Anarchy defined in government, but not the mind...

I don't know that I'll be in town for this meetup, so I'll comment this way...
These are just quick notes without any real discussion...

At 11:00 AM 9/25/2009, Gavin Pitt wrote:
Announcing... Salon - Anarchy of the mind ...
... October 11, 2009 11:00 AM ...

"Rand believed implicitly in anarchy of the mind - nobody has a duty to let others control their life.
Why did she then reject anarchy as a practical system?
Was she right to do so? ..."

First, Anarchy is defined in the context of the role of government (see def. below).
Ayn Rand's epistemology discusses the importance of context.
So "...anarchy of the mind..." is not a concept that Rand would express nor imply. ”
Other uses of the term would be metaphorical, perhaps as a literary license...

Ref: http://www.merriam-we...
Main Entry: an·ar·chy, Pronunciation: \'a-n?r-ke, -?när-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos
having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch- Date: 1539

1 a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
3 : anarchism

anarchy of the mind
Taking the second definition above, 2b, absence of order of the mind is the antithesis of Rand's epistemology and ethics.

anarchy in government
She states her case clearly in "Capitalism the unknown Ideal" articles on rights and government...

• Politics is built on a proper Ethics (this principle is what distinguishes Objectivism from Libertarianism)
  
• The proper role of government is protection of individual rights.
  
• Rights are necessary to function as a human being - to act morally in a social context
  
• Morality's standard is the universal principles of action necessary to human thriving
  
• Morality's purpose is to achieve one's own happiness
  
• When force or fraud is used in human relationships, it undercuts the human need to act on one's thinking, and judging.
  

There are a few obvious areas of force and fraud that require protection:

• An individual or a group using force to take what you earned or own.
  We need a body of objective law respecting rights and an enforcement mechanism with as much objectivity as we can muster. That's the role of police and criminal courts. Arguments for 'competing agencies of retaliatory force' (CARFs) can be shown to quickly devolve into feudalism with CARFs fighting each other if there is no single, consistent law-of-the-land for a particular geography.
  
• A civil disagreement among individuals,
  such as breach of contract or disputes that presume an implicit breach of contract, needs a place of as objective adjudication as possible. Dueling as in days of yore is not a solution (nor are CARFs). While agreements on private arbitration process can address disagreements at a first level. If there is no such agreement in place or opponents refuse to be bound by the arbitration result, what's next? Here again we need an agreed upon force to fill that gap. Shunning those that you think have harmed you is not sufficient.
  
• And finally, a foreign force attempting to take your freedoms away must be repelled.
  That requires an organized defense. Competing gangs trying to defend a single territory provides no means of insuring an organized defense.
  

All these issues require thoughtful means of addressing them.
Anarchy is not an example of a thoughtful means.

Funding these functions of government is a separate issue. Fee for service is one commonly discussed possibility. This is a complex problem and needs to be discovered in a context of creating it rather than through abstract contemplation and deduction. Induction is required. That how a lot of details of our country's founding were discovered with varying degrees of success. Having a consistent, viable, objective philosophy is a big step in that direction. For that we owe a great debt to Ayn Rand. But there's more to do.

The complexity of the issues led to great debates throughout history including by our founding fathers. That history deserves a serious study by specialists - and that's the role of political and legal theory.

I hope this helps,

Jay Conne

Suppose 10 Objectivists live on an island for years without ever setting up a government. They are all happy with that situation and live productive lives and trade freely. Have they violated Objectivist ethics? Are they required to set up a government to protect their rights even if nobody feels any need for it?
This is what I mean by anarchy of the mind - there is no positive injunction in Objectivism to create a government if there is no demand for it. We are not beings incapable of functioning without some higher authority.

Hi Gavin,

I don't think the complexity of a small number of people who agree in principle on a bunch of principles for living together effectively has anything to do with what a larger society requires to resolve conflicts that inevitably arise. But even a group of ten may need written terms of engagement in their micro-society. How many families do you know where family members are at odds? Should agreements on such things be made only reactively?

Your question of "...violating Objectivist Ethics..." is not relevant to your example as you offer no evidence on the subject.

As far as "...functioning without some higher authority.", vagueness of terminology needs more attention to detail. What is the referent for "higher authority"? Reality? A monarch? A tribal elder? Daddy? Or an institution setup like what our founding fathers strove to do and for the same reasons?

A friend and I were just discussing the difference between conservatives and libertarians in a way I had never thought about. I mean these terms with lower case first letters. Over a long time, our civilization has discovered principles and practices for thriving in many contexts. One of those is conflict management including protecting rights. My friend described the difference between conserving the best of what has been learned and throwing everything out and just starting again - the pragmatic approach. The former he characterized as conservative - literally. And the latter as what the Jackmans did in the French revolution. Their focus was on destruction of authority rather than building on knowledge. They got the chaos one would expect with a primary 'anti' focus rather than a value building focus. This distinction applies to our founding fathers with Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson on the anti-government side vs John Adams and others on the side of building the protections and balance of power in the US Constitution. I need to do more reading to be able to defend the details of this.

I have always been confused and curious about the great conflicts between some of our country's founders. This helps me with a frame of reference to understand what's at issue.

Regards,

Jay

Ayn Rand has provided many distinctions to help us sort this out. abdicating on thinking things out is not the solution. BTW - my friend pointed me to the writing of Fredrick Hayak for more details.

I know that it would take