I know. That's what I thought. My question was whether or not you see the problem, and I suspected that you did not see it. Thanks for confirming (even though you didn't intend to).
I was responding to a premise, not stating one.
If this is from Ayn Rand, then you must know she was a minarchist, not an anarchist. And her vision of government was a far cry from what we have today. Even the Constitution was too much government for her. She wanted only: military, police, and courts. And those must be funded by voluntary means, according to her.
She was as close to an anarchist as anyone in history, without actually being one.
I do not agree with her conclusion that you can get an "ought" from an "is." But other than that, she was spot on in most of her writing. She lived through the first attempt of communist takeover in Russia in 1905, so she had strong opinions that were opposed to big government.
Today, she would have been appalled at the thought that her ideas could be miscontruted as advocating for any sort of government that comes close to what we have today. She was outspoken against such a thing back in the 1960's and 1970's when she was alive. To take her ideas out of context (a big thing with her, which she called "context-dropping") is mentally lazy.
I was pointing out that the idea that government is needed because not everyone is moral (which she would NOT have defined as having anything to do with religion) is a concept that fails when we take into account the fact that the very people in charge of that government are themselves not moral, and therefore will attempt to use that political power against everyone else, thereby defeating the whole point of creating the government.
That is WHY she insisted on ONLY military, police, and courts. She could not figure out how to make these completely voluntary (and nobody else has, either), other than the funding should be 100% voluntary.
She was a true anarchocapitalist's minarchist. But that point seems to have evaded you.
I know. That's what I thought. My question was whether or not you see the problem, and I suspected that you did not see it. Thanks for confirming (even though you didn't intend to).
I was responding to a premise, not stating one.
If this is from Ayn Rand, then you must know she was a minarchist, not an anarchist. And her vision of government was a far cry from what we have today. Even the Constitution was too much government for her. She wanted only: military, police, and courts. And those must be funded by voluntary means, according to her.
She was as close to an anarchist as anyone in history, without actually being one.
I do not agree with her conclusion that you can get an "ought" from an "is." But other than that, she was spot on in most of her writing. She lived through the first attempt of communist takeover in Russia in 1905, so she had strong opinions that were opposed to big government.
Today, she would have been appalled at the thought that her ideas could be miscontruted as advocating for any sort of government that comes close to what we have today. She was outspoken against such a thing back in the 1960's and 1970's when she was alive. To take her ideas out of context (a big thing with her, which she called "context-dropping") is mentally lazy.
I was pointing out that the idea that government is needed because not everyone is moral (which she would NOT have defined as having anything to do with religion) is a concept that fails when we take into account the fact that the very people in charge of that government are themselves not moral, and therefore will attempt to use that political power against everyone else, thereby defeating the whole point of creating the government.
That is WHY she insisted on ONLY military, police, and courts. She could not figure out how to make these completely voluntary (and nobody else has, either), other than the funding should be 100% voluntary.
She was a true anarchocapitalist's minarchist. But that point seems to have evaded you.