Proper government
The anti-concept of “proper government” or “proper state” is a triple fallacy used by Rand and the randroids in order to hide their dire lack of a theory of the state —a theory explaining what a state is, how it appears historically, what determines the behavior of its agents (public choice), how its decisions are taken (Arrow), how to limit its powers (constitutionalism) and above all else, what determines its territory [1].
- The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.
- A properly functioning government, one whose purpose is to protect individual rights against attack
- Peter Schwartz, “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty” in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, 1988.
Triple fallacy:
- Barking Cat Fallacy: to want a government, but respecting individual rights (which matches neither the common definition of what a State is, nor any extant or historical state);
- No true Scotsman fallacy: claim that any other government is not a true government [3] [4][5] (combined with the previous fallacy: claim that any non-barking cat is not a true cat);
- reverse straw man fallacy: henceforth proceed to treat real, existing governments (such as the U.S. one) as if they matched that definition, whereas they don’t and can’t (in other words: ask for a barking-cat, pretend that any non-barking-cat is not a cat, but then accept an actual cat and act is if it were indeed barking)
Thus,
- But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense.
Which leads to some simple questions, such as: does or does not the US Government “initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one”? And if it does, should the Randians behave towards it as if it were a “nightmare infernal machine” or as if it were a “proper government”?
Likewise:
“ a country that violates the rights of its own citizens is an outlaw and can claim no rights.
Of course, every government violates the rights of its own citizens. According to her own theory, Ayn Rand should have been, at least functionally (until an Objectivist-compatible government were to exist), an anarchist.
- But by what magic does one expect a violent monopoly to all of a sudden do the opposite of what constitutes its founding principle, the condition of its survival, and the interest of its agents?
- if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place
