this book, as an intro to free market justice: http://www.mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf

Fundamentally, people should be free to use their own money as they choose, and free to live as they choose as long as they don't harm others. I am open to any solution which does not violate this principle.

[malkusm]

I am not sure what your definition of government is, then, if it does not necessarily include taxation or an enforced monopoly. What, to you, constitutes government?

Taxation is not necessary to have a government. Courts could assess initial fees to both parties in a dispute, and return this fee to the victor in any given case. This would discourage any cases being brought before the court which were fraudulent or baseless, would further discourage crime (as the criminal would have to pay a fee in order to defense himself, in addition to any sentence he might face), and the courts would pay for themselves by taking the fee of the party who loses the case; this person has either waived his own property rights by violating someone else's rights (convicted of a crime) or has paid that fee in direct proportion to his use of the court (in the case of someone who brings charges against another individual, but is not victorious).

Other government entities could exist and pay for themselves on the basis of usage, rather than coercion: fire companies and police departments could assess fees on a per-use fee, which again further discourages their use and abuse by those looking to take advantage of corruption in the system (even if it did exist). Also, for something like a fire department, competing entities could exist to keep them competitive.

As for "enforced monopoly," what do you mean? I think the government should have a monopoly on the arbitration of property rights, but that's about it. Of course, monopolies in the market are created solely by government, and should be avoided; however, property rights are too important to be bought and paid for by those with the most resources, if one believes them to be inherent to all individuals equally and unequivocally.

[tremendoustie]

Taxation is not necessary to have a government. Courts could assess initial fees to both parties in a dispute, and return this fee to the victor in any given case. This would discourage any cases being brought before the court which were fraudulent or baseless, would further discourage crime (as the criminal would have to pay a fee in order to defense himself, in addition to any sentence he might face), and the courts would pay for themselves by taking the fee of the party who loses the case; this person has either waived his own property rights by violating someone else's rights (convicted of a crime) or has paid that fee in direct proportion to his use of the court (in the case of someone who brings charges against another individual, but is not victorious).

Other government entities could exist and pay for themselves on the basis of usage, rather than coercion: fire companies and police departments could assess fees on a per-use fee, which again further discourages their use and abuse by those looking to take advantage of corruption in the system (even if it did exist). Also, for something like a fire department, competing entities could exist to keep them competitive.

As for "enforced monopoly," what do you mean? I think the government should have a monopoly on the arbitration of property rights, but that's about it. Of course, monopolies in the market are created solely by government, and should be avoided; however, property rights are too important to be bought and paid for by those with the most resources, if one believes them to be inherent to all individuals equally and unequivocally.

Well, I think am very close to complete agreement with you, except on the property rights issue. I think a monopoly does not ensure fair treatment at all, it only ensures that if there is abuse, there is no recourse. If we know monopolies are abusive in other sectors, why would we consider one preferable in the sector of property protection?

Fundamentally, why should a person not have the right to defend their property rights outside of the prescribed court? What if they, or an organization defending them, acts appropriately? Would you still consider them worthy of prosecution, simply for not going through the prescribed channels?

Also, I think perpetrators should be forced to make restitution to victims, perhaps in addition to any court costs. Jail doesn't help anyone -- least of all the victim. A secure environment could be provided for those who are truly a continuing threat to others.

In any case, I think your solution very close to completely free, and of course if we got even a fraction of what you propose it would be a vast improvement over what we have today.

In the context of what Rand said, I think we can both agree that we both support property rights -- you just support their enforcement by a monopoly, and I don't. I think she was referring to a situation in which property rights are not enforced.

[malkusm]

Well, I think am very close to complete agreement with you, except on the property rights issue. I think a monopoly does not ensure fair treatment at all, it only ensures that if there is abuse, there is no recourse. If we know monopolies are abusive in other sectors, why would we consider one preferable in the sector of property protection?

Fundamentally, why should a person not have the right to defend their property rights outside of the prescribed court? What if they, or an organization defending them, acts appropriately? Would you still consider them worthy of prosecution, simply for not going through the prescribed channels?

Also, I think perpetrators should be forced to make restitution to victims, perhaps in addition to any court costs. Jail doesn't help anyone -- least of all the victim. A secure environment could be provided for those who are truly a continuing threat to others.

In any case, I think your solution very close to completely free, and of course if we got even a fraction of what you propose it would be a vast improvement over what we have today.

In the context of what Rand said, I think we can both agree that we both support property rights -- you just support their enforcement by a monopoly, and I don't. I think she was referring to a situation in which property rights are not enforced.

I still don't see how property rights can be enforced in a subjective realm, rather than an objective one; but if that's the only thing we are in disagreement about, then it's a fair compromise.

My argument against property rights being an instrument of the free market is precisely the opposite of the capitalist's argument for the free market in any other context. For almost any good that exists, these goods are sold to those who desire them most and who will use them best economically. No one has an inherent right to any good on a free market: food, shelter, a car, a job, entertainment, or a whole host of other goods and services that a free market provides.

This is exactly the opposite of property rights: natural law presumes that these rights are inherent to the individual and inseparable from the individual. They cannot be given in exchange for dollars or favors or any other material thing. In order for property rights to be equally guaranteed for all, they must be equally enforced for all by the same set of standards and values.

Of course, that set of standards and values may be skewed, as is the case of the government we are under today. The framework of the ideal government must be so finite and rigid as to forbid the expansion of those powers. The Constitution didn't achieve that goal, but I still believe the goal to be a realistic one.

[Joe3113]

http://mises.org/story/2220

Written by Randoids.

Here we have excerpted three of the earlier chapters — 1, 3, and 5 — where the Tannehills build the foundation of their argument for the completely laissez-faire society and against the claims made by most of their fellow Objectivists, including Ayn Rand, that the minimalist "night watchman" state is necessary for peace and freedom.

http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/

[RedStripe]

I still don't see how property rights can be enforced in a subjective realm, rather than an objective one; but if that's the only thing we are in disagreement about, then it's a fair compromise.

What makes "property rights" as defined/enforced by government any different than "property rights" as defined/enforced by non-governmental institutions?


My argument against property rights being an instrument of the free market is precisely the opposite of the capitalist's argument for the free market in any other context. For almost any good that exists, these goods are sold to those who desire them most and who will use them best economically. No one has an inherent right to any good on a free market: food, shelter, a car, a job, entertainment, or a whole host of other goods and services that a free market provides.

This is exactly the opposite of property rights: natural law presumes that these rights are inherent to the individual and inseparable from the individual. They cannot be given in exchange for dollars or favors or any other material thing.

How is this? Under our current legal regime, my property rights can be exchanged on the market place. For example, my rights with respect to my car can be traded, sold, etc.

I find the natural law argument extremely flawed. What evidence is there that property rights are inherent or inseparable from the individual? Isn't the fact that I can sell my rights to some property evidence of the exact opposite?

You claim that you can't exchange property rights, but why not?


In order for property rights to be equally guaranteed for all, they must be equally enforced for all by the same set of standards and values.

The only way to do this would be to institute a world-wide legal system (one world government).

See, the problem with this dogmatic approach to "property rights" is that there is no such thing as natural law - it's just a flawed premises which leads to a flawed conclusion. Instead, property "rights" are just a shorthand way for describing the rules which govern the conditions of property ownership by individuals and organizations within a given group of people. They aren't even necessarily enforced by violence - they are also enforced by informal methods of social control (e.g. "Fred's an asshole because he doesn't respect the 'shotgun' rule when we go on road trips - lets hang out with him less or call him names, etc").

These rules ("property rights") also necessarily change over time. For example, legal rules governing the use of groundwater and water from rivers/streams are different depending on which state you live in. In western states, those rules are different because the circumstances are different.

Natural law ideology ignores circumstances. It treats "rights' in property as a black-and-white issue, when it is actually a huge grayscale. Any system of rules dealing with property isn't concerned with some divine conception of rights. Instead, any practical system asks "who has a better claim to this property" and uses a wide variety of factors to determine which claim is "better."

It's really no different than the other 99% of rules which govern our behavior (social norms/culture/tradition), which are more than capable of being created by spontaneous interactions between individuals and institutions other than the state.

[heavenlyboy34]

http://mises.org/story/2220 (http://mises.org/story/2220)

Written by Randoids.

Here we have excerpted three of the earlier chapters — 1, 3, and 5 — where the Tannehills build the foundation of their argument for the completely laissez-faire society and against the claims made by most of their fellow Objectivists, including Ayn Rand, that the minimalist "night watchman" state is necessary for peace and freedom.

http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/ (http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/)

I didn't know they were Randians, and I'm familiar with the text. How did they get to anarchism from Objectivism (just curious)? :confused:

[tremendoustie]

I still don't see how property rights can be enforced in a subjective realm, rather than an objective one;


I don't understand why you believe a monopoly equates to objectivity, and choice equates to subjectivity.



but if that's the only thing we are in disagreement about, then it's a fair compromise.


Yep :). Believe me, if I could snap my fingers and live in your ideal world, I would.



My argument against property rights being an instrument of the free market is precisely the opposite of the capitalist's argument for the free market in any other context. For almost any good that exists, these goods are sold to those who desire them most and who will use them best economically. No one has an inherent right to any good on a free market: food, shelter, a car, a job, entertainment, or a whole host of other goods and services that a free market provides.

This is exactly the opposite of property rights: natural law presumes that these rights are inherent to the individual and inseparable from the individual. They cannot be given in exchange for dollars or favors or any other material thing. In order for property rights to be equally guaranteed for all, they must be equally enforced for all by the same set of standards and values.


I see what you're saying, but I think the mistake is to suppose that the good to be provided is favorable judgments, rather than fair arbitration. If the populace is at all principled, most will seek to acquire the latter, not the former. What's more, in order to be selected to settle contract disputes, for example, an arbitration court is going to need to be acceptable to both parties, so known bias or corruption would be the mark of death for a court.



Of course, that set of standards and values may be skewed, as is the case of the government we are under today. The framework of the ideal government must be so finite and rigid as to forbid the expansion of those powers. The Constitution didn't achieve that goal, but I still believe the goal to be a realistic one.

I think we both agree that the enforcement mechanism for such rigid controls would be the people themselves. If a large enough, powerful enough portion of the people are principled enough to hold the court accountable to the principles it was set up to abide by, rather than simply to seek favorable judgments, why could that populace not hold a number of courts accountable to those principles?

Wouldn't it be easier, in fact, to hold courts accountable in a system which includes alternatives, given that if a particular court violates those principles, said populace can simply choose another, than in a monopoly system, where some sort of upheaval would be necessary to replace the court that had overstepped its bounds?

[heavenlyboy34]

The Constitution didn't achieve that goal, but I still believe the goal to be a realistic one.

I applaud you for being honest with yourself (unlike most minarchists) about the Constitution. However, I don't see it as realistic, as 1) there is no way to force the State to obey the constitution 2) any institution that is powerful enough to keep the State in check would become a de facto State in itself and turn to tyranny. I can't see any alternative but Stateless, moral society (or perhaps make RP the King and just get rid of everyone else in the government).

[malkusm]

How is this? Under our current legal regime, my property rights can be exchanged on the market place. For example, my rights with respect to my car can be traded, sold, etc.

I find the natural law argument extremely flawed. What evidence is there that property rights are inherent or inseparable from the individual? Isn't the fact that I can sell my rights to some property evidence of the exact opposite?

You claim that you can't exchange property rights, but why not?

A voluntary exchange of property is not what I'm talking about, and I thought my examples made that pretty apparent.

Those with resources have no more claim to the right to their own property than those without resources. By allowing the arbitrator of disputes in a society to be subject to the resources of the individuals involved, a "free market" in justice would say that whoever can pay more for their rights are more entitled to them. This is the opposite of the basis of private property in a free society, and undercuts the premise of private ownership altogether: the man in an anarchy, who owns only what his money will pay to keep through the payment of the arbitrator, owns nothing more than the man in a communist society, who owns only what is left of his money after he pays the arbitrator (government).


The only way to do this would be to institute a world-wide legal system (one world government).

No, you either assumed that I define "society" as the entire world, or otherwise misinterpreted my statement. Individuals in a society (read: locality, community, region, or country) should be bound by an objective set of standards which defends the rights of all who are a part of it. Individuals who disagree with the policies of a certain community would be free to move elsewhere; but the premise is that an ideal government would defend property rights at all times, and usurp them at no time.



See, the problem with this dogmatic approach to "property rights" is that there is no such thing as natural law - it's just a flawed premises which leads to a flawed conclusion. Instead, property "rights" are just a shorthand way for describing the rules which govern the conditions of property ownership by individuals and organizations within a given group of people. They aren't even necessarily enforced by violence - they are also enforced by informal methods of social control (e.g. "Fred's an asshole because he doesn't respect the 'shotgun' rule when we go on road trips - lets hang out with him less or call him names, etc").

Your solution to this is to dissolve all rights to private property, then? What would dictate the use of any property or resource?


These rules ("property rights") also necessarily change over time. For example, legal rules governing the use of groundwater and water from rivers/streams are different depending on which state you live in. In western states, those rules are different because the circumstances are different.

Wrong; there is a correct philosophical definition of those rights. The laws made by men in different areas don't negate this point. I'd hardly say that a law which prevented me from using water from my own well and forcing me to subscribe to a public service is some sort of definition of property.


Natural law ideology ignores circumstances. It treats "rights' in property as a black-and-white issue, when it is actually a huge grayscale. Any system of rules dealing with property isn't concerned with some divine conception of rights. Instead, any practical system asks "who has a better claim to this property" and uses a wide variety of factors to determine which claim is "better."

So, when the government claims they have a "better" claim to my property via taxation, and they use a wide variety of factors which are determined by a central governing agency, that would be better than defining rights as "a black-and-white issue"? I thought you were arguing against government intervention.... :rolleyes:

Until you understand that there can be no moral argument for the use of a person's own, earned resources by any other person, or any other factor other than their own preferences, then you might as well believe that anybody can claim anybody's resources. If you submit that any property can be involuntarily taken from an individual, then so can all of his property, and so can anyone else's.


It's really no different than the other 99% of rules which govern our behavior (social norms/culture/tradition), which are more than capable of being created by spontaneous interactions between individuals and institutions other than the state.

It is different, because as opposed to most instruments of a legitimate free market, rights must be protected equally among all members of a free society. There is no freedom without private property and natural rights: I can be free to make personal choices, but without the right to keep the product of my effort, my choices are for naught. I can be free to own property, but if I don't own my own life, my property will be worth nothing to me.

It is different from other instruments that a free market can allocate, because it is assumed that these rights are equal from one member of a society to the next; this is not the case with any good to be bought or sold on a free market. Unless you are an advocate of slavery, and believe that an individual's life has a price for which it can be purchased.