His objection to Michael Huemer is just begging the question.
"What anarchists describe is not a situation where someone is providing the same “service” as a government, the way one might offer the same service as one’s neighborhood barber. They describe a situation in which someone wants to deploy the use of force unilaterally, without legal authorization. In a free society, or anything close to a free society, no one has such a right, and so the government is not violating their rights by stopping them."
Huemer's entire point is that the government has no higher claim to the right to provide defense than a neighborhood barber does; therefore, Yaron's response (n.b. "without legal authorization") is an entirely incoherent objection. Not sure if Brook is arguing in bad faith, or if he just completely misunderstands the libertarian position.
The Founding Father understood well that no man must be allowed to be the sole arbitrator of a dispute in which he is involved. The Objectivist defense of the state is merely a more consistent and philosophically grounded defense of that position.
Suppose I declare sovereignty over a well-defined geographical area (my neighborhood), and come up with my own set of objective laws and procedures, that governs the use of retaliatory force that protect the rights of my citizens, and defines the personnel empowered to carry out these procedures (me). I have now installed, by the Yaron definition, a "proper government."
Yaron would argue that my actions violate the laws of the "LEGITIMATE proper government" (that of the United States). But I never agreed to grant the United States government permission to define the use of retaliatory force over my domain. There was no social contract of which I signed on the dotted line. Why is the United States government LEGITIMATE in addition to being proper?
I think the argument Yaron must make is as follows:
(1) A "proper" governemnt is a monopoly over the definition of, and retaliatory force required to enforce, rights-protecting laws.
(2) Individual property owners could unanimously agree to grant some instiution X such a monopoly over the combination G of their respective geographical domains. Such a grant makes X legitimate over the domain G, and makes alternatives Y illegitimate inside G, even if they are "proper".
(2 - Corollary) Individuals who wish to be inside this geographical domain G are voluntarily consenting to live under the monopoly of retaliatory force owned by X for as long as they remain inside G.
(3) The governments of America today, or Canada, or Germany, or Sweden, or Japan, or South Korea are actually examples of X (???)
(4) To the extent that the governments of America today, or Canada, or Germany, or Sweden, or Japan, or South Korea follow the objective laws, they are both proper and legitimate governments.
I like this. “The rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness name our fundamental rights. But these rights are too abstract to provide us with all the knowledge we need to function in a society.”
These people, to be frank, are not intellectually serious. They have misunderstood and distorted anarchocapitalist views since Roy wrote his open letter.
I like this paragraph. “If it is right that the individual seek to preserve his life, then we should organize society so that each individual is free to preserve his life. If it is right that the individual think, then we should organize society so that each individual has the liberty to exercise his own judgment. If it is right that the individual produce, then we should organize society so that each individual is free to earn and use property. If it is right that the individual seek his own happiness, then we should organize society so that each individual is free to pursue his own happiness. The rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness form the guiding principles for creating a free society.”
Footnote 11 seems a bit contradictory to his thesis? I find most Ancaps, myself included, to be hopeful, not hubristic. No matter, moving towards the ideal seems worth the risk at this point in our evolution, especially in light of the Space Opera authoritarian alternative.
"A free society is not a society where you can do whatever you want—it is a society that subordinates might to right."
This definition isn't anything like the common use of the word freedom. It's like North Korea claiming to be the wealthiest country, because true wealth doesn't lie in material possessions, a truly wealthy society is one that follows the teachings of Juche.
“On our view, anarchy does not lead to anything like freedom: it means and has to mean the rule of brute force.”
If there is any kind of “rule”, then it would seem that there is no anarchy (etymologically: no rule or rulers). But perhaps the main error here is in presupposing that libertarians think that any anarchy is sufficient for libertarianism to spontaneously appear. That is a false presupposition: a libertarian culture is also necessary. https://jclester.substack.com/p/anarchy-and-libertarianism
Brook and Watkins have a curious conception of what constitutes "objective control" over retaliatory force. Objectivity is something that is available to any rational mind that chooses to focus on the problem at hand; objectivity is not something that is unilaterally "defined" exclusively by a particular authority. The latter principle constitutes *subjective* control over the use of force, not objective control.
The obvious danger of such subjectivism is that those who control the state will skew their legal procedures and their decisions about the use of force to favor their own personal interests and/or pursue non-objective values at the expense of the objective interests of those within the territory lacking such control. Objective control is sacrificed in the interests of generating wealth transfers, privileges, and immunities that selectively favor rulers over their subjects, or that dissipate the wealth of their subjects in pursuit of non-objective whims. Precisely because a state has a monopoly over its territory, it doesn't have to worry about losing customers to competitors whenever it strays from serving the objective self-interest of its subjects. Rand's fantasies about voluntary support for the state stand in stark contrast to the reality of taxation, conscription, restrictions, etc. that inevitably follows from permitting rulers to be the sole judges of their own conduct.
A ruling class might also risk expanding their state's territory (or at least the reach of particular exactions, privileges, and immunities) at the expense of weaker states and at the expense of non-state territories by going to war, knowing that the costs of waging wars of aggression are borne by their subjects and by innocent bystanders in the areas they attack, while the spoils of victory accrue to the rulers. Again, a state doesn't lose "customers" such as taxpayers, draftees, etc. by spurning their objective self-interest by going to war in the interests of rulers.
The only way to truly achieve objective control over anything is for the costs and benefits of pursuing the value in question to be internalized by the person acting to gain/keep it, and for that person to choose to focus when selecting their values. Objectivity is a matter of *recognizing* reality; objective control over force is possible only when everyone who wields force rejects self-serving assertions of authority in favor of the impartial adjudication and enforcement of objective law. Geographical exclusivity adds nothing to the impartiality and objectivity of a given judge, policeman, or warrior; it only insulates them from accountability for their lack of impartiality and objectivity.
I think this is pretty well reasoned. However the examples of countries that successfully defend individual liberty falls rather flat since 2020. Events since then seem to rather well support the counterpoint that governments can not in fact be trusted to protect individual liberty.
I would need more time with this to respond fully, but I do want to applaud the challenge to those who think that libertarianism and anarchism have much - or anything - to do with each other. Anarchism is a philosophy of opposition to the existence of government. Libertarianism, in great contrast, is a philosophy to guide good government. They're radically different. They perhaps get confused because a libertarian government will be rather focused and therefore relatively small; and somehow people who are actually anarchists think libertarianism is therefore a kind of "anarchism lite" and that it will be more socially acceptable to call themselves libertarians.
Libertarianism is no more "anarchism lite" than free market advocacy is "fascism lite"; they're qualitatively different things.
Well thought out and written. Very specific, but the ideas have been mulled about for years although never entered as a credo such as this one. Spot on.
Too many confuse Anarchists, Nihilists, Monarchists and Facists as being to the Right on the political spectrum when they do philosophical hair splitting, but they are obviuously to the Left when one looks at their actions and daily beliefs. They think Monarchists and Marxists , Facists and Communists, and Anarchists and Socialists are opposites. Not so. Monarchists and Marxists both belief in the authoritarian state whose validity is based on a higher power. Facists and Communists are siblings of the same DNA -socialism. Nihilists and Anarchists may be labeled as not believing in government but they want an authoritaruian one to supposedly achieve that end.. I think the idea to make these groups opposite started when some groups of far Left political figures and academics realized that the only physically violent groups were on the Left. So they created a spin that Communists and Nihilists were to the Left while Fascists, KKK, and Anarchists were to the Right when all these peas belong in the same pod.. All were violent they said , but some were to the Left , others to the Right. Good try but no cigar. All come from the same brood and march shoulder to shoulder through life espousing quite similar beliefs. There's no sibling rivalry, each just slices the sausage with a little different technique.
His objection to Michael Huemer is just begging the question.
"What anarchists describe is not a situation where someone is providing the same “service” as a government, the way one might offer the same service as one’s neighborhood barber. They describe a situation in which someone wants to deploy the use of force unilaterally, without legal authorization. In a free society, or anything close to a free society, no one has such a right, and so the government is not violating their rights by stopping them."
Huemer's entire point is that the government has no higher claim to the right to provide defense than a neighborhood barber does; therefore, Yaron's response (n.b. "without legal authorization") is an entirely incoherent objection. Not sure if Brook is arguing in bad faith, or if he just completely misunderstands the libertarian position.
Watkins makes the case eloquently and convincingly. I've never understood how anarchy is not the same thing as civil war.
The Founding Father understood well that no man must be allowed to be the sole arbitrator of a dispute in which he is involved. The Objectivist defense of the state is merely a more consistent and philosophically grounded defense of that position.
Suppose I declare sovereignty over a well-defined geographical area (my neighborhood), and come up with my own set of objective laws and procedures, that governs the use of retaliatory force that protect the rights of my citizens, and defines the personnel empowered to carry out these procedures (me). I have now installed, by the Yaron definition, a "proper government."
Yaron would argue that my actions violate the laws of the "LEGITIMATE proper government" (that of the United States). But I never agreed to grant the United States government permission to define the use of retaliatory force over my domain. There was no social contract of which I signed on the dotted line. Why is the United States government LEGITIMATE in addition to being proper?
I think the argument Yaron must make is as follows:
(1) A "proper" governemnt is a monopoly over the definition of, and retaliatory force required to enforce, rights-protecting laws.
(2) Individual property owners could unanimously agree to grant some instiution X such a monopoly over the combination G of their respective geographical domains. Such a grant makes X legitimate over the domain G, and makes alternatives Y illegitimate inside G, even if they are "proper".
(2 - Corollary) Individuals who wish to be inside this geographical domain G are voluntarily consenting to live under the monopoly of retaliatory force owned by X for as long as they remain inside G.
(3) The governments of America today, or Canada, or Germany, or Sweden, or Japan, or South Korea are actually examples of X (???)
(4) To the extent that the governments of America today, or Canada, or Germany, or Sweden, or Japan, or South Korea follow the objective laws, they are both proper and legitimate governments.
I like this. “The rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness name our fundamental rights. But these rights are too abstract to provide us with all the knowledge we need to function in a society.”
These people, to be frank, are not intellectually serious. They have misunderstood and distorted anarchocapitalist views since Roy wrote his open letter.
I like this paragraph. “If it is right that the individual seek to preserve his life, then we should organize society so that each individual is free to preserve his life. If it is right that the individual think, then we should organize society so that each individual has the liberty to exercise his own judgment. If it is right that the individual produce, then we should organize society so that each individual is free to earn and use property. If it is right that the individual seek his own happiness, then we should organize society so that each individual is free to pursue his own happiness. The rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness form the guiding principles for creating a free society.”
Footnote 11 seems a bit contradictory to his thesis? I find most Ancaps, myself included, to be hopeful, not hubristic. No matter, moving towards the ideal seems worth the risk at this point in our evolution, especially in light of the Space Opera authoritarian alternative.
"A free society is not a society where you can do whatever you want—it is a society that subordinates might to right."
This definition isn't anything like the common use of the word freedom. It's like North Korea claiming to be the wealthiest country, because true wealth doesn't lie in material possessions, a truly wealthy society is one that follows the teachings of Juche.
If use a reasonable definition of freedom, there's not much difference between capitalist societies and the supposedly less free ones. https://claycubeomnibus.substack.com/p/the-free-world-isnt-especial-free
I agree with the article in general, and am not an ancap, however I also think no government should be larger than Dunbar's number in size.
On a somewhat related note, was Snow Crash (not the plot, but the world in which the plot was set) utopian or dystopian?
“On our view, anarchy does not lead to anything like freedom: it means and has to mean the rule of brute force.”
If there is any kind of “rule”, then it would seem that there is no anarchy (etymologically: no rule or rulers). But perhaps the main error here is in presupposing that libertarians think that any anarchy is sufficient for libertarianism to spontaneously appear. That is a false presupposition: a libertarian culture is also necessary. https://jclester.substack.com/p/anarchy-and-libertarianism
Brook and Watkins have a curious conception of what constitutes "objective control" over retaliatory force. Objectivity is something that is available to any rational mind that chooses to focus on the problem at hand; objectivity is not something that is unilaterally "defined" exclusively by a particular authority. The latter principle constitutes *subjective* control over the use of force, not objective control.
The obvious danger of such subjectivism is that those who control the state will skew their legal procedures and their decisions about the use of force to favor their own personal interests and/or pursue non-objective values at the expense of the objective interests of those within the territory lacking such control. Objective control is sacrificed in the interests of generating wealth transfers, privileges, and immunities that selectively favor rulers over their subjects, or that dissipate the wealth of their subjects in pursuit of non-objective whims. Precisely because a state has a monopoly over its territory, it doesn't have to worry about losing customers to competitors whenever it strays from serving the objective self-interest of its subjects. Rand's fantasies about voluntary support for the state stand in stark contrast to the reality of taxation, conscription, restrictions, etc. that inevitably follows from permitting rulers to be the sole judges of their own conduct.
A ruling class might also risk expanding their state's territory (or at least the reach of particular exactions, privileges, and immunities) at the expense of weaker states and at the expense of non-state territories by going to war, knowing that the costs of waging wars of aggression are borne by their subjects and by innocent bystanders in the areas they attack, while the spoils of victory accrue to the rulers. Again, a state doesn't lose "customers" such as taxpayers, draftees, etc. by spurning their objective self-interest by going to war in the interests of rulers.
The only way to truly achieve objective control over anything is for the costs and benefits of pursuing the value in question to be internalized by the person acting to gain/keep it, and for that person to choose to focus when selecting their values. Objectivity is a matter of *recognizing* reality; objective control over force is possible only when everyone who wields force rejects self-serving assertions of authority in favor of the impartial adjudication and enforcement of objective law. Geographical exclusivity adds nothing to the impartiality and objectivity of a given judge, policeman, or warrior; it only insulates them from accountability for their lack of impartiality and objectivity.
I think this is pretty well reasoned. However the examples of countries that successfully defend individual liberty falls rather flat since 2020. Events since then seem to rather well support the counterpoint that governments can not in fact be trusted to protect individual liberty.
I would need more time with this to respond fully, but I do want to applaud the challenge to those who think that libertarianism and anarchism have much - or anything - to do with each other. Anarchism is a philosophy of opposition to the existence of government. Libertarianism, in great contrast, is a philosophy to guide good government. They're radically different. They perhaps get confused because a libertarian government will be rather focused and therefore relatively small; and somehow people who are actually anarchists think libertarianism is therefore a kind of "anarchism lite" and that it will be more socially acceptable to call themselves libertarians.
Libertarianism is no more "anarchism lite" than free market advocacy is "fascism lite"; they're qualitatively different things.
Well thought out and written. Very specific, but the ideas have been mulled about for years although never entered as a credo such as this one. Spot on.
Too many confuse Anarchists, Nihilists, Monarchists and Facists as being to the Right on the political spectrum when they do philosophical hair splitting, but they are obviuously to the Left when one looks at their actions and daily beliefs. They think Monarchists and Marxists , Facists and Communists, and Anarchists and Socialists are opposites. Not so. Monarchists and Marxists both belief in the authoritarian state whose validity is based on a higher power. Facists and Communists are siblings of the same DNA -socialism. Nihilists and Anarchists may be labeled as not believing in government but they want an authoritaruian one to supposedly achieve that end.. I think the idea to make these groups opposite started when some groups of far Left political figures and academics realized that the only physically violent groups were on the Left. So they created a spin that Communists and Nihilists were to the Left while Fascists, KKK, and Anarchists were to the Right when all these peas belong in the same pod.. All were violent they said , but some were to the Left , others to the Right. Good try but no cigar. All come from the same brood and march shoulder to shoulder through life espousing quite similar beliefs. There's no sibling rivalry, each just slices the sausage with a little different technique.
Again too simplistic. “In Rand’s formulation:
It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use.” What is your definition of force here?