Freedomain Radio

In 1836 the Provisional Government of Texas met at Washington on the Brazos, Texas, to delare Texas Independence and appointed General Sam Houston to wage war against the Mexican general Santa Anna. At the time, Texas was a state in Mexico, and the Provisional Government had no power to tax; nor the ability to carry out any decree. So was it really a government?

The Non-Aggression Principle is not an axiom, meaning that it doesn't completely define a moral principle by which people should interact with each other. It simply outlines a prohibition against aggression, which in it simplest form, prevents people from first interfering with the actions of others. From the Non-Aggression Principle, you can define a right to Liberty, but very little else. The Non-Aggression Principle says nothing about property; about contract law; about the limits to defense; nor about justice and retaliation. One man's justice could be another man's torture. There are numerous variances of Liberty which the Non-Aggression Principle does not address. Should there be limits on corporate liability? Never mind that the corporation is a product of the state. Is fractional reserve banking a fraud? Should intellectual property be protected? These are all things to which the Non-Aggression Principle does not speak.

I'm a randroid, in the sense that I've read everything that Ayn Rand wrote, (ironically, with the exception of the Fountainhead), and it became clear to me, so many years ago, that her vision of the state was a voluntary state, which did not tax, and which was organized to address the issues to which the non-aggression principle was silent. She believed that the state should be organized for defense, and as a means to put law under objective control. The law she was interested in putting under objective control was law which addressed these undefined issues. My question for you is, what's wrong with this? What's wrong with a voluntary organization, designed to address the nuances to which the non-aggression principle does not speak, which does not tax -- BUT -- which would have the authority of law in these specific areas, and would have a monopoly on the use of force SIMPLY by being the largest organization in a geographic area. If one gang, (or DRO), denied someone a fair trial, or an appeal, this organization would provide a court of appeal. If an invading army arrived, this organization would organize a defense. In the areas where the non-aggression principle is silent, this organization would define the law. IF this organization was voluntarily organized, did not tax, nor commit aggression, and was only concerned in those areas in which the non-aggression principle was silent, then wouldn't it be a part of an ancap state? It might still call itself a government; it might still have a 'state house', but if it didn't commit aggression, then wouldn't it have a legitimate role in a voluntary society?

Charles Johnson is a known anarchist writer. When I asked him how issues which are not addressed by the Non-Aggression Principle would be addressed by society, at the Liberty Forum last March, he suggested that local communities would get together to decide these types of issues? Isn't that the voluntary government I outline above???

http://www.youtube.com/user/blogofbile#p/u/21/VQZ4F-xHJnI

The key point is this: in an anarchist society, this type of organization would have complete legitimacy as defined by the Non-Aggression Principle. It would be a voluntary organization, and would be the link between anarchy as espoused by many of those here, and the 'objective' government as espoused by the Objectivists. It would also put a lot of people at ease who believe that the Canadians are going to swarm across the border to expand their empire.

There is no problem with people voluntarily organizing to solve problems, but by definition this is not government.  The one defining characteristic of government is that it is the only entity which claims monopoly on the initiation of violence, so to have a government that somehow embraces the NAP is a flat contradiction.  The government MUST ALWAYS violate NAP because to even exist, it must initiate aggression in the form of laws, taxation, etc.

"The Non-Aggression Principle is not an axiom, meaning that it doesn't completely define a moral principle by which people should interact with each other."

As Stef has argued in UPB and elsewhere, you can't have a POSITIVE moral absolute like "do good to everyone" because then there would be babies, the old, crippled, sick, or what have you that could not meet this obligation.  Would they therefore be evil?  No, the NAP only defines what one should NOT do, which is aggress against another's person or property.  It is derived from self-ownership, which IS axiomatic.  You cannot try to deny it without invoking it.

can i start a competing 'voluntary government'  that would also have the authority of law in those specific areas, and would have a 'monopoly' on the use of force?

and can i opt out of using this 'government' if a DRO denied someone a fair trial and use a competing DRO instead?

Let's take an example: let's say that the non-government, (whatever you want to call it), decides to set up an appelate court to review cases at the request of defendants who believe they have been unjustly punished. The non-government, if they overturned a conviction by a private court, would execute force in defense of the individual they found to be unjustly punished. Other private courts could serve this function, so there is competition here, but since the non-aggression principle says nothing about retaliation, the possible outcome wouldn't rest solely in the hands of other private courts. If someone fell into the hands of a system that was completely rigged, I think the non-government would be quite justified in acting as the court of last appeal for the benefit of the defendent.

Take the example of an invasion: the non-government could try to voluntarily organize the militias for defense, in the manner of the Continental Congress in America during the American Revolution, or in the manner of the Provisional Government of Texas during the war with Santa Anna.

The non-government could issue guidelines for many things in life, like homesteading property, homesteading the radio frequency spectrum, satellite orbits, airport traffice patterns, and other things that may or may not be respected by others, but which would have the clout of consensus amoung the people for these things that the non-aggression principle does not address. Many times people are guided by consensus when they don't have a clear view of things on their own.

The problems that anarchy pose to people who've never experienced it, (and I think that's all of us), would be alleviated in their minds IF they knew they weren't completely giving up their security blanket. Since most injustices would be handled by the private courts, that would be their primary oversite: to ensure that the courts were, indeed, just.

This also offers a path for both the anarchists, and the minarchists to follow. There are several paths to liberty, and those pursuing the collapse of the state could work with the minarchists whose goal would be to turn the state, into the non-state.

The danger is that the non-government might try to aggress, but if it commits no aggression, there is nothing, in principle, to stop it from going as far as it can, short of aggression. Moreover, I don't think the people will completely give up the idea of a central defensive agency until they are more confident in the mechanisms of anarchy.

If it isnt violent it isnt a government. If it can tax or violently prevent other organizations from performing the same role then it is a government, if it does not there is no sense in calling it one.

SnowDog:

which would have the authority of law in these specific areas, and would have a monopoly on the use of force SIMPLY by being the largest organization in a geographic area. If one gang, (or DRO), denied someone a fair trial, or an appeal, this organization would provide a court of appeal.

Free people decide who they appeal disputes to.

If it is voluntary, and competitors are allowed, then it would be a charity.

I am in support of a voluntary system, and used to advocate a voluntary "government," but if it does not prohibit competition, then I wouldn't consider it a government.

Eric Starnes:

Free people decide who they appeal disputes to.

But who decides?

The point is that most people won't want to give up their security blanket, and they don't have to. A voluntary government can do a lot to ensure security and stability, just by its size.

SnowDog:

Eric Starnes:

Free people decide who they appeal disputes to.

But who decides?

The point is that most people won't want to give up their security blanket, and they don't have to. A voluntary government can do a lot to ensure security and stability, just by its size.

 

And ANY government can do a lot to take away freedom and liberty, just by its size.

gdw:

And ANY government can do a lot to take away freedom and liberty, just by its size.

But I am curious as to what part of this type of government you would object to?

SnowDog:

gdw:

And ANY government can do a lot to take away freedom and liberty, just by its size.

But I am curious as to what part of this type of government you would object to?

 

Would I be allowed to NOT deal with them?  Would there be competitor governments allowed?

gdw:

Would I be allowed to NOT deal with them?  Would there be competitor governments allowed?

Sure, as long as you're not committing aggression.

Here's one of the most common fears of anarchy: there is no central justice system. So one man's justice could be another man's injustice. There is no theory to solve this problem. So let's say that some court rules and puts a man in prison. Let's say that the man in prison thinks he was unjustly sentenced, but the DRO and the court that put him there, thinks it was certainly fair. Who decides if and where the man can appeal? Let's say that the court which put him there will allow no appeal, or that no agreement can be reached between the court and the defendent. The question then becomes, who's going to stand up for the defendent and give him an appeal? In my example, the neo-government could grant the victim an appeal upon HIS request, despite what the DRO and the court which sentenced him, think about the issue.

SnowDog:

gdw:

Would I be allowed to NOT deal with them?  Would there be competitor governments allowed?

Sure, as long as you're not committing aggression.

Here's one of the most common fears of anarchy: there is no central justice system. So one man's justice could be another man's injustice. There is no theory to solve this problem. So let's say that some court rules and puts a man in prison. Let's say that the man in prison thinks he was unjustly sentenced, but the DRO and the court that put him there, thinks it was certainly fair. Who decides if and where the man can appeal? Let's say that the court which put him there will allow no appeal, or that no agreement can be reached between the court and the defendent. The question then becomes, who's going to stand up for the defendent and give him an appeal? In my example, the neo-government could grant the victim an appeal upon HIS request, despite what the DRO and the court which sentenced him, think about the issue.

 

Why?  Why would the government be any more inclined to do that than the DRO and the court?  A privatized DRO and/or court would be more likely to uphold legitimate appeals, and grant legitimate appeals proccessing than a government.  And again, If what I asked goes, then why would it even be called a government?  It is just another compeeing company.

gdw:

Why?  Why would the government be any more inclined to do that than the DRO and the court?  A privatized DRO and/or court would be more likely to uphold legitimate appeals, and grant legitimate appeals proccessing than a government.  And again, If what I asked goes, then why would it even be called a government?  It is just another compeeing company.

That's just speculation when you write than a DRO would be willing to grant an appeal.

But if true, then there would be no need for the neo-government. Call it what you want.

SnowDog:

gdw:

Why?  Why would the government be any more inclined to do that than the DRO and the court?  A privatized DRO and/or court would be more likely to uphold legitimate appeals, and grant legitimate appeals proccessing than a government.  And again, If what I asked goes, then why would it even be called a government?  It is just another compeeing company.

That's just speculation when you write than a DRO would be willing to grant an appeal.

But if true, then there would be no need for the neo-government. Call it what you want.

 

And how is it not just speculation that your neo-government would be willing?

My point was that companies that don't do right by their customers go out of fashion FAR quicker and more easily that governments that don't do right by their subjects.  As such, there is motivation for a company to do right, but non really for the state to.  Hence why I said what I said.

Now, if the simple availability of competition was allowed, as you propose it would be, then there would be some more motivation to do right by the people, assuming there was some benefit to continuing to be the head neo gov.  Of course, again, if this was the case, how would they be any different than a company or a charity?  All of which would be present in an anarchist state anyways.

It would seem that this would be nothing more than an attempt to hold onto the system we now have, in some form or another, even if just in the name.  But again, if that's the case, as you said, call it what you want.  It would still be a company/charity, and it would still be an anarchist state.

"Governments that don't do right by their subjects" now THAT'S redundant.

I am trying to demonstrate that the remnant of the state would still be allowed to exist and ensure order in a voluntary society. A major hurdle to getting people to accept a voluntary society is the sense of disorder that they believe would occur if the state were removed. So, don't remove the state! Just turn it into another voluntary organization. It would in effect, be the largest DRO in the land. Should gangs start running amock, the neo-state would still be there to ensure order, funded voluntarily by the people who still cling to it.

This will sell! This is the link between the old mindset and the new; between anarchy and order; between minarchy and anarchy. And the flag can still fly!