I have observed roughly speaking 4 kinds of approach to a government. But I want to propose a 5th “ideal”.
The first approach is to say: the present system is roughly about right. Perhaps we need a little more government or a little less but the present way things are is approximately right. The police as they are should continue to be and the military is about right and the rate of taxation is just about so.
The second is: we need actual communism. We need far more government. We need far more taxation and we need to socialise everything, from medical services and schools through possibly to food distribution. Remove all private property and possibly even money - because a collective system will distribute the necessities and luxuries evenly.
The third is: we need actual libertarianism/capitalism. We need far less government. We need far less taxation and we need to privatise everything from medical services and schools through possibly to roads, libraries and almost every other service except the police, courts and military.
The fourth is: we need actual anarchy (or anarcho-capitalism). We need zero government. We need zero taxation, and we need to privatise everything including the police which can be replaced with private security.
The fifth - is a "state of perfect reason". This is a step beyond even the fourth where not only is no government force or police required but no police whatsoever or private security at all is needed. Everyone uses reason, all time time, to resolve conflict and thus there is no cause for force ever. People trade with each other and resolve disputes by talking it out.
Now it should be clear that we are, in the West, in the first state and nowhere near the possibilities that are the second or third. The fourth is even further away and the fifth is a far distant ideal - a kind of utopian vision of what people might be. There is no such thing as an unproblematic state: but violence is just a problem. Having disagreements is not a problem. It is the means towards a solution.
What confuses me about the Ayn Rand style of “ideal” capitalism is that it is not ideal. As I say the true ideal would be “non-violence”. It would be a society governed always and everywhere by reason where all people continue indefinitely to be non-violent. In my personal relationships I manage this: so I know it’s possible. Indeed I see many many people and families manage this. So it’s not like it’s an impossible ideal. Indeed we can just appeal to Deutsch's great dichotomy: either a thing is possible given the right knowledge or there is a law of physics that stands in our way. There is no known law of physics that puts a barrier on people being reasonable. There is no limit (like the speed of light) which prohibits people from never being violent towards one another ever. So the ideal should, indeed, be that. Even if we know, as a matter of fact, right now, rather too many people do initiate violence rather too often. Yes: that is the reality now. But for now, I am interested in what the possible ideals are that, like all ideals, are things to aim for. Why Rand and others make stops along the way to actual ideals, I do not know. But certainly Rand's idea is better than most. A monopoly on force by a democratically elected government is better than many other alternatives. But not all. And appeals to "what is realistic" do not move me: for they run up against a fundamental feature of reality: the great dichotomy. That is the arbiter of "what is realistic" not appeals to "human nature" or induction of the kind "but people have hitherto always engaged in violence". I agree: but everyone can learn better. Unless one wishes to fall into a Hobbesian view of humans, which it must be admitted almost all "optimists" besides Deutsch ever have. They ultimately give up on reason and appeal to some kind of evolutionary argument about how we evolved from violence apes, so we too, at base, are violent apes with lizard brains. Of course, as someone who understands the universality of the human mind, I utterly reject that.
So, imagine such a world where everyone was non violent. Why, then, would we ever even need a police force? Rand insists we do. Almost everyone insists we do. And I’d agree: for now. That's the easy part. But do not call your ideal an ideal when it is not one. Ideally, there would be no violence. Ideally. The ideal is not a “monopoly on violence” it is a world of “non violence” and ubiquitous reason where even governments are not needed for monopolies - on violence or anything else. Now courts might still be needed to arbitrate some disputes, but non violent people of reason would simply concede for the practical purpose of moving forward. There are many ways we can imagine society to be truly more reasonable and truly less violent. And when you imagine such a state imagine one incrementally more reasonable and less violent still. And repeat until...you reach an actually ideal state.
Anarcho-capitalism suffers from a similar flaw. It assumes it has found an ideal, but the best world anarchists seem to imagine is still a violent one where private security would still be required.
Really both of these cases are merely non-ideal stepping stones towards a genuine ideal.
In all 3 cases where people argue about the place of violence in society (i.e: government with a monopoly on violence, private companies protecting against violence, or, as I have imagined here: a world of truly zero violence) we are basically very very far from any of those ideals. So the question is about how to reduce the coercion and violence in society - not how to immediately enact some new revolutionary idea of how society should be organised. It must be careful, slow and incremental.
Why incremental? The incremental vision is a digital one. It allows for error correction. It is where small changes are made and tested in reality and if they work they are retained and if they lead to a worse state of affairs than existed previously then they are changed. In particular there exists traditions that instantiate inexplicit knowledge that keeps society stable and there also exist traditions that allow for innovation. This tension is the one I discuss next in part 5.
The first approach is to say: the present system is roughly about right. Perhaps we need a little more government or a little less but the present way things are is approximately right. The police as they are should continue to be and the military is about right and the rate of taxation is just about so.
The second is: we need actual communism. We need far more government. We need far more taxation and we need to socialise everything, from medical services and schools through possibly to food distribution. Remove all private property and possibly even money - because a collective system will distribute the necessities and luxuries evenly.
The third is: we need actual libertarianism/capitalism. We need far less government. We need far less taxation and we need to privatise everything from medical services and schools through possibly to roads, libraries and almost every other service except the police, courts and military.
The fourth is: we need actual anarchy (or anarcho-capitalism). We need zero government. We need zero taxation, and we need to privatise everything including the police which can be replaced with private security.
The fifth - is a "state of perfect reason". This is a step beyond even the fourth where not only is no government force or police required but no police whatsoever or private security at all is needed. Everyone uses reason, all time time, to resolve conflict and thus there is no cause for force ever. People trade with each other and resolve disputes by talking it out.
Now it should be clear that we are, in the West, in the first state and nowhere near the possibilities that are the second or third. The fourth is even further away and the fifth is a far distant ideal - a kind of utopian vision of what people might be. There is no such thing as an unproblematic state: but violence is just a problem. Having disagreements is not a problem. It is the means towards a solution.
What confuses me about the Ayn Rand style of “ideal” capitalism is that it is not ideal. As I say the true ideal would be “non-violence”. It would be a society governed always and everywhere by reason where all people continue indefinitely to be non-violent. In my personal relationships I manage this: so I know it’s possible. Indeed I see many many people and families manage this. So it’s not like it’s an impossible ideal. Indeed we can just appeal to Deutsch's great dichotomy: either a thing is possible given the right knowledge or there is a law of physics that stands in our way. There is no known law of physics that puts a barrier on people being reasonable. There is no limit (like the speed of light) which prohibits people from never being violent towards one another ever. So the ideal should, indeed, be that. Even if we know, as a matter of fact, right now, rather too many people do initiate violence rather too often. Yes: that is the reality now. But for now, I am interested in what the possible ideals are that, like all ideals, are things to aim for. Why Rand and others make stops along the way to actual ideals, I do not know. But certainly Rand's idea is better than most. A monopoly on force by a democratically elected government is better than many other alternatives. But not all. And appeals to "what is realistic" do not move me: for they run up against a fundamental feature of reality: the great dichotomy. That is the arbiter of "what is realistic" not appeals to "human nature" or induction of the kind "but people have hitherto always engaged in violence". I agree: but everyone can learn better. Unless one wishes to fall into a Hobbesian view of humans, which it must be admitted almost all "optimists" besides Deutsch ever have. They ultimately give up on reason and appeal to some kind of evolutionary argument about how we evolved from violence apes, so we too, at base, are violent apes with lizard brains. Of course, as someone who understands the universality of the human mind, I utterly reject that.
So, imagine such a world where everyone was non violent. Why, then, would we ever even need a police force? Rand insists we do. Almost everyone insists we do. And I’d agree: for now. That's the easy part. But do not call your ideal an ideal when it is not one. Ideally, there would be no violence. Ideally. The ideal is not a “monopoly on violence” it is a world of “non violence” and ubiquitous reason where even governments are not needed for monopolies - on violence or anything else. Now courts might still be needed to arbitrate some disputes, but non violent people of reason would simply concede for the practical purpose of moving forward. There are many ways we can imagine society to be truly more reasonable and truly less violent. And when you imagine such a state imagine one incrementally more reasonable and less violent still. And repeat until...you reach an actually ideal state.
Anarcho-capitalism suffers from a similar flaw. It assumes it has found an ideal, but the best world anarchists seem to imagine is still a violent one where private security would still be required.
Really both of these cases are merely non-ideal stepping stones towards a genuine ideal.
In all 3 cases where people argue about the place of violence in society (i.e: government with a monopoly on violence, private companies protecting against violence, or, as I have imagined here: a world of truly zero violence) we are basically very very far from any of those ideals. So the question is about how to reduce the coercion and violence in society - not how to immediately enact some new revolutionary idea of how society should be organised. It must be careful, slow and incremental.
Why incremental? The incremental vision is a digital one. It allows for error correction. It is where small changes are made and tested in reality and if they work they are retained and if they lead to a worse state of affairs than existed previously then they are changed. In particular there exists traditions that instantiate inexplicit knowledge that keeps society stable and there also exist traditions that allow for innovation. This tension is the one I discuss next in part 5.