<html>
<p>The universal claim by those <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG3Kyk3Xc5A&t=5m42s">who wish to include government in the affairs of peaceful people</a> is that it is by "objective" means that such a defense of people will be maintained, and that this could not be done except by a monopoly on force. Or, more accurately, that "<a href="https://steemit.com/anarchy/@ats-david/ayn-rand-the-anarchist">[b]ased on her collection of writings</a>, Rand believed that the objectivity of law could only be ensured if it was monopolistic and statutory. This was her main argument against anarchy." </p>
<p>How could it be that a monopoly on force be objective, or just, given that it is inherently insensitive to any objective measure raised against it?<br>
That is, after all, what a monopoly on force <em>is</em>.<br>
The only solution that is feasible is the universal understanding by all people that all are the enforcers of peace or war, and that by the means of<a href="https://steemit.com/anarchy/@somethingsea/freedom-gov-god-and-human-nature">a coherent understanding of the consistently applied rules of society, can society on a global scale exist</a>. </p>
<p>That is, we, as from our roots as a tribal species, must evolve into our new populous of growth, and transcend our earlier evolution by means of reference to a different societal construct altogether -- a global one. Or destroy each other with an inferior social model of reality that can no longer support the population and scale that we are at now.</p>
<p>Let's take a look at the assumption of "customer service,"<br>
which is quite common to the assumption of the necessity of government:</p>
<blockquote>"She seemingly did not believe that polycentric or customary law could be objective in practice. She claimed that her Objectivist philosophy did not allow for what she believed would be subjective interpretations of law and, consequently, subjective enforcement. As a result, Rand would often use this argument against her anarchist opponents and the concept of competing governments:<br>
“One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.” - The Nature of Government"</blockquote>
<p>As <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/Renegadeboysct">Kal Molinet</a> has frequently put forth,<br>
"I can unsubscribe from Netflix. Can you unsubscribe from government? <em><strong>No.</strong></em>"<br>
You can see the same dynamic when <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgvpkYr1lZU">Larken Rose talked with Jan Helfield</a>. </p>
<p>The basic energetic relation is,<br>
"<em>I don't know how to solve this conflict;<br>
therefore we need an objective, outside force (government) to resolve the situation.</em>" </p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7nP-E3wSB68JV0URws5jCA">fringeelements</a> has talked about this psychology in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTkzApPQkk4">Big</a>, though he claims the necessity of the state for "big populations," ironically falling prey to that exact dynamic.</p>
<p><a href="https://steemit.com/@ats-david">@ats-david</a> surprised me here, summarizing the issue brilliantly:</p>
<blockquote>It is precisely a response like this that leads me to believe that the disagreement isn’t really about opposing principles or her assessment of objective law by an objective third party. Instead, there is an apparent conflation of terms. Rather than seeing what is akin to investigation and defense services – something that exists in the private security industry today – Rand interprets this as a “government” that is charged with “the forcible restraint of men,” to which she simplistically reduces any possible government service.<br>
[Apparently quotes within quotes don't double-quote] “Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.”<br>
Once again, there is an obvious conflation – this time with the implied notion that competing services would be competing to forcibly restrain men. That, however, is not what the service providers are competing for in this case. The competition is not among the providers to see who can best restrain the most people in the shortest time and at the lowest cost. Essentially, Rand is employing a straw man tactic without even stating the straw man argument outright. She merely hints at it and asks the reader to fill in the blanks. In this case, the reader is left with the impression that the anarchist position would create a competition among fraudulent and sadistic private police forces who simply want to brutalize people.</blockquote>
<blockquote>The real question is – why would a company try to do such a thing in order to win over customers and earn their trust, confidence, and money? Furthermore, in a society of polycentric law and competing defense services, how could a company even get away with such terror against so many people? The same competition of “forcible restraint” that Rand identifies would still be able to exist in other agencies whose customers want to see an end to the brutalization. Under monopolistic statutory law, there is no other competition that could intervene or mitigate the effects – because it would be prevented by law.</blockquote>
<blockquote>What Rand fears would be a disaster in one case has already proven to be a disaster in the other.</blockquote>
<p>Here I think I have an answer for you, <a href="https://steemit.com/@ats-david">@ats-david</a>:<br>
"This is certainly not unique to her, either. It is a common misconception among many libertarians and minarchists and it feels as though it’s just a matter of terminology. The concepts are practically the same."</p>
<p>The crucial difference is the one I described above, and at root it lays with the notion of how the individual relates to society at large -- whether we are considered simply and merely individuals, or whether we have, as our context, society as a whole. The principal disagreement here is the notion is whether people can, in fact, apply the rules of society consistently, or whether they will have exceptions to the rule; those exceptions create the atmosphere of the necessity for the exceptions. We don't need the exceptions anymore - we're at the part of our cosmic story where the exceptions and the normal rules co-mingle, and instead of the divine right of kings or politicians, we have the divine right of all humans, and with that, of all life, according to it's degree of consciousness (rocks don't have the same rights as humans, for they are not able to respond (they are not responsible) in the same way).</p>
<p>"All I am Saying is, “Give Rand a Chance”"<br>
Sure. I haven't read many of her works -- I'm mainly just familiar with her Atlas Shrugged -- but I could certainly read a copy of "The Virtue Of Selfishness", given as well that I practically advocate the same myself.<br>
<br>
"And, dare I say – if we could ever reach a point in my lifetime where Ayn Rand’s system of governance was adopted." As she herself said: "...Rand argued on many different occasions that rights were not to be violated by governments, that such violations would make the government illegitimate."<br>
I'm sorry, but that's impossible; you're ignoring your own arguments against her logic:<br>
Since, to exist, government violates rights, government is inherently illegitimate.</p>
<p><br></p>
<p>P.S. Some of my other posts relate to this one, and I haven't included them by hyperlinks because I don't want to spend another 30 minutes re-editing the thing together, and they look messy when they don't hyperlink, and that annoys the fuck out of me.</p>
</html>
hiveblocks