The Rational Animal

The video I am responding to is located here.

This is a response to an Objectivist giving what are pretty standard Randian criticisms of anarcho-capitalism. I’ll provide some quotations from the video and where I take issue with them.

“The political goal of both anarcho-capitalists and Objectivists is to ban the initiation of force in human relationships.”

While on paper this is true, in practice I can’t honestly say that Objectivists have behaved in this way. Look at the Ayn Rand Institute’s pro-Iraq War stance, despite the fact that the war is demonstrably political and not about preventing the American public from being coerced. This is a glaring inconsistency, but not necessarily related to the debate between minimal statism and anarcho-capitalism.

“A monopoly on retaliatory force is required because the non-initiation of force is not optional or debatable; it is the very principle which both systems claim to be aiming to uphold.”

This doesn’t follow logically until someone can demonstrate that a monopoly on retaliatory force is the only way, or at least the best way, to minimize the initiation of force. Otherwise it’s just an empty assertion.

“Allowing competition is effectively saying that the non-aggression principle is optional, as it allows private agencies to decide what laws and principles they want to follow, regardless of whether they are correct.”

I could just say that allowing the state to exist is effectively saying that the non-aggression principle is optional, as it allows those that run the state to decide what laws and principles they want to follow, regardless of whether they are correct.

“Multiple competing agencies will necessarily conflict, since if they were in complete agreement there would be, in principle, no need for there to be multiple agencies to begin with.”

Allowing a variety of agencies to enter the market provides a natural check on agencies that wish to initiate force on people. Unlike a state, no one agency has authority over the others and can act criminally without consequences. And generally, people do not like to be coerced.

There are also other aspects to what a private arbitration or police agency might offer that have nothing to do with the laws that it enforces, such as price, quality, customer service, etc. Even if every agency followed the non-aggression principle to the letter, there are other areas in which they can compete.

“The non-aggression principle is not optional, and should not be treated as such by leaving it up to private individuals to decide whether they want to enforce it, or their own non-objective values and beliefs.”

Like earlier, I could just say that the non-aggression principle is not optional, and should not be treated as such by leaving it up to those in the state to decide whether they want to enforce it, or their own non-objective values and beliefs.

“Coercion cannot be stopped by allowing those who use it to make up their own mind as to whether they want to continue using it or not…”

I could walk outside and bludgeon someone to death right now, and we have a state. As morbid as this sounds, it’s a fact. People can do whatever they want, although they can’t escape the consequences of their actions.

I agree that in all but the most unusual of circumstances, the non-aggression principle is not morally optional e.g. I cannot walk outside and bludgeon someone to death right now and be a good person at the same time. But being a good person is optional. If it weren’t an option, there wouldn’t be bad people and we wouldn’t even be discussing this.

Think of it this way. Imagine if there were a device that could enter people’s minds and make it so they would never consider doing anything morally wrong. Would you consider the existence of such a device an amazingly good thing or a horrifyingly bad thing?

My point is that the goal isn’t to somehow remove the option of choosing immorality or aggression. The goal is to arrange agreements with other people in whatever way maximizes our self-interest, and the non-aggression principle (e.g. responding to force with force but not initiating it) provides a solid means for doing this.

Letting people make up their own minds isn’t optional without a mind control device of some kind, and even then I think using such a thing on anyone who has yet to do anything wrong would be itself an aggressive act.

“One principle needs only one agency to uphold it.”

Who are you to decide for other people what they need in order to achieve their values? I might not draw this conclusion; indeed, I’ve concluded that a stateless society of competing agencies is far more likely to be non-aggressive than a society with a state whose actions are checked by nobody.