11 replies to this topic

[Darkademic]

My original YouTube video:
XOmniverse's blog response: http://rationalanima....vists-critique

Heys. Here's my response to your response. I'd quite like to get some other anarcho-capitalists on here to discuss this if possible. Obviously the whole issue has been on my mind for quite some time now, and there have been moments when I almost switched to anarcho-capitalism, but right now, there are times when I actually don't see the difference (explained at the end).

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.

I'm not particularly pro-Iraq War so this isn't really relevant to me. Such a stance is not necessarily consistent with the philosophy, even if the "official representatives" of it endorse it. That's not to say I oppose the typical Objectivist view on the war, but I just haven't really thought about it much; probably because it is less of an issue here in the UK.

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.

I think you're slightly misunderstanding the point here. A monopoly on retaliatory force must be held by those adhering to objective principles - otherwise it is a contradiction, as you are allowing multiple conflicting principles to claim equal validity. A proper government is defined, in my view, as those who can legitimately use retaliatory force. It isn't restricted to any particular individuals - but it is restricted to those adhering to certain principles.

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.

Well no, because it is a state defined by its adherence to the non-aggression principle. In the same way, you don't recognize the legitimacy of defense agencies who operate according to socialist principles. Just as defense agencies can be legitimate or not, so can a state (which is really just one particular defense agency).

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.

This seems to be implying that a state is a collective entity, and that only other collective entities are capable of "checking". Individuals are individuals, and checks and balances are no less absent from a proper government compared to if multiple agencies are involved. This argument works against both systems as it entirely depends upon the values and philosophy of those involved. A government can include any number of sub-agencies which compete for a "market share" depending on how efficient there. The only things which they must do is follow the same principles / laws.

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.

There can be competition within a government as I noted above. This is because it is the principles which bind a government together, not the practical implementation or the particular individuals who compose it.

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.

However an Objectivist government is defined by it's enforcement of objective principles. The above is more an argument against 'a' state rather than an Objectivist one. Yes, the argument works both ways, but the point is that either way - the non-aggression principle is correct; and should be enforced rather than just left to evolve on its own - and this means a government formed by people who actually know what force really is and why it is evil.

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.

I think this is again missing the point. Obviously mind-control is not an option, and people will always have the free-will to choose to do bad things; this argument works against neither (and no) political system. By "letting them make up their minds" I meant the defense agencies. It cannot be left up to their subjective judgement which principles to enforce - since only one set of principles is correct; those relating to non-aggression. My point is that the true principles need to be actively defined and implemented, as opposed to just letting things evolve (which is really what is happening now.. very few are trying to overthrow the government right now).

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.

This goes back to the checks and balances thing and is treating collectives as the only possible source of "checking up" on those with any kind of power. In both cases every single person in society is a check and balance. Just because some individuals band together and call themselves an agency doesn't make them any more able to ensure the legitimacy of those who are supposed to be defending their rights. Why do "agencies" have the power to keep other agencies in line, whereas the whole of society somehow doesn't have the power to keep a single agency in line? The issue of size and military power certainly is not an issue here since no amount of state power could dominate an entire nation of armed citizens; whereas a particular agency could feasably dominate other agencies whose manpower is necessarily limited.

So, I am really unconvinced. In fact, in many respects I don't understand how anarcho-capitalism is different from a state, other than the lack of definite adherence to the non-aggression principle. If, effectively, defense agencies lose their legitimacy when they deviate from the NAP, and other agencies "should" just prevent them from violating people's rights - then it implies there is some kind of over-arching consensus and principled agreement between all the defense agencies. If this is the case, what you have is essentially an Objectivist state with multiple departments..

[Twilight]

Well responded. I'll wait to see if any kind of discourse happens before I post anything of substance, but you've made a good observation of the distinction between the principle and practice. A government is unified by principle not by particulars such as who is part of it or who runs the police force(s).

[Rorshak1313]

Here it goes. Hopefully this is a halfway decent response.

I think you're slightly misunderstanding the point here. A monopoly on retaliatory force must be held by those adhering to objective principles - otherwise it is a contradiction, as you are allowing multiple conflicting principles to claim equal validity. A proper government is defined, in my view, as those who can legitimately use retaliatory force. It isn't restricted to any particular individuals - but it is restricted to those adhering to certain principles.

A monopoly can't be held without initiating force though. If there's an Objectivist government, people should be able to start private arbitration and security firms, which people can choose to patronize instead. At which point it pretty much ceases to be a government. Principles can be held by anyone and they'll do what they will, regardless of whether it's a single government or multiple agencies. In fact if there's multiple agencies it would be easier to weed out the thugs than if there was a monopoly.

Well no, because it is a state defined by its adherence to the non-aggression principle. In the same way, you don't recognize the legitimacy of defense agencies who operate according to socialist principles. Just as defense agencies can be legitimate or not, so can a state (which is really just one particular defense agency).

Like I said, it can't maintain the monopoly without initiating force. Plus, operating according to socialist principles isn't really a problem. Voluntary socialism ( IE kibbutzes/communes/worker co-ops) does not violate the non-aggression principle. Granted, many Anarcho-communists and syndicalists don't seem to want to adhere to it but that's a whole other discussion.

This seems to be implying that a state is a collective entity, and that only other collective entities are capable of "checking". Individuals are individuals, and checks and balances are no less absent from a proper government compared to if multiple agencies are involved. This argument works against both systems as it entirely depends upon the values and philosophy of those involved. A government can include any number of sub-agencies which compete for a "market share" depending on how efficient there. The only things which they must do is follow the same principles / laws.

I don't see how an organization can check itself. A government is not trying to get profit and there's no competition so there's no incentive to not screw it's "customers" over. As for your idea about government sub-agencies trying to play market, communist governments did something similar. Having government agencies try to imitate markets. It doesn't work, they're still part of the same monopoly. Austrolibertarian has a good video which talks about this. .

However an Objectivist government is defined by it's enforcement of objective principles. The above is more an argument against 'a' state rather than an Objectivist one. Yes, the argument works both ways, but the point is that either way - the non-aggression principle is correct; and should be enforced rather than just left to evolve on its own - and this means a government formed by people who actually know what force really is and why it is evil.

The same could be said for multiple, competing agencies. It seems a bit odd to say only one organization would attract those people. Plus, the agorist method of overthrowing the state involves creating private arbitration and security firms in a counter-economy. Agorists believe strongly in the non-aggression principle so establishing them in this manner would ensure that such firms that adhere to the NAP would already be in place when the state goes bye-bye.

I think this is again missing the point. Obviously mind-control is not an option, and people will always have the free-will to choose to do bad things; this argument works against neither (and no) political system. By "letting them make up their minds" I meant the defense agencies. It cannot be left up to their subjective judgement which principles to enforce - since only one set of principles is correct; those relating to non-aggression. My point is that the true principles need to be actively defined and implemented, as opposed to just letting things evolve (which is really what is happening now.. very few are trying to overthrow the government right now).

See the mention of agorism above. Plus, in order for a correct set of principles to be enforced someone had to have used their judgment to determine it's correct. In any case there HAS to be evolution because no organization that adheres to and enforces the NAP, private agency or otherwise, is going to come about unless there's a shift in a culture's thought that goes in that direction. Both Objectivists and anarchists of all stripes are looked at as cranks by most people. If that doesn't change, neither comes about.

This goes back to the checks and balances thing and is treating collectives as the only possible source of "checking up" on those with any kind of power. In both cases every single person in society is a check and balance. Just because some individuals band together and call themselves an agency doesn't make them any more able to ensure the legitimacy of those who are supposed to be defending their rights. Why do "agencies" have the power to keep other agencies in line, whereas the whole of society somehow doesn't have the power to keep a single agency in line? The issue of size and military power certainly is not an issue here since no amount of state power could dominate an entire nation of armed citizens; whereas a particular agency could feasably dominate other agencies whose manpower is necessarily limited.

I actually agree with this but this works more as an argument for anarchism than for government. If an armed society can overthrow a government then they can overthrow a defense agency or agencies that are acting like one, and since as you say the manpower is more limited it should be easier. I do think having near-universal armament is a desirable and important step to anarchy and there's no gun control in a market anarchist society, so I don't see how this is a criticism of anarchism at all. In fact it could be seen as an argument against the need for defense agencies in a market anarchist society.

So, I am really unconvinced. In fact, in many respects I don't understand how anarcho-capitalism is different from a state, other than the lack of definite adherence to the non-aggression principle. If, effectively, defense agencies lose their legitimacy when they deviate from the NAP, and other agencies "should" just prevent them from violating people's rights - then it implies there is some kind of over-arching consensus and principled agreement between all the defense agencies. If this is the case, what you have is essentially an Objectivist state with multiple departments.

There's no definite adherence to the NAP in any system, because as you said, people have free will. People will do what they will, this applies to government as much as anyone else. And I don't see why you put "should" in scare quotes, protecting rights is exactly what agencies are paid to do so of course they should. I suppose you can call it an Objectivist state, but the fact is that the agencies are not part of the same organization. Plus, as you just said yourself, other "departments" are not the only checks and balances there are.
____________________

Ok, hopefully that reply didn't suck.

[Darkademic]

A monopoly can't be held without initiating force though. If there's an Objectivist government, people should be able to start private arbitration and security firms, which people can choose to patronize instead. At which point it pretty much ceases to be a government. Principles can be held by anyone and they'll do what they will, regardless of whether it's a single government or multiple agencies. In fact if there's multiple agencies it would be easier to weed out the thugs than if there was a monopoly.

Not true. The monopoly is held not by particular individuals, but by those who adhere to the non-aggression principle in their use of retaliatory force. In effect, it is a monopoly OF the non-aggression principle. In terms of being funded privately, people can make their own security firms - they just can't "compete" with the monopoly held by the NAP.

Like I said, it can't maintain the monopoly without initiating force. Plus, operating according to socialist principles isn't really a problem. Voluntary socialism ( IE kibbutzes/communes/worker co-ops) does not violate the non-aggression principle. Granted, many Anarcho-communists and syndicalists don't seem to want to adhere to it but that's a whole other discussion.

I'd argue the opposite; you can't break the monopoly without using force, because it implies competition with the principle of non-aggression, which can only mean aggression. Also, I wouldn't really call a group going by socialist principles a "defense agency" because they do not have the right to unilateral enforcement of their particular economic principles.

I don't see how an organization can check itself. A government is not trying to get profit and there's no competition so there's no incentive to not screw it's "customers" over. As for your idea about government sub-agencies trying to play market, communist governments did something similar. Having government agencies try to imitate markets. It doesn't work, they're still part of the same monopoly. Austrolibertarian has a good video which talks about this. .

Again, this just strikes me as treating agencies and the government as collective entities; and collective entities as the only means to "checking" other collective entities. Those in a proper government ARE trying to get profit, because such a government is funded voluntarily. Not only that, but particular individuals within the government are funded voluntarily.

The same could be said for multiple, competing agencies. It seems a bit odd to say only one organization would attract those people. Plus, the agorist method of overthrowing the state involves creating private arbitration and security firms in a counter-economy. Agorists believe strongly in the non-aggression principle so establishing them in this manner would ensure that such firms that adhere to the NAP would already be in place when the state goes bye-bye.

It's not that only one organization would attract them, it's that these people are unified by principle, and therefore it doesn't really make sense to make separate versions of the same thing.

See the mention of agorism above. Plus, in order for a correct set of principles to be enforced someone had to have used their judgment to determine it's correct. In any case there HAS to be evolution because no organization that adheres to and enforces the NAP, private agency or otherwise, is going to come about unless there's a shift in a culture's thought that goes in that direction. Both Objectivists and anarchists of all stripes are looked at as cranks by most people. If that doesn't change, neither comes about.

Yep, I agree.

I actually agree with this but this works more as an argument for anarchism than for government. If an armed society can overthrow a government then they can overthrow a defense agency or agencies that are acting like one, and since as you say the manpower is more limited it should be easier. I do think having near-universal armament is a desirable and important step to anarchy and there's no gun control in a market anarchist society, so I don't see how this is a criticism of anarchism at all. In fact it could be seen as an argument against the need for defense agencies in a market anarchist society.

I agree with universal armament yes, but I don't see how it is an argument against either system. Once you treat individuals as individuals then you have exactly the same potential for checks and balances in both systems. As you said, a philosophical revolution has to occur for either system to be viable, so the population will therefore be more aware of what constitutes force and will be more informed as to when they can legitimately retaliate.

There's no definite adherence to the NAP in any system, because as you said, people have free will. People will do what they will, this applies to government as much as anyone else. And I don't see why you put "should" in scare quotes, protecting rights is exactly what agencies are paid to do so of course they should. I suppose you can call it an Objectivist state, but the fact is that the agencies are not part of the same organization. Plus, as you just said yourself, other "departments" are not the only checks and balances there are.

If the agencies are not part of the same organization - where does the consensus come from with regards to non-aggression and the law? If there is no consensus, then some agencies are by definition initiating force. If there is a consensus, then what separates the agencies? Ownership? Well a government has no "owners" either. Their separate funding? This is also possible within an Objectivist system.

A system of defense agencies which all agree on the law and principles they follow, and where the NAP is the only principle recognized as being legitimate, is indistinguishable from an Objectivist state in my opinion - since the NAP has a monopoly.

Ok, hopefully that reply didn't suck.

Ha, naw, appreciate your input.

[Insathius]

I took a bit of time away from working today and read your blog and this thread and thought I might see if I could add my two cents, not that I'm claiming to be any sort of intellectual, I'm really not.

I don't understand where the whole universal armament comes in regarding your objective of eliminating violence as the basic principle of Objectivism and anarcho-capitalism. If you allow everyone to have guns isn't that opening the Objectivist society up to violence, even at the very least from the small percentage of mentally challenged people?

That aside, I know this has been mentioned twice already, and I probably have the complete wrong end of the stick however, within the monopoly held by the agency in charge of policing using NAP, you mentioned before that there is room to have sub-companies of some sort (apologies for the terminology, I really don't know what other word to use) within the monopoly which each in turn adhere to the same rules and laws as the state. I don't see the point in this. Surely the only reason you would have this is so people have a choice over quality etc. If so, wouldn't they all be the same anyway? I don't see any room for choice there.

Sorry for being retarded, just trying to understand this principle.

[XOmniverse]

I intend to get involved more in this thread later.

In the meantime, here is some directly relevant reading for the topic of Objectivism and anarchism. These articles directly address both, and I really recommend everyone read this material if they are going to discuss this topic.

The Facts Of Reality: Logic And History In Objectivist Debates About Government by Nicholas Dykes - This is the ultimate comparison of the two as far as I'm concerned. If you read only one of these links, read this one. Long, but thorough and well written.

In Defense of Rational Anarchism by George H. Smith - Author of Atheism: The Case Against God (a book that relies heavily on Objectivist-style epistemology and blows anything by Dawkins and the like out of the water in my opinion) asserts that Ayn Rand's ideas imply anarchism.

Open Letter to Rand by Roy Childs - Somewhat infamous in the history of both Objectivism and libertarianism. First published in 1969, Roy Childs addresses the fact that the existence of a state, by its nature, has to violate the non-aggression principle.

[XOmniverse]

I don't understand where the whole universal armament comes in and your objective of eliminating violence as basic principles of Objectivism and anarcho-capitalism meet. If you allow everyone to have guns isn't that opening the Objectivist society up to violence, even at the very least to the small extreme percentage of mentally challenged people?

People are far less likely to commit acts of violence in a society where nearly anybody can respond to such violence with lethal force. In a society where most of the population is unarmed, an armed thug has far less incentive to not commit an act of violence, since the risk of death from doing so is much lower.

[Darkademic]

People are far less likely to commit acts of violence in a society where nearly anybody can respond to such violence with lethal force. In a society where most of the population is unarmed, an armed thug has far less incentive to not commit an act of violence, since the risk of death from doing so is much lower.

So true. Don't know if you've seen that Penn & Teller's Bullshit! episode where a woman tells her story of when a gunman entered the restaurant she was eating in with both her parents, and began casually shooting everyone. Both her parents were killed. She had a gun but the law required her to leave it in the car.

[Twilight]

Open Letter to Rand by Roy Childs - Somewhat infamous in the history of both Objectivism and libertarianism. First published in 1969, Roy Childs addresses the fact that the existence of a state, by its nature, has to violate the non-aggression principle.

I read this years ago; but were you aware that Childs later renounced his support for anarcho-capitalism in favor of minarchism?

[XOmniverse]

I read this years ago; but were you aware that Childs later renounced his support for anarcho-capitalism in favor of minarchism?

I am. But renouncing your support for a position doesn't render that position invalid.

I used to be a minarchist and now I'm an anarchist; does that fact itself render the position of minarchism invalid? Of course not.

[Darkademic]

The premises underpinning those objectives are firstly, that to prevent the free offering of these services is to initiate force.

This assumes an Objectivist system prevents the free offering of these services. Such would be an initiation of force, as it is saying some individuals can perform the role of the government, but some can't. However, an Objectivist system would only prevent the free offering of services which do not adhere to the non-aggression principle; which is in effect preventing the initiation of force.

Secondly, competition is invariably more efficient and productive of excellence than any state monopoly has ever been or ever could be.

If a particular police force is slow and poor at their job, then there is going to be market demand for a superior police force. There is nothing to say that a competing police force can't be formed and request to be funded as an independent entity - however any new police forces MUST consent to the non-aggression principle and the over-arching rule of law; possibly in some kind of contract between all the government agencies. If they do not, they are by definition initiating force.

And, finally, non-governmental provision of protection and arbitration is how things used to be done, most effectively, in history and still is today in some parts of the world. It is ridiculous to call the anarchist objective 'placing coercion on the market.' What anarchists actually seek is to place protection, arbitration, and justice back on the market--with the express intention of driving coercion out of human society.

Anarchism doesn't necessarily place coercion on the market, it simply places force on the market; and also places the definition of what constitutes a legitimate use of force on the market. Therefore anarchism MAY be putting coercion on the market.

Next we are told that the value of this service is restricted by "the moral principle forbidding its use against persons who have not themselves used force against others," which is a basic principle of anarchism.

I'd say it was a moral principle of many anarchists but not of anarchism. The principle behind anarchism is simply supply and demand. If the non-aggression principle was made explicit and required to be followed by all defense and arbitration agencies - then it would be an Objectivist government.

Next, the sole reason offered for a state monopoly on coercion is the allegation that coercion "may be used to violate rights" if left to market forces. This is hardly persuasive. The assertion that something might happen does not justify the monopoly on force Kelley recommends.

It is persuasive if you contrast it with anarchism. Market forces MAY lead to the violation of rights whereas the enforcement of the non-aggression principle by a proper Objectivist government MAY NOT (is forbidden to) lead to the violation of rights - and if the government initiates force in some manner it ceases to be legitimate and if the population is properly informed they will be aware of this fact and take the necessary retaliatory action.

Suffice it to say here that there is no evidence to suggest, and no reason to suppose, that the people who run governments are likely to be more objective than their fellow humans involved in markets. If anything, the evidence we have implies the contrary.

Individuals are individuals. Nobody is naturally "more objective" than anyone else.

More to the point though, Kelley's argument is logically defective. He asserts that the market has the potential to violate rights, and that therefore the means of rights violation, coercion, must be placed in the hands of a coercive institution, a government monopoly, which itself has the potential to violate rights (and has done so throughout history). This is a clear self-contradiction, a proposal to use coercion to eliminate coercion.

Any system has the "potential to violate rights"; individuals are individuals, and individuals have free-will. The monopoly is not of particular individuals, but of a principle; the non-aggression principle.

The Law Merchant was also universally obeyed. The judges were merchants themselves who were intimately familiar with the kind of cases they ruled upon: their judgements were sound. Moreover, no one would deal with a trader who refused to abide by the decision of a merchant court. The judges had no means to enforce their decisions, but the boycott sanction was so effective it removed any need for compulsion. The Law Merchant thus "shatters the myth that government must define and enforce the 'rules of the game'"

I'd find it extremely hard to believe that the Law Merchant was so flawless and universally obeyed; this is Medieval Europe we're talking about.. one of the most depraved periods in human history.

But perhaps the most telling evidence that commerce does not need government is provided by black markets. As with the earlier prohibition of alcohol, the banning of recreational drugs in the United States has led to an immense unsupervised market worth more than the GDP of many countries. There was and is plenty of mayhem involved, but that was and is caused either by the law itself or by its enforcement.

Whilst I'm sure law enforcement has a role to play in the violence associated with black markets, it isn't the be all and end all, and black markets can hardly be called the most civilized system of trade.

It is also refuted by common sense. If one wishes to earn one's living as a trader, it is imperative to maintain good relations with trading partners: "For it is only by being known to others as one who is disposed to abide by constraints [including "constraints against fraud and the non-fulfilment of contracts"] that one will be known to others as a person with whom they can establish stable, peaceful and mutually beneficial relationships"

If it really was "common sense" then the non-aggression principle would already be implemented and supported by the people. This isn't the case and the majority of people, at least implicitly, support taxation to some degree. Protectionism is widespread and largely unopposed by those in business today because they think it benefits them. That leads to a crucial point: Market forces are determined by what people perceive as a value; which is not necessarily the non-initiation of force.

Rand specifically states that "the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens" (110), which clearly implies that rights precede government and contradicts the notion that rights come into being with the state.

Nobody claimed that rights come into being with the state or society, so the entire section "Problems with Emergent Theories of Rights" is a straw man. The two quotes used do not contradict the position that rights are derived from any given individual's nature. The first quote is saying that the government is required to explicitly define rights, and the second quote is saying that rights are not relevant outside of a society.

Nonetheless, grand though it may sound, the 'consent of the governed' is more illusory than real. To start with, the evidence for universal consent--which the consent principle requires if government is to be fully justified--has never been sought and would be impossible to obtain.

The individuals within a government require the consent of some of the governed to be funded (just as arbitration/defense agencies in anarcho capitalism require the consent of some of the governed). However, the principle which binds the government together does not require consent - it is right regardless of what people think.

So the consent principle is invariably allied with (or replaced by) the notion of 'majority rule,' a pragmatic, amoral fiction that flatly contradicts consent: it allows mere weight of numbers to nullify dissent.

This is what would happen with anarchism in my opinion. If the majority of people favour some degree of wealth redistribution for "fairness", then they will fund the agencies which make it so. An Objectivist government would not be majority rule, it would be the rule of principle.

I think this deals with the main points brought up against minarchism.

The really key issue I have with these arguments is the focus on particulars as opposed to principles. An Objectivist system which is derived from the underlying philosophy cannot possibly demand that there be a monopoly held by particular individuals. An Objectivist system is defined by its total adherence to objective principles and the defense of rights. Breaking this monopoly OF PRINCIPLE can only mean an initiation of force, since it can only be the allowance of non-objective and contradictary principles.

[Twilight]

I am. But renouncing your support for a position doesn't render that position invalid.

I used to be a minarchist and now I'm an anarchist; does that fact itself render the position of minarchism invalid? Of course not.

It doesn't, but it'd be a little strange if I used you as a reference for promoting minarchism would it not?