It's a damn shame there were only jerk offs like Peikoff following up after Rand, who essentially cemented Rands mistep of Objectivist dogma.
This is an example from my debate with a typical dogmatic "Objectivist:
Victimless crimes do not constitute a violation of individual rights and there should be no laws of that sort - I suspect that you already know that - so why do you throw it out there? To paint me as a supporter of violating the rights of others... an ad hominem attack?
Are you serious? Do you mean to say that you cannot recognise an argument by analogy? The only implication here is that we agree about victimless crimes in general, but that the minarchists make exceptions to this principle to support their belief in the necessity of the state. It's this idea of a "necessary evil" that I take exception to.
Interpreting an attack on one's beliefs as a personal attack is the litmus test of dogmatism.
I also do not believe that such a wrong act creates any obligation upon the state to do anything but cease its interference.
So when the state expropriates our means to feed ourselves, it has no obligation to keep us from starvation while we wait for it to cease its interference?
Your attempt to equate the initiation of violence and absence of a single set of laws for a given jurisdiction with a way to protect individual rights is absurd. A valid state's defense of individual rights is never in conflict with an individual's self-defense of individual rights.
So an enterprise that monopolizes a market by means of threats and violence, as opposed to the consent of its clients, is morally valid, so long as it protects the remaining rights of its subjects? This is the old "The end justifies the means." argument.
Advocates of anarchy will always attempt to pretend that there can be a market place for violence and see no difference between that and markets for voluntary exchange. They will continue to pretend that it makes sense to say you can have a FREE market without a set of laws protecting individual rights. They will forever persist in describing in painful detail the workings of fantasy self-protection agencies and such, envisioning a make-believe utopia while denying with bald assertions that minarchy could never be possible.
The advocacy of legitimate government does not make me an anarchist."The reality is that the state, as it limits or destroys the legitimate government of a civilized society, substituting government by the consent of the individuals that are governed with fiat law, creates chaos, destruction of businesses and people's dreams, violence, terrorism and war, culminating in its own failure and collapse, is the essence of anarchy."
To socialists, the idea that the complexities of the production and distribution of necessities could be accomplished without regulatory supervision of the state must seem to them as much a fantasy as free market civil government does to minarchists.
Your arguments are the classic statist dismissal of the free market. If I make them broader, they go like this:
"Free market advocates forever persist in describing in painful detail the workings of fantasy enterprises and their infinitely intricate relationships between themselves and the final consumer, envisioning a make-believe utopia while denying with bald assertions that successful socialism could never be possible."