Anarchy is not possible without the arbitrary use of force. It is essential to the concept. No one whose concepts are tied to reality can believe that eliminating all government does not mean that anyone is free to employ force by his whims.

Anarchy is impossible to implement in civilized society. The notion of "markets" for force somehow leading to utopian protection of our rights is a floating abstraction impossible to implement anywhere. So is rationalistic manipulation of "definitions" without regard for the meaning of concepts. It is easy to implement anarchy for uncivilized society where coercion is a constant threat and reality.

The fictional valley described in Atlas Shrugged was private and by invitation only for a relatively small number of selected people. It was included to show how rational people ordinarily interact with and treat each other privately, not as some utopian society in which no government is required. Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand's philosophy have nothing to do with anarchism and Ayn Rand thoroughly denounced it, as is well known.

This is not a matter of people not yet being "ready" for anarchism while wistfully dreaming of the day when an imagined utopian floating abstraction is somehow possible; the arbitrary use of force is not "ready" for rational human beings and never will be.

In addition to protection from criminals and crackpot anarchists imposing their variety of imagined utopias by force, rational people do require a government, properly conceived to protect the rights of the individual against arbitrary force in general and to establish objective law so that everyone knows in advance what is not permitted.

Those new to Ayn Rand can read her explanation of government in essays such as "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government".

The topic of this thread was initiated by someone new to Ayn Rand's ideas and seeking to find out more. It is not a place to spread confusion by those who do not understand Ayn Rand's philosophy themselves, pushing anarchism as an ideal somehow compatible with her philosophy and with civilization -- while recruiting for anti-Ayn Rand floating abstractions with repeated promotion for the resurrection of 40-50 year old anarchist utopian tracts about "markets" for force long ago discredited and rejected for good reason.

Why do you equate "the arbitrary use of force" with something that simply means "no government"? They are not even the same concept.
It seems to me that anarchy may be impossible to implement in an uncivilized society.

Hello Maritimus,
Anarchy simply means "no government". And as I stated earlier in this thread I do not believe that humanity is ready for "no government". But the idea is interesting. Most here, I believe, think that a very limited, small, non-intrusive government of some form to be the ideal (along the lines laid out in the U. S. Constitution). I found Rand's description of Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged to be an ideal to strive for. Was there a government there? Certainly not formally. Does it qualify as a small society without a government? You tell me. Would you fear Hank Rearden or any of the others in the Gulch? What if the world were populated with such people? Would there then need to be a government? Completely rational objective beings may not require a government. In that world if a dispute arises between myself and another we will figure out who is right -- if it is me he will learn, if it is him I will learn. If the issue is difficult we may contract with a third party to help find resolution. From Galt's speech we learn that no one has the right to initiate the use of force. If I adhere to that principle then I will seek to remedy any inadvertent breech I may make and so will others that follow the same principle.

For some very interesting stories involving this topic you might like to read some of the works of L. Neal Smith. I also think you might find the "Market for Liberty" of interest. In both you will find more detailed descriptions of these ideas.

The arbitrary use of force by subjectivism is the opposite of protection of rights of the individual. Anarchism and statism are in fact two sides of the same coin. Both are based on arbitrary force in contrast to a limited government protecting the rights of the individual. That is not a contradiction.

The moral basis of limited government protecting the rights of the individual is the moral necessity of using reason to pursue one's values, which in turn requires use of rational persuasion in dealing with others and the protection of the rights of the individual against those who use force to impose what they want. It is not based on hedonistic whim worship obliterating the distinction between force and reason. Anarchy is not a moral ideal and is impossible to implement in civilized society.

Hello Amhunt,

If we take the term anarchy literally, it is completely incompatible with the concepts of civilization or society. Never in the entirety of human history it ever existed as an intended condition. Set aside temporary situations consequent to major disasters.

So, can I ask you, in few sentences, for this audience, to describe a society living in anarchy the way you visualize it?

Thanks in advance.

Anarchy by its very definition contradicts the assertion of "two sides of the same coin". What do you fear about anarchy -- that it will change into statist governments? But that sadly is precisely what we have today and most certainly is not anarchy.

Gosh, ewv, that is strange! +1 from me to get it positive again.

Who is the clown down-voting Ayn Rand's books on an Ayn Rand forum.

They don't pretend to be trading force in a 'market'. Statism breeds war. Anarchy and statism are two sides of the same coin of coercion and a false alternative.

Curious -- what do you say about the governments of today? They certainly appear to me to be "arbitrary use of 'competing' force" entities.

There is no common ground between anarchism and individualism. You don't protect the rights of the individual by throwing the use of force into a so-called "market" of its subjective use. There can be no capitalism, free markets, or any kind of civilization under the arbitrary use of "competing" force.

Indeed -- and they make some very interesting points. Ayn Rand was certainly an exponent of capitalism and free markets. The fact that they are too indicates some common ground exists. In the limit "limited government" is anarchy. Is mankind ready for that? I think not. But the ideas presented are worth thinking about.

They are anarchists. They have no relation to Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged.

For Ayn Rand's explanation of her view of fiction and its relation to the non-fiction see her The Romantic Manifesto.

The most important of the articles in Ayn Rand's periodicals from the 1960s and 70s have been reprinted in several anthologies, including 1) The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism, 2) Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, 3) Philosophy: Who Needs It?, 4) The Voice of Reason and 5) The Romantic Manifesto. Conservative and libertarian non-fiction and fiction, including their appeals to tradition and to faddish historical revisionism, do not explain the philosophy that made Atlas Shrugged possible.

A lot of us first became interested in Ayn Rand as someone much more than a great novelist because of extreme political crises and the need to understand them and what is right.

For the nature of the "street protests" in particular, see Ayn Rand's philosophical analysis of riots such as Berkeley "protests" in the name of "free speech" (in the 1960s) in her anthology *Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution", particularly in this context the article "The Cashing-In: The Student Rebellion". The root causes and the mentality behind them are same now.

For a discussion on this forum of sources on Ayn Rand see https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Without understanding the philosophy the politics cannot be understood or changed. Ayn Rand was politically neither a conservative nor a modern liberal. They are a false alternative.

Hi winterwind ,
Thanks. If I tap my name on the top of this page a drop down offers a saved option. That is where I would like to save.
DOB

editormichael... I read your response and I agree with what you said.

I'm not positive that this is what you're asking; these posts are [almost] permanent - you can access them any time. Save in another place? It would have to be cut and paste, or copy.

IFirst, welcome!
I would suggest anything Rand, but "Anthem" the 90-page novel will help you ease into sharing the ideas with youth or those not rady to read in dept, to get them interested.
Also:
The Law by Frederic Bastiat
On Liberty by John Stuart Mill
UN Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy by Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh who will show you what real slavery un the UN will be like

Websites
www.americanpolicy.org The Amrican Policy Center which connects the dots between local government, school indoctrination and the UN goal for one world government, end to property rights and end of capitalism, whenich they have spoken of openly.
Canada Feree Press website will also put things in perspective.
I larked anything Jean Paul Sartre as well, his idea of choices and responsibility, but stay away from his later Marxist phase.

Sorry, Jackson, but I don't think "humble" is necessarily a virtue here.
More cognizant of the importance of individual freedom would be a virtue.
Knowing the limits of federal power would be a real plus.
In the meantime, we MUST take every "news" report with a YUGE grain of salt and, while working to inform people and trying to induce rationality among them, and helping explain that reason is our best tool and weapon, we can also hope Mr. Trump does try to improve things.
Thank you for your response.

I'm a Trump supporter and completely understand what you are saying. No ill vibes detected. I hope he improves his path and I hope the presidency makes him more humble sooner than later.

Yeah, and thankfully there is an editormichael to catch it. :)

I think I have a copy of Fountanhead in my library. Perhaps my wife read it. I'll take a look at it. Thanks.