participant-3927, 2:20 PM, June 23
People think that the world of politics is complicated, because there are competing interests. After all, there are video bloggers who specialize in political analysis. So when someone proposes to analyze things by principles, he is dismissed as too “simplistic.” When he proposes laissez-faire as the ideal system, he is told that people are irrational and must not be trusted to do the right thing.
But let’s put things in perspective: a single human has more than a billion moving parts. Yes, humans have free will, but elements of a cell don’t. Yet, in both cases there are princples that encompass and organize the complexity; in a cell, the principles are mechanical and chemical laws. In human affairs, these are philosophy (mostly ethics). Every person is guided by a philosophy, which he either holds explicitly or implicitly. Even pragmatists, who reject principles, are guided by rejecting long term planning on princple.
Let’s take a page from nature, and organize society by a simple rule. This rule has to be: individual rights. If the four basic forces of nature (gravity, elecricity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) can organize a billion elements in a single human cell, why can’t we organize the world of 8 billion people? It’s time to stop the waste of creative energy. Let’s setup the society, and channel our precious time into invention and creativity. Laissez-faire capitalism is all that’s needed, it’s not overly simplified.
participant-4603, 2:40 PM, June 23
I like this very much. It’s an appeal to a return to first principles, and I think this is a good starting point when starting the world over again, as Thomas Paine put it back in the late 18th century.
So then, to the extent that a state should even exist, at a minimum it must not only respect but protect in law and in deeds people’s lives, liberty, and property. And if they fail to do so, then they are in breach of contract and potentially default—meaning their very existence can be subject to question, like you and Harry were mentioning with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
But okay, fine, I can agree with the above and get behind it. So then, how does it work when, in a country, almost all property is private?
Who do I appeal to when the landlord is violating his contract with me? My employee is stealing from me but I can’t quite prove it yet—what do I do? Is that where I can appeal to the state to intervene?
participant-3927, 2:42 PM, June 23
I would not call it a contract. Contract is a legal document with signatures. When you delegate retaliatory force to the government, you don’t sign a contract: you accept the logical system that makes life peaceful in a geographic area. You can’t opt out of it, so long as there are other people in the geographic region.
It’s not that you agree not to hurt other people; you never had the natural (biological), ethical right to do so. The government is there to make sure that you don’t act unethically.
participant-3927, 2:47 PM, June 23
But you do have a contract with the landlord. Contract or not, you can appeal to the court system provided by the goverment to resolve honest disputes with other people, like your landlord.
participant-3927, 2:48 PM, June 23
Ayn Rand made the point that the court system is not primarily for prosecuting criminals. In a civilized society there are few criminals. The court system is primarily to resolve disputes between non-criminals.
participant-3927, 2:52 PM, June 23
To continue the analogy with a cell, any pair of molecules interacting can be complex, and so is the arrangement between two people. A contract actually removes the Free Will from consideration, and makes the system robotic and predictable. A contract specifies the input and the output into a process, saying: you can do whatever you want (Free Will), as long as you adhere to these constraints.
participant-8601, 4:15 PM, June 23
Minimal state possesses the seed of its own destruction. I once was too a minarchist. But at some point I realized I’m inconsistent in my views. This inconsistency was driving me mad. I was thinking how to resolve it over and over.. and it eventually led me to the only possible outcome - the state must be ousted from the equation.
participant-3927, 4:22 PM, June 23
I am not a minarchist. Minachism is an invalid concept, which is the reason that to be consistent, minarchists become anarchists. I wrote a whole article on this
participant-3927, 4:24 PM, June 23
“Minarchism” is an anti-concept. It is designed to destroy the term “capitalism.” Capitalism is not “the minimum amount of government,” it is “the proper function of government: the protection of individual rights through the placing of retaliatory force under objective control.” That doesn’t specify a quantity.
– Harry Binswanger (quoted in above article)
participant-3927, 8:45 PM, June 23
If there will be a regime change in Iran, it’s an opportunity to snatch a piece of land in the region for the establishment of a new laissez-faire country. To make this happen, we would need to
now establish contact with dissident minorities in Iran.
participant-3927, 8:53 PM, June 23
The Azeri separatist movement in Iran (South Azerbaijan) is Muslim, but not Islamist.
participant-3927, 8:58 PM, June 23
I can also see Israel and US be interested in propping an autonomous capitalist region in South Azerbaijan, so there are already two allies. Israel, because it helped Azerbaijan, and both Israel and US because they want to have a close ally so close in the region. To watch over Iran fixing itself.
participant-3927, 8:59 PM, June 23
The new country can resolve the long standing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, by having them all mix in the new country.
participant-3927, 9:10 PM, June 23
@participant-2064 ^ I don’t know anything about the conflict. Feel free to contribute context.
participant-3927, 9:49 PM, June 23
I wrote to them: “Hello, my name is Boris Reitman, I am the founder of a project Anthemism that advocates creation of a new sovereign state based on Ayn Rand’s philosophy. I wonder if our interests can align. Can I discuss this with one of your intellectuals? I live in Canada and have no relation with Iran.”
participant-3927, 8:19 PM, June 25
Trump’s betrayal of Israel – it’s stated exactly right. And so was the betrayal of Israel by the previous several American presidents. Are you not yet convinced that it’s time to exit, to “go anthem”? The evil continues to live on. The moral collapse of the West is ongoing, as it is appeasing evil decade after decade. It’s not a pendulum: it’s a steady descend to statism, no matter who is in power. It is not going to get better any time soon. We need to start from scratch, if we want to leave our children a better world.
participant-3927, 7:40 AM, June 26
Again, there is nothing left to save. That’s how Rome fell.
participant-5138, 10:37 PM, June 27
Yk, you could just connect your old website with Substack and merge ’em
participant-3927, 3:19 AM, June 28
I’m publishing in Substack shorter articles; it’s a little like Twitter
participant-3927, 3:20 AM, June 28
Not sure if mixing them with long-form content on the site is beneficial
participant-3927, 6:16 AM, June 28
Interesting coincidence: Equality 7-2521 from Anthem and 7 of 9 (the Borg) from Star Trek Voyager. Both are coming from a dystopian collective. Could 7 of 9 been inspired by Anthem?
