22 votes

Does a Capitalist Market Require Government?

Forbes contributor and self-proclaimed Ayn Rand objectivist, Harry Binswanger published an article this Friday's past entitled, "Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government" in which he posits that the federal government is supreme all others including the several states are subordinate and that Washington must hold a monopoly on violence lest the market be overrun with terrorists, hoodlums, vigilantes, etc.

The genius of the American system is that it limited government, reining it in by a Constitution, with checks and balances and the provision that no law can be passed unless it is “necessary and proper” to the government’s sole purpose: to protect individual rights–to protect them against their violation by physical force.

Thus, even though he admits the US Constitution has failed, there is simply no other way to build a society without the government maintaining a monopoly on force.

Of course, this tired rehash of STATE necessity initiated a fierce conversation as to the substance of Mr. Binswanger, the sincerity of his bona fides, and the usual exchange of sharply tongued barbs.

Shortly thereafter, Gonzo journalist of the Liberty Movement, Christopher Cantwell offered his counter in his signature inflammatory style, "Sorry Fake Libertarians, Capitalism Requires Anarchy" in which he offers a blistering albeit abridged history of the American Republic summarized by stating:

So if your fabled “land of the free” begins with slavery, central banking, debt, insurrection, and jailing reporters, only to lead up to a bloody civil war and full on fiat currency, before moving on to the income tax and modern Federal Reserve system, I’m sorry, but you don’t even know what freedom means.

This divide amongst the various factions is one not likely to subside in the near future, but it does offer us a keen opportunity to reexamine those views, which we hold dear and prefer not to jostle for fear of upsetting our own understanding. My personal preference for engaging in the challenge of ideas and the BIG conversation tends to get the best of me and thus I welcome the debate as more often than not, the intellect emerges more refined from the undertaking.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Like you said in another post ...

simply answer the questions.

They are obviously impossible

They are obviously impossible as I explained in depth, quit being obtuse.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

You need a lesson in burden

You need a lesson in burden of proof. You are the one who is suggesting that something which has never existed for any meaningful period of time can somehow exist. You are the one who wants to convince me and/or implement it. The burden of proof rests squarely on you to prove that it is not only a good idea, but again, that it is even physically possible (which it is not).

If you cannot even provide a answer to the most basic, simple, insanely low-level question about anarchy (HOW???) how can I be expected to subscribe to your viewpoint?

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

You need a lessin in burden of proof ...

"... something which has never existed which has never existed for any meaningful period of time can somehow exist ... "

roflol

Looks like a world of anarchy which exists every single day consisting of a bunch of different color coded political clubs:

World Map

Anarchy doesn't exist ... what are you smoking? If you can not even recognize what is real and that anarchy exists all around you how do you possibly expect anyone to believe any assertion or claim you are making on how to perfect nature? Furthermore you have the gall to try shift the burden of proof.

You are so ridiculous lol.

You are so ridiculous lol. Just answer the question, or I'm never going to agree with you, simple as that. If your theory could work it would be a really easy question.

You responded to me. I simply stated fact. I have no desire or obligation to go out of my way to convince myself of your theories. If you ever expect to make any progress convincing people of anarchy, you're going to have to do a lot better than insulting and belittling them.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

I am reminded of a parable:

Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?” Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

Let's set aside my unrighteousness for a moment because your post confirms I "insult and belittle." Let us pretend for a moment I was righteous. If I were righteous, what power would I have to heal one who claims they can see?

You say that you simply stated a fact. The fact is the world fundamentally operates on anarchy. No man has an inherent ruler. Men are not created slaves. Any man can use force. At any given point in time observation verifies most men are not using force against other men.

According to you it is not factual that no men have any inherent rulers. According to you men must have inherent rulers. What evidence do you offer for such a claim derived from first hand knowledge? Do you testify you have an inherent ruler with authority to command your action and compel compliance?

You deny that the absence of ruler is the natural state of man and demand the burden of proof be upon anyone who states man has no inherent ruler. I do not need to convince anyone of anarchy. Anarchy is. Anarchy is what allows one to exercise self defense at any given moment. If you claim you can see but are blind to this fact ... what magical words do you expect me to utter?

You say that you simply

You say that you simply stated a fact. The fact is the world fundamentally operates on anarchy. No man has an inherent ruler. Men are not created slaves. Any man can use force. At any given point in time observation verifies most men are not using force against other men.

So, anarchy is nothing more than a theory of how the world operates? Well then what is the point? Sure, it works that way, and as a direct result of the world working that way, we get governed.

According to you it is not factual that no men have any inherent rulers. According to you men must have inherent rulers.

That is a loaded question fallacy that also happens to be a red herring. According to me, nothing of the sort, and it doesn't pertain to the discussion. Once again, I asked how anarchy is physically possible, I said nothing of masters or human nature, you are putting words and claims into my mouth instead of simply answering my question.

I do not need to convince anyone of anarchy. Anarchy is.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying all along. Anarchy is. Therefore, initiation of aggression exists. Therefore, governments exist. Anarchy begets government, that is where we are, so what is all the fuss about? You have no solutions to offer?

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

RE: "Sure, it works that way,

RE: "Sure, it works that way, and as a direct result of the world working that way, we get governed."

So why introduce all of the bullshit and claim anarchy does not exist? I have no problem conceding the only reason any government can be formed is because the world fundamentally operates on anarchy.

It is not because the initiation of aggression exists therefore government exists. It is because the initiation of aggression exists and people choose to live in fear without good reason therefore government exists.

RE: "You have no solutions to offer?"

Get real. The sheer volume of libertarian writing indicates the absurdity of the question. The general solution proposed is that there is no good reason to live in fear and annoint a king. Our observation confirms most people are not using force against other people everyday. Since the amount of people not using force greatly outnumber any random thug who comes along there is no good reason to give a king your sons for war and the first fruits of your crops.

RE: "That is a loaded question fallacy that also happens to be a red herring."

Considering the very essence of the definition of anarchy is the absence of a ruler it is not loaded or a red herring.

So why introduce all of the

So why introduce all of the bullshit and claim anarchy does not exist? I have no problem conceding the only reason any government can be formed is because the world fundamentally operates on anarchy.

You're being incredibly obtuse. As you know, I am not the one introducing any bullshit here, anarchists are. If anarchy is just "how the world works" and it results in government, then why is there a conversation about it? When I ask how can anarchy physically exist, I am obviously (as has been spelled out in no uncertain terms here numerous times) referring specifically to an actual modern system of anarchy. You are choosing to use the word in a broad and meaningless sense, and refusing to use language for what it is intended (communication). You know damn well what I am saying, but you stubbornly stick to your own definition of the word, which is adopted by almost no one.

Get real. The sheer volume of libertarian writing indicates the absurdity of the question.

What's absurd is right before your face is literally undeniable evidence to the contrary, yet you continue to insist that all libertarians are anarchists.

Considering the very essence of the definition of anarchy is the absence of a ruler it is not loaded or a red herring.

So you are making the argument, if I understand you correctly, that anarchy is a philosophical idea about how the world works, and has absolutely no practical application to government, and anarchists are in no way trying to reform or change government? If so, I hope you realize you are an extremely unique anarchist.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Obtuse:

"annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand."

"Anarchy is" -TelFire

"Can anarchy physically exist" -TelFire

"men must have inherent

"men must have inherent rulers" -His American Majesty

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

A Silver Platter

We live in anarchy throughout the majority of our day, in as much as the decisions we make, such as where to work, where to live, what to eat, which businesses we patronize, all of this is done in a state absent of rulers, to wit is the literal definition of anarchy.

Further, even now online dispute resolution systems exists for freelancers and their clients, in which contract disputes are settled by an arbiter chosen voluntarily and that operates with no titled authority from a government.

How far down to a literal interpretation of anarchy does one cede? Is the Citadel project an example of a hybrid anarchy/voluntary commune?

The question that forever nags at me and which I admit to having no all-encompassing answer is how can a society defend an outright invasion from a foreign entity?

Nevertheless, it is either intellectually dishonest or lazy to posit that no one has explained or handed to you the philosophy on a silver platter.

There exists a plethora of books pertaining to the larger practical philosophy of anarchy, whether by Spooner, Menken, Rothbard, Tucker, etcetera if you are truly interested in contemplating how such a system works in every day life.

I believe it is both

I believe it is both dishonest and lazy for anarchists to come up with a long winded copout every time I ask them a simple and obvious question. It is truly ridiculous how predictable you are; you steadfastly REFUSE to be even remotely reasonable!! You don't want to be the one who proves me wrong and provides at least some half ass idea of how it could work, you would much rather insult and belittle me in a cordial manner and place yourself on a moral pedestal without offering anything of substance to the discussion.

I'm not going to read 12 books about your insane, idiotic theory if out of literally hundreds of anarchists I have asked not a single one will tell me HOW IT IS FUCKING POSSIBLE.

You are good at sounding cordial whole being a true asshole, I don't share that talent, but your post was uncalled for whilst mine was what should have been a predictable reaction if you had any ability to consider other people's positions. But then if that were the case I highly doubt you'd identify as anarchist.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

LOL, Rothbard and Spooner "insane":

Myself and others have taken the time to read the books of record, but you cannot be bothered to question YOUR answers? Sounds like you are afraid to even consider an alternative to your dogma, which is fine.

However do not lay blame on Anarchists for your own laziness and unwillingness to challenge your closely held belief system.

LOL, Rothbard and Spooner "insane": no true Scotsman, red hering and an ad hom, bravo you hit the logical fallacy hat trick.

Red hering?! What red hering?

Red hering?! What red hering? I asked a question, which you are still dodging! You are the one trying to distract from the issue!

And you must have mistaken something for "no true Scotsman" because I'm not suggesting that atheists aren't "real" libertarians, actually it is quite the other way around -- you are all attacking me and calling me a fake libertarian. The hypocrisy of saying I am the one who has committed no true Scotsman is just baffling.

I will admit some of my wording looks suspiciously like an ad hominem, but I'm afraid you're wrong here too. In order for it to be an ad hominem I would have to be relying on the insults to carry my argument. Alas, I'm not. As a matter of fact, I'm not even arguing any point! I'm trying to get you to explain yours by asking a question that you demonstrably REFUSE to answer!

How is anarchy physically possible?

Just to remind of the sequence of events here, I stated a simple fact that no anarchist has ever provided me any explanation of how anarchy can possibly work.

You replied, presumably because you wanted to convince me that anarchy is indeed viable. Therefore, since you are the one who wants to convince me, the onus is absolutely on you to provide any materials necessary to convince me.

You are acting like I stated "anarchy is impossible". While I sarcastically remarked that I believe it is, my initial comment simply stated that no anarchist has ever been able to provide any proof that it is. That is a fact which you apparently have no desire to change.

My statement that no anarchist has ever provided any reasonable argument whatsoever for how anarchy is possible remains completely and utterly true. To my utter amazement, despite the simplicity of this question, you repeatedly try to change the subject, and use an enormous pile of red herrings to avoid answering it. I just don't get it.

It's really quite a simple question. Why is it like pulling teeth to ask an anarchist to state how their theory is physically possible?

You do not get to redirect, and go on about how I must not have read all the same books you have, or I would obviously come to the exact same conclusions. "I'm right! Look it up!" is not a valid argument. Your entire last post was literally a giant ad hominem - you are attacking my character, suggesting I'm uneducated, lazy, dogmatic, instead of addressing the simple question I asked.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

The logical fallacy hat trick.

You floor me Allison; this is too good. I think we might need to devise a state entity to settle this dispute.

Respectfully...

He is obviously not referring to how we decide what to eat or where to work. He is referring to how anarchy could successfully be implemented on a national level or at least as it pertains to social interaction on a large scale.

Additionally, how is it dishonest or lazy that no one has ever explained to him how it can work in practice? Do you know that somebody has explained it to him? Perhaps you meant that he was lazy for not looking it up himself. However, then you are assuming he hasn't read anything on it or that nobody who has read anything on it could possibly disagree.

I've read quite a bit on the subject and still believe it's no more practical or feasible than communism. In my experience, it seems that most anarchists are hung up on semantics. They are okay with what are popularly considered legitimate governmental functions as long as we don't call the body that executes them a government. However, I have no interest in starting that debate again.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

With All Do respect

With all due respect when you say "how Anarchy could be successfully implemented on a NATIONAL level" it seems you miss the point entirely.

Implementing something NATIONALLY is NATIONALISM, of which Anarchy is not.

I'm pretty sure I missed the

I'm pretty sure I missed the point entirely! But to be fair, that's really not my fault, it's yours. I've all but begged hundreds of anarchists to explain themselves.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

The invasion question is

The invasion question is easy. During WWII a high ranking Japanese general is quoted as saying "you could never invade America because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass." Afghanistan is also a great example where a bunch of dirt farmers, armed far worse than we are, have fought back both the Russians as well as our occupying force, the supposed greatest military in the world. Switzerland also comes to mind with every citizen armed.

Americans are the most armed civilians on the planet. When we finally realize this maybe we can finally get rid of the occupation of the Federal Government.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Unfortunately

Unfortunately, the quote is spurious, although I tend to agree with the sentiment.

Cyril's picture

One issue is with language, to begin with

Well, among the issues I see is that there are more than just one definition of "anarchy" - I've been assumed as an "anarchist" often times only because I see no function or legitimacy whatsoever for government regulations that go beyond the preservation and defense of the just law.

That is, to enable the rendering of justice and justice only.

(While I don't consider myself as an anarchist, since I am not willing to deny a priori the idea of some form of government, if so desirable to the people, to protect foundation laws of their land, such as the Bill of Rights, etc.)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I'm assuming anarchism to

I'm assuming anarchism to refer to the complete absence of any organized monopoly on force, which I can't imagine ever happening.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Government is possible but impractical

$17 trillion in debt including 1/3 of civil war debt and not a penny paid on the principal since 1893 pretty clearly demonstrates that the government that we been using since 1862 is impractical.

Free includes debt-free!

That has absolutely nothing

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

I don't understand the downvotes. It had nothing to do with what I said. I don't disagree with it at all. In what warped universe is it a valid argument against me?!

It's like if I said, "the sky is blue!" and you said "well, the sky is not red, so clearly you're wrong!"..... what?!?!???

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

How did the sky get in the act?

Does the idea of being without a ruler or more aptly self-ruled frighten

Free includes debt-free!

The sky got in the act

The sky got in the act because I was trying to demonstrate to you how completely silly it is to bring up something entirely unreleated to the discussion.

The question remains though, how did your talk about the failed current system get in the act? It has nothing to do with whether or not anarchy is possible.

How can anarchy physically exist?

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

It not only physically exists, it is the default.

Until groups of murderous, thieving liars came and ruled with force.

How to spot a government? Look for mistakes, failures and waste that somebody else paid for.

Free includes debt-free!

But groups of murderous,

But groups of murderous, theiving liars are the default. You haven't explained how it can exist now. We've already established that sure, it could have existed for a few, I don't know, days? Hours? Minutes?

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Government intervention is the infection

Government intervention is the infection that troubles the civil markets.

Are lying, murdering and thieving the problem or the result of unjust interventions.

Call of the Wild by Jack London gives an account of the Klondike Gold Rush.

The Moon is Down by John Steinbeck

There are alternatives we can lend consent to.

Free includes debt-free!