Ayn Rand

[myrkul]

"Coercive government" is not necessarily redundant.  Coercion only occurs when a government initiates force.

Which it necessarily does to acquire funding.

Retaliatory use of force, in response to a criminal initiation of violence, is not coercion.

Agreed, but this is not my complaint against government.

There is no government at all in AnCap.  What you are describing ("non-coercive, decentralized, minimal government") is the ideal libertarian state.

Indeed it is, and that state is AnCap.
I'll definitely read Nozick, But I'd like you to read de Molinari. It might clear some things up for you.

http://mises.org/document/2716

Edit: Oh, and while you're at it, don't forget Rothbard's response to Nozick:
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_6.pdf

[Walter Rothbard]

The only alternative to intellectual property is intellectual socialism.

And yes, as a true champion of individual rights, she couldn't accept anarchy.

According to Walter Block, Rand called libertarians/anarchists "Hippies of the right."

I'm sure a lot of such people would blanch at the thought of being labeled "right-wing."

[myrkul]

The only alternative to intellectual property is intellectual socialism.

And yes, as a true champion of individual rights, she couldn't accept anarchy.

According to Walter Block, Rand called libertarians/anarchists "Hippies of the right."

I'm sure a lot of such people would blanch at the thought of being labeled "right-wing."

For a laugh, read:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160726.0

[iCEBREAKER]

An ideal ('night watchman') minimal state needn't fund itself through coercion.

This has been discussed endlessly (as you know  ) and my favorite proposed solution is to use fines collected from criminals (foreign and domestic) to fund national defense, courts, and police.  It's also arguable that a flat tax, imposed on all citizens equally, is a fair method of preventing the fraud/abuse of free riders.  I know ya'll AnCaps will never accept that, but want to put it out there to clarify where we differ.

Ok, we have a deal.  I'll read de Molinari and you read Nozick.  Then we'll compare notes and further demonstrate the narcissism of minor differences.   

I've been responding to Rothbard's admirably intellectual position paper on Nozick for years.  Here we go again!   

First, Nozick never intended AS&U to justify the existing (IE coercive) states.  His was an academic exercise, intended to demonstrate the theoretical ability (and desirability) of a minimal state to emerge and exist without initiating force.  IDK why Murry spends so much time fighting that strawman; Nozick never claimed to be an historian.

Second, although Murry's other critiques of Nozick's internal logic are all very pointed and well argued, none of them actually persuade me that, given that there is (empirically) a natural monopoly on police power, anything other than a minimal state will maximize liberty and asymptotically approach utopia.

However, these are all minor quibbles.  Both Rothbard and Nozick (as well as Ayn Rand) occupy places of high honor in my personal pantheon of heroes.

Can you imagine the conversations old Murray, Bob, and Ayn are having in Jewish Valhalla?  We are not worthy to argue in their stead.   

[myrkul]

An ideal ('night watchman') minimal state needn't fund itself through coercion.

This has been discussed endlessly (as you know  ) and my favorite proposed solution is to use fines collected from criminals (foreign and domestic) to fund national defense, courts, and police.  It's also arguable that a flat tax, imposed on all citizens equally, is a fair method of preventing the fraud/abuse of free riders.  I know ya'll AnCaps will never accept that, but want to put it out there to clarify where we differ.

The flat tax, I think, you can guess where my problem lies. Though it is "fair," it is still coercive.

As for the fines from criminals, I am here actually going to borrow from a Anarcho-syndicalist critique of AnCap. It was incorrect in applying it to AnCap, but by that same token, it applies perfectly to the "night watchman" State. In such a system (the State funded entirely from fines from criminals) there would be a drive, perhaps even a necessity, to both broaden the scope of fine-able offenses, and to steepen the fines. Compare the current practice of asset forfeiture, and you see my concern.

The only way to fund such a State without encroaching on rights is voluntarily, through subscriptions. And indeed, there may be (small, or sparsely populated) areas where it is natural for there to be only one provider... and though it would have a natural monopoly, the defining characteristic of a "State" is that it's monopoly is absolute... it brooks no competition on it's territory. A market provider of Security would not have the ability to force it's competitors out of the region, so while you might get something that looks very much like a State, it would actually be nothing of the sort.

Ok, we have a deal.  I'll read de Molinari and you read Nozick.  Then we'll compare notes and further demonstrate the narcissism of minor differences.   

Looking forward to it.

My most glaring concern with Nozick's theory - albeit at first glance, without having yet read the book - echoes Rothbard's: Since Anarchy is required for such a "justified" state to develop, then proponents of the minimal state should be pushing just as hard for a market anarchy as the staunchest AnCaps. You have to take the flag all the way up, before bringing it back to half-mast.

[hawkeye]

I'm sure a lot of such people would blanch at the thought of being labeled "right-wing."

Doesn't bother me any more.   If anyone bothered to learn anything about my thinking they'd soon realise I don't fit in either left or right, so I don't worry too much about what other people think.

I certainly don't endorse any right-wing groups.  Nor left-wing for that matter.  That kind of stuff is for the brainless masses who just want their team to win regardless.

[Spendulus]

The problem in a Rand world is that it doesn't account for irrational behaviour....

On the contrary, she (Rand) spent considerable time exploring and writing about the root causes of "Irrational" behavior. 

[Walter Rothbard]

An ideal ('night watchman') minimal state needn't fund itself through coercion.

This has been discussed endlessly (as you know  ) and my favorite proposed solution is to use fines collected from criminals (foreign and domestic) to fund national defense, courts, and police.  It's also arguable that a flat tax, imposed on all citizens equally, is a fair method of preventing the fraud/abuse of free riders.  I know ya'll AnCaps will never accept that, but want to put it out there to clarify where we differ.

I would have no problem with an institution (call it the State, or not )that funds itself only from fines collected from criminals and performs some "night watchman" type duties, i.e., give me a call if it looks like I left my doors unlocked, shoot people if they appear to be threatening others.  Ancap doesn't rule out "good samaritan" style behavior as one possible source of the service of defense.  It just states that trying to fund such services through coercion is immoral.

I do think that effective defense organizations would need to collect subscription fees or something similar.  I doubt that funding through criminal fines would be enough.

[myrkul]

I do think that effective defense organizations would need to collect subscription fees or something similar.  I doubt that funding through criminal fines would be enough.

Thus my contention that it would need to expand the list of fine-able offenses, and increase the fines.

[Spendulus]

Rand was jewish. people shouldn't touch her stuff with a 10 foot pole.

Nope.

Rand was an athiest.

More precisely, she viewed God or a belief in God as unnecessary.

This is a person who decides, that because you disagree with him about hating Jews, you must be a Jew yourself. Nothing you say will affect his calcified little brain.

I did notice that.  However, Rand identified as an athiest, and made this very clear on hundreds of occasions. 

Therefore, he is simply wrong, so I corrected him.

Do I disagree with him about hating Jews?  I'm not exactly big on haters of any sort.  Rand was also, not big on emotional driven logic and viewed that as a tool of propagandists.  She was against religion because of the ways she'd seen it subverted to the goals and aims of the state in Russia.

Makes sense to me...

[fivemileshigh]

AR's books are an excellent spring board toward perceiving reality.

[Spendulus]

AR's books are an excellent spring board toward perceiving reality.

You think the two movies got it right?

[myrkul]

AR's books are an excellent spring board toward perceiving reality.

You think the two movies got it right?

Haven't watched part two yet, but Part 1 was dead accurate.

[Spendulus]

AR's books are an excellent spring board toward perceiving reality.

You think the two movies got it right?

Haven't watched part two yet, but Part 1 was dead accurate.

I laughed all the way through both.  Sort of "Mad Max does Capitalism" fighting the Evil Superpowerws of collectivism.  Can't wait for III.

[TurdHurdur]

I'm no longer 19 and have yet to read her work, I probably wouldn't enjoy it.

[Spendulus]

I'm no longer 19 and have yet to read her work, I probably wouldn't enjoy it.

I'm no longer 19 and have yet to read the "Left Behind" books, I probably wouldn't enjoy them.

[Walter Rothbard]

I've never read Rand, but I've been a libertarian for ages.

Today I received two Rand novels as a gift in the mail.

Guess I will read them now!

[Gordonium]

I've never read Rand, but I've been a libertarian for ages.

Today I received two Rand novels as a gift in the mail.

Guess I will read them now!

Oh boy, you are in for a wild ride.

[fivemileshigh]

AR's books are an excellent spring board toward perceiving reality.

You think the two movies got it right?

I've only seen the first one, unfortunately most of the philosophical message didn't make it into the movie. It's decent entertainment if you've read the book though.

[myrkul]

AR's books are an excellent spring board toward perceiving reality.

You think the two movies got it right?

I've only seen the first one, unfortunately most of the philosophical message didn't make it into the movie. It's decent entertainment if you've read the book though.

Just watched the second one yesterday. More of the message gets into there, and the court scene with Rearden is excellent.

Like Spendulus, I can't wait for the third one, but, I suspect, for different reasons.