Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

I have my own philosophy, induced from reality, which (conveniently enough) corresponds to Objectivism (since they both use a logical methodology).

> But as others pointed out, you can't just dismiss anarchism off-hand.

Correct, and I can make a number of arguments against anarchy. That is just the simplest and most clever I have run up against other than "It's contradictory."

> As an objectivist, you're against coercion, but in favour of centralized power? Is that correct? If so, don't you think it's a contradictory idea?

That is a good question that people often have. I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force. Preventing alternate defense agencies (the anarcho-capitalist idea) and levying taxes for the proper functions of government (police, courts, and military) actually are retaliatory exercises of force, not initiated force.

The threat of initiated force is tantamount to initiated force. So, retaliatory force to stop a threat is legitimate. Moreover, consider the case of a just war against a country that threatens the US; there may be civilian casualties among non-participants in the country of the enemy. The proximate cause of such casualties would be the US military, but the fundamental cause is the enemy government; they died to retaliatory force. A similar case is occuring when an ideal government uses force to collect minimal taxes to establish police, courts, and military. The fundamental cause is the natural threat of those that would violate rights. It would be ideal if all funding for government could be levied voluntarily, via donations, but if not, my argument here provides a solution.

This is not an Objectivist view, because it was not part of anything Ayn Rand wrote. I think many Objectivists would consider it to be compatible with Objectivism, while some no doubt wouldn't.

EDIT: corrected year of unpublished Rothbard note

If an exchange is genuinely voluntary, it leaves both parties better off by definition. You value whatever you're giving up lower than what you're getting in exchange, because otherwise you just wouldn't go through the trade.

>> On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still rely upon law and violence to guard ownership, and therefore at least somewhat subject to public jurisdiction

Everyone naturally has the right to defend his property, through whatever means necessary. Not only that, but we all intuitively agree on what property is. An apple in your hand is automatically assumed to be your property, and so is the apartment you live in, or the factory everyone has always known you to own and run. If you see a car on the street, you don't assume it's no one's property even if there's no one in it.

>> For better or worse, we should take responsibility for the relationship between private capital and the social contract, even if it is for the purpose of maintaining private ownership.

I can't tell what that's supposed to mean. But again, your property is your property, and you have the right to defend it regardless of whether a State exists.

>> capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others

Capitalism is not a "system". It's not something that's imposed on anyone, but instead, it's just all the things people do in their pursuit of personal gain - exchanges, commerce, investments, and contracts etc. If you see problems with "Capitalism", they're actually problems with Crony-Capitalism, and caused by the State. Those evil corporations buy political power, and then use it to prevent competition, to rape nature, pass their losses on to us, and so on. All the nasty stuff.