I posted this on my blog, but would like to get feedback from the members of this forum to help me refine my argument.
After weeks of debating this subject I am ready to better define my
philosophy. I am no longer an Objectivist because I do not support the
idea of a government with a monopoly of protection (which I will refer
to as “a state” from this point forward). Objectivism has an inherent
contradiction with its support of a state. The contradiction lies with
a collective body of any sort violating the non-aggression principle.
If you are born within the borders of a state, you are forced to
participate in it and this is where the non-aggression contradiction
arises. Since you have no choice to where you are born, a state of any
form presents you with no choice of self defense. The idea of a country
or state is a tribalist and collectivist notion. When you are born
within the boundaries of a state, you are subject to a group of
individuals who force you to use their protection services. Even in a
state that touts a voluntary tax, you are still subject to the rules of
the state, and any attempt to form your own protection agency would be
stopped with force. There is simply no rational reason to assume that
individuals require a government to live rationally. The very idea that
this is required assumes that men will generally act irrationally. The
idea that anarchy would degrade into gang warfare is a mistrust in
people to generally do the right thing.
Pragmatically speaking, I do not think anarchy is a possibility any
time soon. I think that ideas need to spread more, and men need a
consensus on philosophy before anarchy is able to work properly. I
think the reason governments exist today is because of age old fears
that men need to be controlled in order to act in a rational manner. I
think this view is a poor outlook on humanity and needs to be changed
by supporting the spread of ideas. Only with a change in a majority of
individuals thinking, only when we can trust each other to be rational,
can we evolve into a society that is no longer so afraid that it
requires borders, patriotism and government. I think it is wrong for
Objectivists to continue to support the idea of a country, state,
government or any group of individuals that have a higher right than
any individual. I think this idea is dangerous and more destructive
when it is backed by the rational axioms of Objectivism. I encourage
Objectivists to carefully think about this idea and consider it before
writing off anarchy as “no better than a dictatorship”. I understand
the knee jerk reaction that anarchy is bad. I had the same reaction
when I first considered it. But with further thought, I realize that I
can not hold that contradiction any longer. No matter how against
practicality it seems. Men are at their best when they are as free as
possible, and I see no greater freedom than a society in which men do
business with each other completely voluntarily, where the individual
is completely responsible for his/her own life, and without any need
for a state to protect or control them, because the individual has all
of the philosophical tools at their minds disposal to take care of
his/her self.
I hesitate to call myself a market anarchist or anarcho-capitalist
because these political philosophies fail to recognize important
axioms. There is no word for the philosophy I support now, but it is
basically Objectivism without the recognition for the need of a state
of any form. Stefan Molyneux is the closest philosopher I identify
with. I
will further refine this post as I find points that require
clarification. I wrote this fairly quickly and am sure there are
pieces missing, so be sure to ask me questions if you are confused by
my argument.