Refresh my memory James, how does an anarchist respond to murder, rape and foreign invasion?
Not looking for a long discussion - just a quick overview.

Thanks.

Again Will, what you fear by giving up the state (the multiple gangs stealing all your property) is not improved by having one big gang that has a monopoly on force. I think you can deduce it actually makes the problem much worse. And since over half of your property is stolen week after week after week, I am not talking theoretical here. Its a fact, your loot is being stolen right now! right this second, but like Dagney and Reardon in first half of the book, you don't yet realize this is theft. If you did, you would not argue we must have a central state that steals from us to prevent multiple gangs from stealing from us. Its been proven economically that decentralized power is far less effective and easier to protect yourself against then centralized power. -Ie - multiple gangs could not steal as much as if all the gangs got together and formed one big gang. Like the story, you still haven't accepted what Gault is teaching us. That the looters are not legitimate. You said you don't support the overreaching bureaucracy we currently have. that is good and it means we have a lot to agree on. But then you say "Only the concept that there is a single group that we all hire to use force when necessary"
I want to offer this last statement of yours to show you that your not seeing things objectively. Your still not seeing reality and do not understand the state and what it is and what is happening right now. Language is very important and it is important it is used correctly. What you actually mean is you don't accept the role of the state to regulate and make all kinds of laws (which we agree on) but you do think the state is needed for the service of national defense and also police (and likely fire etc..) but you call this " a single group we all hire".

this is no such thing. It is impossible for us all to get together and hire something. there is no such thing as a collective. there are only individuals. the collective does not exist. The word "hire" implies we voluntarily pay someone to do a job. You full well know this is not how the state works. Yet you still use this language. It is incorrect language. I don't concur that we "hire" this group. So there is never any such thing as "we all" (meaning a collective). What you need to say to have your language be correct and say what you actually mean, is that you think there needs to be a group of people to provide police and national security and they can take our money involuntarily . . . ie --theft.

Its ok that you think that, more people probably agree with you than me.

but your language should reflect actual reality and what it actually means.

The fact it still doesn't reflects how you actually view reality. You view it the way your words describe.

Which is not the actual reality of the matter.

not until your words and reality are one and the same can you see things as they actually are.

Not until then is the brainwashing removed (again, this is not an insult, I had it and so does everyone)

Below, Dean mentions a very good read by Larkin. I also recommend the same read as it is very good.

An even better one is Man Economy and State by Murray Rothbard (for economics)

Or "For a New Liberty" by same author

https://mises.org/library/new-liberty...

Hello term2,
Voluntary is always preferable to force. :)
Respectfully,
O.A.

Give a try to reading Larken Rose's "The Most Dangerous Superstition"

I agree that people cannot see beyond the gov't handling everything from our mail to our infrastructure to caring for the needy and it is so frustrating to me. I think private businesses can handle all of those things much better than the gov't. But I do believe that there are looters, and get something for nothings out there that we honest people need to protect ourselves against. And I do believe we all need to agree as a group of people doing business together on basic rules to insure a peaceful co-existence. Call it the state or whatever.

Except it should not be viewed as a "necessary evil." In its proper role, govt. is protecting us, not harming us. Bad expression.

You are one of the things I hold against Ayn Rand. She seemed to posit a world in which everyone is honest. Believe me, the occupants of Atlantis would soon have voluntarily formed a government and written laws and designated a police force because, in any group of people there will be dishonest ones, there will be interactions generating mutually exclusive differences of opinion, there will be need for someone to settle disputes and monitor individuals' actions to provide for the common good.

Everywhere on earth, in the most remote areas you can imagine, in the most remote areas man has been, there is government because, man needs government. All your ranting and raving against government, all your demands there be no authority are so much thoughtless, immature and unrealistic blather.

The most remote villages in the jungles of Borneo and Papua New Guinea have governments. Where there are two dozen people, there is government or there is a dictator who rules by dint of violence.

If Rand advocated no government then, she was guilty of the same blather.

Is this James Hughes, opponent of Objectivism?

If it is not, then forgive me.

Exactly right. Let's keep in mind also that, as originally intended, there were many checks on the Federal gov. To keep the Federal government as small as possible the states provided a check against them. There were not suppose to be any standing armies either, just state militias.
A small amount of government is a necessary evil.

They would if this were a proper government which truly espoused the liberty that politicians speak of, but haven't a clue as to what it really is.

I look at it this way. The only thing that can violate freedom is aggression - and especially violent aggression.

In the political/economic/social context, the idea of having a free market in the use of violence, seems contradictory in itself to me. Other than the need to employ violence in direct defense against its immediate incoming use on me or another, taking violence out of the marketplace and placing it in the hands of an objective, fully constrained process (as in a constitutionally limited republic) is what allows a truly voluntary playing field for all parties to engage in any sort of non-violent, non-fraudulent activity and interaction.

This is exactly what she attempts to address in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I'll grant you that she is not completely successful, precisely because the problem of perfectly defending one's property (without creating a State which will sooner or later go rogue) has not yet been solved, by Rand or anyone else.

I believe that all we can do is (1) design a State that serves this purpose better and lasts longer next time -- if we get the opportunity to be around for next time -- and (2) teach eternal vigilance, because any system Man can design, other men can probably also defeat if they work at it long enough.

Wish that ALL of our laws would fit in a 30 page pamphlet.

The state is different from the mafia in that the citizens of the country hire them. The people at the head of the state are not actually in charge as the heads of the mafia are -- although they like to think they are. The foot soldiers in the mafia have no say in who is their leader -- other than assassination.

The reality of human beings is that someone will always be willing to use force to get what they want. Either you have an agreed upon "mafia" that everyone accepts to limit the use of force or you have open warfare. Because, in the end, only force controls force.

You simultaneously paint the state as a gang who uses force to seize assets and suggest that, instead we hire a private organization to do the same thing, i.e. hire our own gang.

If you don't give a single organization the monopoly on the use of force, you wind up with warlords with competing gangs and whoever has the biggest gang can have your property -- and your life.

Now, I don't intend to support the vast overreaching bureaucracy that we have, only the concept that there is a single group that we all hire to use force when necessary. Presumably then we can have private arbitration because the loser knows the winner can enforce the decision if necessary. You were, after all, talking about the support for any state being a flaw in Rand's philosophy.

It is up to us to keep our 'gang' under close control. .

My take is this; While she has an exalted view of mankind she only trusts it to a point. Sort of admiring the beauty of a male lion with his magnificent mane, but feeding him from a distance. You are advocating a modified version of Anarchy, but can you trust mankind to keep the unenforced laws? So, if you have any form of military, or police, you need laws, if you have laws you need courts and (forgive me) lawyers. Once you have laws, courts, lawyers and military, everything can no longer be voluntary. the trick is, to keep all of that to a mninmum, and only to the extent absolutely necessary. A proper government's laws should fit into a 30 page pamphlet. The human race is not mature enough for that, let alone anarchy.

I think it is clear that you have a number contradictions, which is not surprising if you are following the irrationalism of anarcho - capitalism.

She never advocated theft and clearly you do not know the definition of theft. Self defense is not voluntary it is being forced upon you by the aggressor Property rights are not subject to the voluntary whim of other people. Anarcho-capitalism is not capitalism and is completely irrational

Anarchism is self-contradictory. It assumes what it attempts to prove. There are no contradictions in Rand's positions.

I doubt you'll accept these facts, but they are there if you ever care to see them.

See:

"'Imposing Freedom'" https://www.amazon.com/Anarchic-Contr...Version=1&entries=0#nav-subnav

"Government and Anarchy" https://www.amazon.com/Government-Ana...Version=1&entries=0#nav-subnav

"Government and Anarchy, Part II" https://www.amazon.com/Government-Ana...Version=1&entries=0#nav-subnav

"Anarchic Contradictions" https://www.amazon.com/Anarchic-Contr...Version=1&entries=0#nav-subnav

I like the idea of private courts. Its the closest thing to private arbitration (as in we all sit down and work it out). I dont like our government court system much.

Any contradiction is on your part.
Freedom requires govt. to protect our rights; anarchy cannot provide that. She only supports govt. to the extent that it does just that.
You have no rights without such protection, and only govt. can provide it.

Rand never supports govt. action that is for "the good of society."

If we get into disputes today, voluntary arbitration is often offered as an alternative to the hopelessly overpriced and inefficient court system. I have taken that option before. In my case, I just went to the other side and we worked it out ourselves rather than waste time and money with the government. It was voluntary, and is a much better way to settle disputes.

I take it that you are a stand and fight kinda guy.

O.A. I have read some of the dialog between you and james5820 and I believe you are in a losing battle. He is fixed with his thoughts and is therefore NOT an Objectivist regardless what he says.

This idea you have that were free to leave misses the point. I own my own home and property. Every time a tyrant wants to rule other people, then we should just move from our own property? You have just justified every tyrant throughout history. But more importantly, you assume the state owns the place they are governing. They don't. they don't rightfully own anything. They have earned nothing. Worked for nothing. Just hold elections and get yourself elected and now if anyone doesn't like your theft they are free to leave huh?
Guess what. I own your neighborhood!. You will now pay tribute to me. But hey,.. . . your free to leave.

"Anything is worth what people will give you for it, including bits of pretty paper and chunks of metal."
Yes. I strongly agree with the entire comment. What we trade doesn't matter. Helping one another in voluntary exchanges of value is all that matters.