u/RyanBleazard

In John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged:

>There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist... Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence.

I believe Rand was incorrect here in presenting the fundamental alternative between existence and nonexistence as exclusive to living organisms. Non-living entities also have conditional forms of existence. A star, for example, is an organised process sustained by certain physical processes, such as nuclear fusion and gravitational equilibrium. Its continued existence as a star depends upon the continuation of these processes; otherwise, like life, the star ceases to exist, although the matter remains.

This alternative as such applies to any entity, insofar as its continued identity depends upon particular physical processes, arrangements, or conditions.

Apparently, Ayn Rand stated in 1962:

>But to the hypothetical question, “What would I advocate if my advice were immediately put into effect?,” I’d answer: Start decontrolling the economy as fast as rational economic considerations permit. I speak of “rational economic considerations” because today, every part of the population is dependent on government controls. Most professions have to function under controls, and their activities are calculated on that basis. So if anyone were to repeal all controls overnight, by legislative fiat, that would be a disastrous, arbitrary, dictatorial action. What a free country needs is to give all the people concerned sufficient notice to readjust and reorganize their economic activities…. Any sudden changes could create disastrous dislocations, and so we should decontrol gradually.

If I understand this correctly, it would be dictatorial and problematic if economic freedom was implemented too quickly rather than gradually, as society would be unable to adjust and stabilise to such rapid, sudden changes in policy such as deregulation. For example, I imagine this applies to social security, where the livelihoods of many have become dependent on it and so the programme may have to be phased out with time, perhaps over some decades.

Democracy in its original meaning refers to unlimited majority rule, where the populace can vote to have the state do anything at all. Given an understanding of individual rights and why they are inalienable, one should see clearly why unlimited majority rule is inimical to human well-being. The proper purpose of government (a monopoly on force) is not rule by the people, but the protection of rights. If there is no constitution to limit what government can do, politicians can infringe upon individual rights and thereby defy its fundamental purpose.

For instance, without a framework of constitutional limits, the majority could legally execute or exterminate any minority it chose. The classic example is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally because the majority didn't like what he was saying although he had initiated no force and had violated no one's rights.

In a proper governmental system - a constitutional republic restricted to protecting individual rights - majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel by balloted election. But they have no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of people's rights.

Reprinted from Foundations of a Free Society: Reflections on Ayn Rand's Political Philosophy (ARI, 2019).

Reprinted from Foundations of a Free Society: Reflections on Ayn Rand's Political Philosophy (ARI, 2019).

Evolution does not proceed for socialistic or collectivist motives but from self-interested ones.^(1) All cooperative ventures among living organisms exist and are stabilised by the mutual self-interests of the participants and the fact that each derives more benefit from the cooperative venture than they could achieve alone. This accounts for the dissolution of cooperative social activities if conditions change and the individual’s self-interests are no longer served by acting cooperatively. By contrast, situations in which individuals behave solely for the good of others (the group) are unstable because they are prone to invasion by cheaters and free riders who contribute less, or nothing, all while benefiting from others’ altruistic actions.

Goals or values have utility (use-value in reducing states of dissatisfaction or unease). But there are two types of utility or use-value: subjective and objective (Mises, 1990). The subjective utility of a goal is strictly personal, it is the degree to which the goal is perceived by that individual to reduce or alleviate their state of dissatisfaction. That degree is its subjective value to that individual. Only that individual, presented with a given context, can make the determination of utility or value, and therefore what is "good" to pursue or what is in his own long-term welfare. The objective utility is simply the relation between a thing, object, or product and the effect it has the capacity to bring about. Science may permit the means by which to calculate those effects, as in degrees of temperature, units of energy expended (calories), and the like, but this utility or use-value should not be confused with the former subjective one. Humans do not base judgments of value entirely or even partly on the objective use value of a goal or the means to attain it. Two people given the same information as to the objective-use value of certain means will not necessarily choose the same means or pursue the same ends. That is because no one can judge what another person’s subjective state of dissatisfaction is relative to a future state of greater happiness and whether it’s worth the pursuit.

This makes plain why no individual, collective, or government can or should make decisions concerning “the common good” because there is no such thing as a common good. There is only individual good, value, or happiness, and only individuals engage in this process of evaluating ends and means and the subjective use-value of these for their own welfare.

How do we create a free society? The answer coming out of Objectivism and classical liberalism is that we establish a constitutional republic limited to the protection of people's individual rights. Anarcho-capitalists begin from a different premise: a proper, rights-respecting government is said to be impossible, because it must use force against "competitors". Michael Huemer summarises this argument:

>Government, by definition, holds a monopoly on the services it provides. It maintains this monopoly through the use of force against anyone who attempts to compete—that is, anyone who attempts to provide the same services as the government. Now, either the provision of these services constitutes aggression, or it does not. If it constitutes aggression, then, by the Non-Aggression Axiom, government is unjustified. But if it does not constitute aggression, then to use force to prevent other people from providing these services is itself to commit aggression. In other words, if the state violates rights, then it must be abolished; if the state does not violate rights, then it can have no valid objection to other organizations doing the same thing as the state is doing.

This objection, however, does not stand to serious scrutiny. A rights-protecting society defines the procedures governing the use of retaliatory force, including the personnel vetted and empowered to carry out these procedures. The rights of a judge are not violated because he cannot also act as arresting officer, prosecuting attorney, jury and executioner.

If an individual resorts to the unilateral use of force, they are not providing the same "private service" as the government police, the way one might offer the same service as one’s neighbourhood barber. Rather, they would be deploying the use of force unilaterally, without legal authorisation, which is a public issue that concerns everyone who might be targeted for arrest. In a free society, or anything close to a free society, no one has no such a right, and so the police is not violating their rights by stopping them.

For example, if you march into town and shoot Arnold in the street because you say he murdered your cousin, it is irrelevant that you know in your own mind he is a killer. From the perspectives of bystanders, you are a threat. You are using force outside of the legal safeguards by which guilt and liability are established. By that very fact, you are threat to other citizens, and the police must stop you to defend its citizens’ rights. It’s only when retaliatory force is sought as recourse to be deployed according to defined laws and the public can see that this is so that there is a clear demarcation between initiatory force and retaliatory force.

The failure of anarcho-capitalists to understand this reflects a deeper issue: anarchism is a product and expression of collectivism. By the talk of “competition” in the context of justice, they are endorsing the statist conflation of production and force. The left claims that capitalistic acts use force. Anarcho-capitalists claim that acts of force can be capitalistic. Though they come at it from different angles, both are wrong: voluntary exchange and free trade has nothing in common with forceful interactions.

How do we create a free society? The answer coming out of the classical liberal tradition is that we establish a constitutional republic limited to the protection of people's individual rights. Anarcho-capitalism begins from a different premise: a proper, rights-respecting government is said to be impossible, because it must use force against "competitors". Michael Huemer summarises this argument:

>Government, by definition, holds a monopoly on the services it provides. It maintains this monopoly through the use of force against anyone who attempts to compete—that is, anyone who attempts to provide the same services as the government. Now, either the provision of these services constitutes aggression, or it does not. If it constitutes aggression, then, by the Non-Aggression Axiom, government is unjustified. But if it does not constitute aggression, then to use force to prevent other people from providing these services is itself to commit aggression. In other words, if the state violates rights, then it must be abolished; if the state does not violate rights, then it can have no valid objection to other organizations doing the same thing as the state is doing.

This objection, however, does not stand to serious scrutiny. A rights-protecting society defines the procedures governing the retaliatory use of force, including the personnel vetted and empowered to carry out these procedures. The rights of a judge are not violated because he cannot also act as arresting officer, prosecuting attorney, jury and executioner.

If an individual resorts to the unilateral use of force, they are not providing the same "private service" as the government police, the way one might offer the same service as one’s neighbourhood barber. Rather, they would be deploying the use of force unilaterally, without legal authorisation, which is a public issue that concerns everyone who might be targeted for arrest. In a free society, or anything close to a free society, no one has no such a right, and so the police is not violating their rights by stopping them.

For example, if you march into town and shoot Arnold in the street because you say he murdered your cousin, it is irrelevant that you know in your own mind he is a killer. From the perspectives of bystanders, you are a threat; you are using force outside of the legal safeguards by which guilt and liability are established. By that very fact, you are threat to other citizens, and the police must stop you to defend its citizens’ rights. It’s only when retaliatory force is sought as recourse to be deployed according to defined laws and the public can see that this is so that there is a clear demarcation between the initiation of force and the retaliatory use of force.

The failure of anarcho-capitalists to understand this reflects a deeper issue: anarchism is a product and expression of collectivism. By the talk of “competition” in the context of justice, you are endorsing the statist conflation of production and force. The left claims that capitalistic acts use force. Anarcho-capitalists claim that acts of force can be capitalistic. Though you come at it from different angles, both of you are wrong: voluntary exchange and free trade has nothing in common with forceful interactions.

Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism holds that a certain kind of governmental monopoly is necessary for the protection of people’s individual rights; that is, the protection of people from initiatory force.

A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area. The justification for its exclusivity lies in the fact that a rights-protecting society defines the procedures governing the use of retaliatory force, including the personnel vetted and empowered to carry out these procedures. The rights of a judge are not violated because he cannot also act as arresting officer, prosecuting attorney, jury and executioner.

Government is not a collective super-organism; like a "defence agency", it is just a group of individuals. But if an individual resorts to the unilateral use of force, they are not providing the same "private service" as the government police, the way one might offer the same service as one’s neighbourhood barber. Rather, they would be deploying the use of force unilaterally, without legal authorisation. In a free society, or anything close to a free society, no one has no such a right, and so the police is not violating their rights by stopping them.

To have a personal right to do something is to be at moral liberty to do it in whatever way you wish, rationally or irrationally. Thus, the personal “right” to wield retaliatory force would mean the “right” to do it irrationally. But an irrational force-wielding individual is one that effectively initiates force and violates people’s rights. And there can be no such thing as “a right to violate the rights of others.”

A free market as an ideal means that it is proper to let people make their own personal decisions about goods and services, and that it is not fundamentally destructive to human life to let people make irrational choices about the goods and services. But when it comes to the application of force and the protection of rights, it is fundamentally destructive to the rights of others to let people make irrational choices. Hence the issue with the very concept of a "market anarchy": it implies that it is proper for people to have varied standards of rights and justice applied to them.

Thus, while individuals have a right to immediate self-defence, and a right of retaliation after-the-fact against those who use initiatory force against them, the latter is clearly not a personal right in the same sense. It is a right requiring delegation to a third-party government, because no one has a right to retaliate irrationally, non-objectively, and outside the legal procedures by which guilt and liability are established.

Anarcho-capitalists argue that dismantling the state is necessary to establish a free society. They claim it is wrong to impose morality by force, and that government, as a monopoly, necessarily does this, since on moral grounds it excludes “competitors.”

These anarchists fail to see the pacifist implications of their position because they think in terms of groups instead of individuals, conjuring many "competing" (i.e. conflicting) police forces in a market for justice. Those pacifist implications become unavoidable if they realise that both government and a defence agency are just groups of individuals. When reduced to the level of individual to individual interactions, it becomes clear that “not excluding competition” means no individual can use force to defend himself.

The purpose of the police is to establish a monopoly over human interactions, to force others to obey to their idea of what ought to be. In fact, the wielding of force is monopolistic by its very nature: it is the subjugation of one side’s will to that of the other. The monopolistic imposition is not affected by whether the force-wielder is called “the government” or “John's Defence Agency". Only a collectivised mentality can hold that the police, acting on my behalf, cannot forcibly exclude “competitors” but a “defense agency” can.

The non-initiation of force principle is itself a moral principle. Individual rights are moral principles. Thus, “the argument from moral freedom” reduces to an advocacy of pacifism. Their actual objection to government is not to its monopolistic character, but to the fact that

>“A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.” (Ayn Rand: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal).

To place the wielding of retaliatory force under objective control, the police must enforce a single, monopoly standard concerning its use, including banning and forcibly disbanding competition on the grounds that they enforce unjust laws by unjust means. Anarcho-capitalists contrast this by describing a situation in which anyone can "compete" with the government by going into the "business" of justice and wielding force. But no one has a right to deploy force unilaterally, without legal authorisation. There is no right to the arbitrary use of force, and force is used arbitrarily whenever it is used outside of the legal safeguards that establish force as retaliatory.

For example, if you march into town and shoot Arnold in the street because you say he murdered your cousin, it is irrelevant that you know in your own mind he is a killer. You are using force in defiance of the procedures by which guilt and liability must be established. By that very fact, you are threat to other citizens, and the government must stop you to defend its citizens’ rights. It’s only when retaliatory force is deployed according to defined laws and the public can see that this is so that there is a clear demarcation between the initiation of force and the retaliatory use of force.

The failure of “anarcho-capitalists" to see this brings me to a second point: they accept the statist approach of conflating production and force, the dollar with the gun. The left claims that “concentrations of wealth” on the market is force. Libertarian anarchists claim that force is just another service on the market. Though they come at it from different angles, both are wrong: producing and exchanging values is the opposite of physical force and free trade. A free market presupposes that force has already been extracted from human interactions. Market mechanisms can’t establish or protect the preconditions of there being a free market.

Anarcho-capitalists argue that dismantling the state is necessary to establish a free society. They claim it is wrong to impose morality by force, and that government, as a monopoly, necessarily does this, since on moral grounds it excludes “competitors.”

They fail to see the pacifist implications of their positions because they think in terms of groups instead of individuals, conjuring many "competing" (i.e. conflicting) police forces in a market for justice. Those pacifist implications become unavoidable if they realise that both government and a defence agency are just groups of individuals. When reduced to the level of individual to individual interactions, it becomes clear that “not being able to exclude competition” means no individual can use force to defend himself.

The purpose of the police is to establish a monopoly over human interactions, to force others to obey to their idea of what ought to be. In fact, the wielding of force is monopolistic by its very nature: it is the subjugation of one side’s will to that of the other. The monopolistic imposition is not affected by whether the force-wielder is called “the government” or “John's Defence Agency". Only a collectivised mentality can hold that the police, acting on my behalf, cannot forcibly exclude “competitors” but a “defense agency” can.

The non-initiation of force principle is itself a moral principle. Individual rights are moral principles. Thus, “the argument from moral freedom” reduces to an advocacy of pacifism. Their actual objection to government is not to its monopolistic character, but to the fact that

>“A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.” (Ayn Rand: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal).

To place the wielding of retaliatory force under objective control, the police must enforce a single, monopoly standard concerning its use, including banning and forcibly disbanding competition on the grounds that they enforce unjust laws by unjust means. Anarcho-capitalists contrast this by describing a situation in which anyone can "compete" with the government by going into the "business" of justice and wielding force. But no one has a right to deploy force unilaterally, without legal authorisation. There is no right to the arbitrary use of force, and force is used arbitrarily whenever it is used outside of the legal safeguards that establish force as retaliatory.

For example, if you march into town and shoot Arnold in the street because you say he murdered your cousin, it is irrelevant that you know in your own mind he is a killer. You are using force in defiance of the procedures by which guilt and liability must be established. By that very fact, you are threat to other citizens, and the government must stop you to defend its citizens’ rights. It’s only when retaliatory force is deployed according to defined laws and the public can see that this is so that there is a clear demarcation between the initiation of force and the retaliatory use of force.

The failure of “anarcho-capitalists" to see this brings me to a second point: they accept the statist approach of conflating production and force, the dollar with the gun. The left claims that “concentrations of wealth” on the market is force. Libertarian anarchists claim that force is just another service on the market. Though they come at it from different angles, both are wrong: producing and exchanging values is the opposite of physical force. A free market presupposes that force has already been extracted from human interactions. Market mechanisms can’t establish or protect the preconditions of there being a free market.

Anarcho-capitalists argue that dismantling the state is necessary to establish a free society. They claim it is wrong to impose morality by force, and that government, as a monopoly, necessarily does this, since on moral grounds it excludes “competitors.”

These anarchists fail to see the pacifist implications of their position because they think in terms of groups instead of individuals, conjuring many "competing" (i.e. conflicting) police forces in a market for justice. Those pacifist implications become unavoidable if they realise that both government and a defence agency are just groups of individuals. When reduced to the level of individual to individual interactions, it becomes clear that “not being able to exclude competition” means no individual can use force to defend himself.

The purpose of the police is to establish a monopoly over human interactions, to force others to obey to their idea of what ought to be. In fact, the wielding of force is monopolistic by its very nature: it is the subjugation of one side’s will to that of the other. The monopolistic imposition is not affected by whether the force-wielder is called “the government” or “John's Defence Agency". Only a collectivised mentality can hold that the police, acting on my behalf, cannot forcibly exclude “competitors” but a “defense agency” can.

The non-initiation of force principle is itself a moral principle. Individual rights are moral principles. Thus, “the argument from moral freedom” reduces to an advocacy of pacifism. Their actual objection to government is not to its monopolistic character, but to the fact that

>“A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.” (Ayn Rand: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal).

In placing the wielding of retaliatory force itself under objective control, the police are enforcing a single, monopoly standard concerning its use, including banning and forcibly disbanding competition on the grounds that they enforce unjust laws by unjust means. Anarcho-capitalists contrast this by describing a situation in which anyone can "compete" with the government by going into the "business" of justice and wielding force. But no one has a right to deploy force unilaterally, without legal authorisation. There is no right to the arbitrary use of force, and force is used arbitrarily whenever it is used outside of the legal safeguards that establish force as retaliatory.

For example, if you march into town and shoot Arnold in the street because you say he murdered your cousin, it is irrelevant that you know in your own mind he is a killer. You are using force in defiance of the procedures by which guilt and liability must be established. By that very fact, you are threat to other citizens, and the government must stop you to defend its citizens’ rights. It’s only when retaliatory force is deployed according to defined laws and the public can see that this is so that there is a clear demarcation between the initiation of force and the retaliatory use of force.

The failure of “anarcho-capitalists" to see this brings me to a second point: they accept the statist approach of conflating production and force, the dollar with the gun. The left claims that “concentrations of wealth” on the market is force. Libertarian anarchists claim that force is just another service on the market. Though they come at it from different angles, both are wrong: producing and exchanging values is the opposite of physical force. A free market presupposes that force has already been extracted from human interactions. Market mechanisms can’t establish or protect the preconditions of there being a free market.

Free will is when "someone is free to decide for themselves what they will do". Computers routinely perform decision-making operations. But to analogise computers to human brains doesn't work. The first distinction is that computers have no will of their own; we designed them to do our will, whereas human brains evolved; hence the architecture and functioning of each are likely to be quite different. Scientists designing computers can determine the most efficient and effective designs for both hardware and software to achieve their intended purposes to which computers are used. Natural selection, acting on brains, has no such plans and foresight to use in its sculpting of the brain.

The second distinction is that computers are passive whereas human brains are not. Comparing the brain to a computer portrays the brain as if it were software and hardware such that, given a certain input, this “computer” moves the information through various stages of processing to produce the output that we see virtually automatically, like with an industrial robot.

This is a very passive view of organisms, devoid entirely of what makes living things unique--they are self-interested agents! We have basic motives preinstalled that serve to sustain our own life (appetitive and defensive/protective motives) and to reproduce (that is, to transmit our genes) into the next generation (sexuality and competition for mates). A computer is not a self-interested, self-motivating, self-regulating entity; a human brain is.

Another feature of animal life is locomotion--animals move and act under their own power and must frequently be attentive to refuelling and maintaining their vehicles. Nature does not automatically provide for the life-sustaining values of a human; that person must interact in such a way with that environment to produce its sustenance.

Computers are not self-interested; they do not self-assemble, do not compete with other computers for resources or mating opportunities, and do not concern themselves with the source of their own fuel or the integrity of their hardware. They also have no emotions that need self-regulating and do not have to self-motivate. Given that emotions are motivational states and the source of them, computers do not have motivations either.

Humans act and evolved to do so with purpose (intentionality; a future-directed stance). Those actions are initiated and sustained by drive, motivation, and will and by the self-interested motives to survive, nourish ourselves, and reproduce ourselves into the next generation. Absent an appreciation for such motives in human action and decision making, computer analogies prove strikingly sterile and self-limiting in helping us to understand free will.

There are always prior causes of everything. But nothing is fully caused to happen until its final prior causes have played themselves out. Deterministic causation does not actually cause anything to happen in advance. As such, nothing is "pre-determined", "pre-set" or "pre-caused".

Hard Determinists claim “there are (causal) conditions for your choices located in the remote past, prior to your birth, that are sufficient for each of your actions.” Such language gives the impression that something in the past can magically bypass me, and bring about my actions without my participation or consent.

What they fail to recognise is that prior causes do not get to participate in my decision-making without first becoming an integral part of who and what I am at the time the decision is made. Thus, it is legitimately myself, as I am right there and then, that is actually making the choice. To suggest the Big Bang can frogleap into the future and make my decision for me about what I will have for dinner tonight is an absurdity. My prior causes can account for how I happen to be who and what I am, but they are never "sufficient" to do anything without me.

Now that my own internal causal mechanisms are in control, it is my own choosing that is the true cause of my deliberate actions. In theory, we could trace back, through an ever-widening network of prior causes, to explain how I happened to be there, on planet Earth, at a time I made a specific decision. But the farther we move away from the current event, the less relevant and more incidental each prior cause becomes. The final cause of the decision - the most meaningful and relevant one - was the act of deliberation that preceded it. And that did not exist anywhere else in the universe prior to me.

The notion that inevitability constrains free will stems from an equivocation between two types of inevitability and a logic error called the reification fallacy. This occurs when we mistakenly treat an abstract concept (in this case, inevitability or causal necessity) as causative forces rather than as descriptive laws of nature.

One illustration will be sufficient. Suppose someone could accurately predict that I will make a coffee at a specific time and informs me of the prediction. But I also hold a strict rule that if anyone tells me what I will do, I will do the opposite, in order to express my free will.

If the prediction is truly fixed and certain, then it certainly can look as though it is inevitable in the sense that I cannot avoid it. But this is actually false; the aforementioned fallacy is leading us to imagine a contradictory scenario that cannot take place in reality. If the prediction is perfect, then the prediction must include not only what I will do, but also how I will respond to being told what I will do. The act of revealing the prediction becomes part of the very situation being predicted. By telling me this, he would give me the very reason not to make the coffee.

Thus, what this shows is that any true prediction must already take my agency into account. Inevitability cannot force me down one path because it is not something that exists in external reality, neither as a force nor an object controlling my actions. Inevitability is merely descriptive of what happens; it is the total fact of the situation, which includes the very agency through which I make choices for myself.

In a capitalist society, if you wanted to start a commune and work “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, you have the freedom to do so, provided it is voluntary and you do not compel association.

In contrast, if I tried starting a business in a socialist society and hired people according to the terms of employer-employee relationships, I would be sent to jail.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of economic regulations, or restricting the free exercise of voluntary production and trade
2. Congress shall make no law respecting restrictions on peaceful immigration, or abridging the right of any person to enter into and depart from the United States
3. Congress shall make no law respecting the initiation of physical force against peaceful persons, or abridging the right to immediate self-defence
4. Congress shall make no law respecting compulsory association, or restricting the free exercise of voluntary association and dissociation
5. Congress shall make no law respecting the exercise of retaliatory force by private individuals, except pursuant to the determination of guilt and liability reserved to courts of law