Thoughts on Rand, Government, and Anarchism


Recommended Posts

Tim, my close reading of those excerpts from Rand show that she DID NOT prohibit another agency, by the use or threat of physical force, from doing exactly the same thing that government does. Rand simply prohibits the other agency from INITIATING FORCE. A Private Security Firm is still under government’s objective control and therefore under objectively defined laws.

You completely miss the point. The question is whether one agency (the government) will have final authority to decide when the use of force is legitimate and when it is not. This is the monopoly to which Rand refers. Traditionally known as the right of sovereignty, it means that another agency can do what the government does only with the permission of the government. And, given the monopolistic status of a government, it means that another agency can never claim to possess the same authority as the government. Another agency cannot overrule a decision of the government, for example, as the government can overrule one of its decisions.

If you cannot understand this basic point, you will never understand what the minarchist/anarchist controversy is all about.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My current problem is how to write an account of my transition to anarchism in the cautious, self-critical and realistic Orwellian style, and not in the heroic prose of Objectivism.

Ghs

Minarchism to anarchism: certainty to certainty? The ideal to the ideal?

--Brant

Huh?

Ghs

Perhaps these are false alternatives with neither, Rand and Rothbard, being applicable to the real world, not now, not ever. We need ideals to work toward, for grounding and orientation, but I think the best ideal is the ideal of the protection of individual rights and to strive from today's context to where the culture is in general agreement with both that and the humbling knowledge of the imperialistic, hubristic danger of Leviathan via patriotism, nationalism and altruistically sticking your nose into other people's business with various forms of war, death and destruction--i.e., the war on DDT--i.e., the war in Afghanistan--i.e., wars all over the world--the modern, very stupid version of the British empire.

--Brant

None of this has anything to do with what I called the Orwellian style of autobiographical writing, which I contrasted with the "heroic" style. If, alluding to the last line of Roy's "Open Letter," I wrote, "Thus did I walk forward into the sunlight of free market anarchism," this would have been an example, if an exaggerated example, of the heroic style.

Ghs

True. It has to do with this thread, however.

--Brant

Yes, but you are basically arguing that political philosophy per se is not applicable to the "real world." The things discussed by Rand and Rothbard are standard fare in political philosophy.

You could make the same objection about every branch of philosophy, a discipline that deals in broad abstractions. For example, why should we concern ourselves with concept formation and other abstract matters of epistemology when the U.S. is altruistically sticking its nose into other people's business with various forms of war?

Should a government ever be permitted to initiate force against innocent people? To answer "no," as both Rand and Rothbard did, may seem idealistic to you, but I regard this as an issue fraught will all kinds of practical implications.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, my close reading of those excerpts from Rand show that she DID NOT prohibit another agency, by the use or threat of physical force, from doing exactly the same thing that government does. Rand simply prohibits the other agency from INITIATING FORCE. A Private Security Firm is still under government's objective control and therefore under objectively defined laws.

You completely miss the point. The question is whether one agency (the government) will have final authority to decide when the use of force in legitimate and when it is not. This is the monopoly to which Rand refers. Traditionally known as the right of sovereignty, it means that another agency can do what the government does only with the permission of the government. And, given the monopolistic status of a government, it means that another agency can never claim to possess the same authority as the government. Another agency cannot overrule a decision of the government, for example, as the government can overrule one of its decisions.

Yes, but in a general state of freedom, a philosophical republic in which the citizenry insist on the codification of the best and correct ideas. After the establishment of our republic the citizenry did not do this, by and large--at least not effectively. It's an open and speculative question why. It's more obvious how it broke down: the constitutional sanction of slavery and built-in federal-state conflict which many of the federalists it would seem intended to win from the start. The economic conflict too boot, between the north and south. Too bad the southern states weren't allowed to go their own way from the get-go and let slavery die its inevitable economic death because of technological advancements. I wonder how much of southern bigotry was the direct result of the Civil War and Reconstruction. I'd bet: a lot. If politicians have the power, they will use it and abuse it and they had too much for sure from that start. They must be continually shamed for their transgressions.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but you are basically arguing that political philosophy per se is not applicable to the "real world." The things discussed by Rand and Rothbard are standard fare in political philosophy.

You could make the same objection about every branch of philosophy, a discipline that deals in broad abstractions. For example, why should we concern ourselves with concept formation and other abstract matters of epistemology when the U.S. is altruistically sticking its nose into other people's business with various forms of war?

Should a government ever be permitted to initiate force against innocent people? To answer "no," as both Rand and Rothbard did, may seem idealistic to you, but I regard this as an issue fraught will all kinds of practical implications.

Ghs

This is an excellent response, but I'm not sure the shoe fits with Brant. Of course, I'm not sure the shoe doesn't fit either. Sometimes he seems not to understand that reason is an either-or proposition, but when this is pointed out he seems to claim to understand it just fine.

Incidentally, one of my favorite aspects of your story in this thread is precisely the "reason is the only absolute" premise underlying it at various points.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, my close reading of those excerpts from Rand show that she DID NOT prohibit another agency, by the use or threat of physical force, from doing exactly the same thing that government does. Rand simply prohibits the other agency from INITIATING FORCE. A Private Security Firm is still under government's objective control and therefore under objectively defined laws.

You completely miss the point. The question is whether one agency (the government) will have final authority to decide when the use of force in legitimate and when it is not. This is the monopoly to which Rand refers. Traditionally known as the right of sovereignty, it means that another agency can do what the government does only with the permission of the government. And, given the monopolistic status of a government, it means that another agency can never claim to possess the same authority as the government. Another agency cannot overrule a decision of the government, for example, as the government can overrule one of its decisions.

Yes, but in a general state of freedom, a philosophical republic in which the citizenry insist on the codification of the best and correct ideas. After the establishment of our republic the citizenry did not do this, by and large--at least not effectively. It's an open and speculative question why. It's more obvious how it broke down: the constitutional sanction of slavery and built-in federal-state conflict which many of the federalists it would seem intended to win from the start. The economic conflict too boot, between the north and south. Too bad the southern states weren't allowed to go their own way from the get-go and let slavery die its inevitable economic death because of technological advancements. I wonder how much of southern bigotry was the direct result of the Civil War and Reconstruction. I'd bet: a lot. If politicians have the power, they will use it and abuse it and they had too much for sure from that start. They must be continually shamed for their transgressions.

--Brant

I am talking about the general principles of political philosophy. You are talking about the concrete particulars of history. There is no conflict between these two disciplines.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again, to suppose this change [NIOF as a defeasible presumption] in Rand's approach to the NIOF principle would be to imagine an Objectivist political theory without its distinctive characteristics -- a bland and mushy political theory that looks like a host of other political theories and which lacks the power to excite or motivate anyone.

My forthcoming paper, "A Political Standard for Absolute Polical Freedom," to be published in the next issue of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (JARS), indirectly deals with this issue. After developing what I hope is a non-bland, non-mushy political standard, I briefly comment on the NIOF as inadequate for a political standard.

The standard I develop, involving "protection of voluntary consent along an individual's entire politically legitimate valuing chain," is derived from ethical egoism, the nature of valuing, and the nature of political conflict. I hope the standard and its derivation will have "the power to excite [and] motivate" OL members.

I will be particularly interested to see if - regarding the minarchy/anarchy debate - those more knowledgeable than I find the paper useful.

If you are not a JARS subscriber, please consider subscribing. Jars Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I previously wrote in my Letter to Roy Child’s on this thread:

If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled by a constitution which explains what it can do, and that is to protect individual rights. A Private Security Firm must also, in the final *moral* analysis, ONLY protect individual rights.

AT THE TIME SHE WROTE THOSE PHRASES OTHER INSTITUTIONS OR AGENCIES DID USE RETALIATORY FORCE AS LONG AS THEY DID NOT CONTRADICT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. Individual States, other municipalities, and Private Security Firms existed, without contradiction before Rand wrote all that she ever wrote. They exist after Rand wrote all that she would ever write.

End quote

George just wrote:

Quote

You completely miss the point. The question is whether one agency (the government) will have final authority to decide when the use of force in legitimate and when it is not. This is the monopoly to which Rand refers. Traditionally known as the right of sovereignty, it means that another agency can do what the government does only with the permission of the government. And, given the monopolistic status of a government, it means that another agency can never claim to possess the same authority as the government. Another agency cannot overrule a decision of the government, for example, as the government can overrule one of its decisions.

If you cannot understand this basic point, you will never understand what the minarchist/anarchist controversy is all about.

End quote

I do get it George. I think Rand’s logic was valid, but it could use your brilliant tweeking.

A Randian Constitution is primarily concerned with the protection of individual rights. Other aspects of a constitution may delegate authority and duties to different branches of government, etc., but a constitution is primarily written to ensure rights and provide justice over time.

It’s citizens, including a philosophical anarchist like yourself, can certainly argue about *consent,* and that is, once again, my sticking point with you.

Here is an imaginary, but possible internal soliloquy, of one of the participants who gave *original consent*.

Imaginary quote:

“I, Thomas Jefferson, after writing portions and signing this document have delegated my right to non-emergency self defense to the Federal Government. Other agencies may defend my rights but the final authority as to the rightfulness of other agency’s actions resides with the Federal Government and the Constitution . . . for now.”

End of imaginary quote

Other signors all represented various states and territories. The authority of all those representatives had been delegated to them by the people who resided in those geographical areas.

Some anti-federalists and free spirits undoubtedly protested that they did not give their consent. They were free to move west or back to where they came from. They were free to continue protesting, and they were free to change the Constitution to their liking if they followed the rules to do so. But the Founders intent was to make the Constitution the law of the land.

Does that provide a proof? Perhaps not to your thinking, but it does provide a concrete fact of reality. Follow your own requirements for justified beliefs and objective facts.

As the original colonists and founders died children were born and grew up in families, whose patriarch gave tacit or implied consent for them. When these children reached maturity they gave implied consent, and so forth, onwards until today.

I give my implied consent when I reached maturity, and I did more than that. Twice, at later times, I have sworn to uphold the Constitution.

I came across an argument that was “different” but strangely embraces your logic, when I investigated the Mormons, in Hawaii.

Quote:

It clearly appears from the old Scriptures, as well as the recent revelations, that no one can act in the name of God; that is, no man can act in the Priesthood, but he that is called by revelation of God, and ordained by the hands of those holding the Priesthood.

End quote

In other words, the Mormons claim that Jesus’s “laying on of hands” granted legitimacy to his disciples who laid their righteous hands upon all subsequent priests, from that time forward, but somehow, over time, this legitimacy was lost.

The chain was broken, until new revelations from God occurred and now the newly ordained Priesthood (The Anarchists, oops I mean the Mormons) could once again, pass on this legitimacy, this power by the laying on of hands to a new Priesthood.

Enough of that. You claim consent is not present in today’s constitution. I say it is. Everybody but you and a few of your friends say the Constitution is valid.

Might is not Right, but facts are facts.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The Open Letter confronted me with two alternatives, but these alternatives were not minarchism versus anarchism. Rather, my choice was between a monopolistic institution that was inconsistent with Rand's NIOF principle versus some as yet unknown institutional structure that was consistent with the NIOF principle. In other words, I did not choose anarchism as a preferable alternative to Rand's conception of government. Rather, I rejected Rand's monopolistic government before I even considered any options, because it clearly contradicted the NIOF principle.

...

2. Because Randian anarchism emerges from within Rand's system of political principles, most notably her NIOF principle, it is best described as an In-House anarchism. By this I mean that Randian anarchism is a negative conclusion forced upon Randians who cannot live with a contradiction in her monopolistic government. Randian anarchists have not chosen the anarchistic alternative so much as they have been forced into it by the problem discussed in Roy's "Open Letter." And they would never have been pushed in this direction if they had not taken Rand's NIOF principle so seriously to begin with.

Your point 1 and 2 seem to contradict each other. In point 1 you simply say you had to reject Randian minarchism, implying that you might be able to accept other forms of government that did not violate the NIOF principle (which describes precisely the route I took in creating my form of government -- I rejected Rand's view, and started checking premises all the way to the bottom). But in point 2 you're abruptly talking about "Randian anarchism", as if anarchism is the only logical alternative; the possibility of a form of government that does not violate NIOF seems to have been completely forgotten.

Now in fact, the history of the situation before you wrote anything in this thread is closer to point #2. As far as I know, it is exactly point #2. I have never seen any anarcho-capitalist say anything like #1 before. Is that revisionist history or is there some other evidence you have for it beyond these remembrances?

From my point of view, the mistake you and the other anarchists made is in not carefully reconstructing things when you found the contradiction in Rand's view. You saw the error in Randian minarchism, and then the response was to reject everything Randian minarchism referred to. But in doing that, you ended up embracing its mirror image -- which was equally false. The error was further compounded by taking Rand's economics, capitalism, and trying to use that as a substitute for government. Anarcho-capitalism seems to be at its core merely to be the mirror image of Randian minarchism with Randian capitalism bolted on.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the original colonists and founders died children were born and grew up in families, whose patriarch gave tacit or implied consent for them. When these children reached maturity they gave implied consent, and so forth, onwards until today.

I give my implied consent when I reached maturity, and I did more than that. Twice, at later times, I have sworn to uphold the Constitution....

Suppose a new constitutional convention was held, and suppose it drafted a socialistic constitution for the United States that was ratified by the same basic procedures (state ratifying conventions, etc.) used in 1788.

Would you say that you have given implied consent to this socialistic constitution? Would you argue that we are obligated to abide by the provisions of this socialistic constitution, and that if we don't like it and are unable to change it, our only option is to leave the United States?

The argument you give is nearly identical to that given by the defenders of political absolutism. The Founders are rolling in their graves.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The Open Letter confronted me with two alternatives, but these alternatives were not minarchism versus anarchism. Rather, my choice was between a monopolistic institution that was inconsistent with Rand's NIOF principle versus some as yet unknown institutional structure that was consistent with the NIOF principle. In other words, I did not choose anarchism as a preferable alternative to Rand's conception of government. Rather, I rejected Rand's monopolistic government before I even considered any options, because it clearly contradicted the NIOF principle.

...

2. Because Randian anarchism emerges from within Rand's system of political principles, most notably her NIOF principle, it is best described as an In-House anarchism. By this I mean that Randian anarchism is a negative conclusion forced upon Randians who cannot live with a contradiction in her monopolistic government. Randian anarchists have not chosen the anarchistic alternative so much as they have been forced into it by the problem discussed in Roy's "Open Letter." And they would never have been pushed in this direction if they had not taken Rand's NIOF principle so seriously to begin with.

Your point 1 and 2 seem to contradict each other. In point 1 you simply say you had to reject Randian minarchism, implying that you might be able to accept other forms of government that did not violate the NIOF principle (which describes precisely the route I took in creating my form of government -- I rejected Rand's view, and started checking premises all the way to the bottom). But in point 2 you're abruptly talking about "Randian anarchism", as if anarchism is the only logical alternative; the possibility of a form of government that does not violate NIOF seems to have been completely forgotten.

Now in fact, the history of the situation before you wrote anything in this thread is closer to point #2. As far as I know, it is exactly point #2. I have never seen any anarcho-capitalist say anything like #1 before. Is that revisionist history or is there some other evidence you have for it beyond these remembrances?

From my point of view, the mistake you and the other anarchists made is in not carefully reconstructing things when you found the contradiction in Rand's view. You saw the error in Randian minarchism, and then the response was to reject everything Randian minarchism referred to. But in doing that, you ended up embracing its mirror image -- which was equally false. The error was further compounded by taking Rand's economics, capitalism, and trying to use that as a substitute for government. Anarcho-capitalism seems to be at its core merely to be the mirror image of Randian minarchism with Randian capitalism bolted on.

Shayne

If, as Roy did, we accept Rand's definition of government for the sake of argument, then to reject the monopolistic aspect of government is, by definition, to reject government per se. This leaves no alternative except some form of anarchism.

This is why I called Randian anarchism a type of "In-House anarchism." It is anarchism by Randian standards. Whether Roy's free market anarchism qualifies as true anarchism by some other standard is a question I did not consider.

As for the mistake that I and other anarchists have supposedly made, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You have no idea what I and other anarchists have considered in the way of alternatives. But don't let your lack of knowledge stop you. It never has before when telling us what anarchists do and do not believe.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George wrote:

Quote

Suppose a new constitutional convention was held, and suppose it drafted a socialistic constitution for the United States that was ratified by the same procedures used in 1788.

Would you say that you have given implied consent to this socialistic constitution? Would you argue that we are obligated to abide by the provisions of this socialistic constitution, and that if we don't like it and are unable to change it, our only option is to leave the United States?

end quote

No.

That thought knocked me back on my heels. Shoot, I mean shit! Think a way out of this dilemma, George. Hmmm? What are the odds of this happening?

The original signors were a homogenous group, former law abiding, limited monarchist / parliamentarians. Plenty of limited government philosophers had written about the subject. That was their context. We know their political philosophies.

Most likely, a new constitution would be founded upon our old, using reason, and what we now contextually KNOW what went wrong with the old.

Still, I shudder at the thought of your Socialist Constitution.

I think Senatorial candidate from Virginia Radtke’s Repeal Amendment would suffice. A constitution convention to pass that one amendment and then we will see.

Your example is sobering but 100 percent unlikely. In my example I always envision myself having a hand in the writing and your nightmare would never happen.

What if it did? Let me think about that.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most likely, a new constitution would be founded upon our old, using reason, and what we now contextually KNOW what went wrong with the old.

Dream on. A new constitution would almost certainly be far worse than the one we have now. This is why I have always opposed suggestions for a new constitutional convention.

In the final analysis, of course, a constitution will mean whatever the Supreme Court says it means, so specific provisions almost don't matter. Thomas Paine was correct when, in response to those American Anglophiles who claimed that the English people owe their freedom to the British Constitution (the structure of government, common law precedents, various charters, etc.), he said that the English owed their freedom primarily to the constitution of the English people, not to the constitution of their government.

Your example is sobering but 100 percent unlikely. In my example I always envision myself having a hand in the writing and your nightmare would never happen.

What if it did? Let me think about that.

The likelihood of my example has no relevance to the theoretical issues we are considering here. What is there for you to think about? If a new socialistic constitution was ratified by a procedure you regard as legitimate -- and you obviously regard the procedure used in 1788 as legitimate -- then your arguments about implied consent would automatically apply to this new constitution.

The present Constitution authorizes Congress to levy taxes for a number of purposes. According to your implied consent argument, we are obligated to pay these taxes even if we don't agree with the purposes for which the money will be used. Well, suppose a new socialistic constitution expressly enumerated certain "positive rights" -- such as the right to decent housing, a fair wage, medical care, etc. -- and then authorized Congress to levy taxes for the purpose of implementing these positive rights. Your tacit consent argument would apply here as well. The fact you might disagree with these purposes would have no bearing on your obligation to pay taxes, for you have given your implied consent to this new constitution as surely as you have given it to the old.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot pick and choose those situations where implied consent applies and where it does not, based on whether you happen to agree with the specific provisions of a constitution. For if you have this right in regard to a new socialistic constitution, then I have this right in regard to the old Constitution, and your implied consent argument will fall to pieces.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, as Roy did, we accept Rand's definition of government for the sake of argument, then to reject the monopolistic aspect of government is, by definition, to reject government per se. This leaves no alternative except some form of anarchism.

This is why I called Randian anarchism a type of "In-House anarchism." It is anarchism by Randian standards. Whether Roy's free market anarchism qualifies as true anarchism by some other standard is a question I did not consider.

Yes. That is a very accurate restatement. You accepted Randian standards, whereas you should have rejected them as they were mistaken.

As for the mistake that I and other anarchists have supposedly made, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You have no idea what I and other anarchists have considered in the way of alternatives. But don't let your lack of knowledge stop you. It never has before when telling us what anarchists do and do not believe.

Ghs

OK George. You've said this a number of times, while at the same time refusing to deal with the problems I have pointed out. You pretend that these problems are not worthy of you, but this is the same game that Rand played with Roy Child's criticism. It's history repeating itself -- at every turn, when the going gets tough, all I get from you is ad hominem, which is precisely what Roy got from Rand. I guess I should at least be happy that you're not taking an extreme "heroism" stance here and flouncing with the same flair Ayn Rand would have, but essentially it is the same in the end.

That's OK. I don't expect anything other than ad hominem from you. After all, it would be extremely naive (as you pointed out about Roy's expectation of Rand) to expect someone who had strenuously advocated beliefs to actually change them. Cynical expectations are the default, right George?

I am just sad to not have been able to meet or talk to Roy given the fact that he so heroically and at such a young age challenged Ayn Rand on her errors, and that he recanted his anarchism in the end. We will never know what he had in mind, nor what he would have thought of my ideas.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George wrote:

quote

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot pick and choose those situations where implied consent applies and where it does not, based on whether you happen to agree with the specific provisions of a constitution. For if you have this right in regard to a new socialistic constitution, then I have this right in regard the old Constitution.

End quote

Ah! The worst case scenario thought experiment. So, I must take the concept of *consent* within the make-believe universe of facts and rules imposed as an absolutely logical fact and condition! If I say consent is valid in one instance then you insist it must be valid in all instances or the concept has no concrete truth to it.

That’s a fallacy. Where’s Bill Dwyer, Phil Coates, or Peter Reidy? They might know the fallacies name, but I don’t.

Yes, you do have the right to regard the old Constitution as invalid. Yes, I do have the right to deem a socialist constitution as invalid. And I still have the right to regard the old Constitution as valid, because I do.

It depends on the content of the Constitution, George. If, within the context of the present, is the content of the Constitution valid? (say that three times fast) Consent or Implied Consent is not an absolute. If you disagree with the old? If I disagree with the new? I don’t recommend throwing yourself under the wheels of the Juggarnaut nor a reenactment of Guy Fawkes day.

It is intriguing to think of these worst case scenarios, just as it startles the complacent when they hear what is morally permissible during emergency ethics, however, consent is implied if the constitution establishing a government meets certain criteria such as:

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect human’s rights, which means: to protect him or her from physical violence, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance, as with crony capitalism; If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled . . . .

Saint Ayn also said, “This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.”

You can think it; you can proselytize about it, but by not working to change it, you have limited options: consent, complacency, withdrawal, activism, rebellion, immigration or exile. And whatever your decision you must escape or accept the consequences.

I had a dream . . .

We shall overcome,

We shall overcome,

We shall overcome, some day!

Deep in my heart,

I do believe,

We shall overcome, someday.

Basketball and Huckabee are on. Huckabee has a Senator or Congressman from Arkansas on who proposed a bill, that says if you don't pass a budget bill you don't get paid, senator, congressman or President J'obama.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, as Roy did, we accept Rand's definition of government for the sake of argument, then to reject the monopolistic aspect of government is, by definition, to reject government per se. This leaves no alternative except some form of anarchism.

This is why I called Randian anarchism a type of "In-House anarchism." It is anarchism by Randian standards. Whether Roy's free market anarchism qualifies as true anarchism by some other standard is a question I did not consider.

Yes. That is a very accurate restatement. You accepted Randian standards, whereas you should have rejected them as they were mistaken.

Rand's definition of "government" is actually very good. She included "exclusive power" in her definition because she understood that sovereignty is an essential characteristic of government. It is the characteristic that distinguishes the institution of government from other institutions that enforce rules of conduct.

Disneyland may have its own private police to enforce "rules of social conduct"; a gambling casino may hire security people to enforce rules against cheating, etc. The possibilities are endless, but none of these institutions qualifies as a "government" in any significant sense, because they do not possess "exclusive power" (i.e., sovereignty) within their jurisdictions. They are answerable to a government, which claims the right to render the final decision in matters pertaining to the legitimate use of force.

This is what Rand meant by "government," and this has been the standard conception of government for centuries. If you want to monkey with this conception by claiming that sovereignty is not an essential characteristic of government, then, fine --go for it. But this won't solve the problems about sovereignty that philosophers have been discussing since the mid-1500s. As I have pointed out many times, the minarchist/anarchist controversy is nothing new, when viewed in terms of essentials. It is merely a new formulation of a very old problem.

As for the mistake that I and other anarchists have supposedly made, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You have no idea what I and other anarchists have considered in the way of alternatives. But don't let your lack of knowledge stop you. It never has before when telling us what anarchists do and do not believe.

Ghs

OK George. You've said this a number of times, while at the same time refusing to deal with the problems I have pointed out. You pretend that these problems are not worthy of you, but this is the same game that Rand played with Roy Child's criticism. It's history repeating itself -- at every turn, when the going gets tough, all I get from you is ad hominem, which is precisely what Roy got from Rand. I guess I should at least be happy that you're not taking an extreme "heroism" stance here and flouncing with the same flair Ayn Rand would have, but essentially it is the same in the end.

That's OK. I don't expect anything other than ad hominem from you. After all, it would be extremely naive (as you pointed out about Roy's expectation of Rand) to expect someone who had strenuously advocated beliefs to actually change them. Cynical expectations are the default, right George?

I am just sad to not have been able to meet or talk to Roy given the fact that he so heroically and at such a young age challenged Ayn Rand on her errors, and that he recanted his anarchism in the end. We will never know what he had in mind, nor what he would have thought of my ideas.

I knew Roy Childs. Roy Childs was a friend of mine. And you are no Roy Childs.

What would Roy have thought of your ideas? I know exactly what he would have thought. He would have thought that you are a very confused anarchist.

As for my supposedly refusing to deal with problems that you have pointed out, I have no idea what you are talking about. I won't discuss anarchism with you, because you insist on remaining willfully ignorant about what anarchists have actually argued. I have no interest in discussing a figment of your imagination that you like to call "anarchism." Should you ever decide to educate yourself in this area, I will be happy to discuss the topic with you.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George wrote:

quote

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot pick and choose those situations where implied consent applies and where it does not, based on whether you happen to agree with the specific provisions of a constitution. For if you have this right in regard to a new socialistic constitution, then I have this right in regard the old Constitution.

End quote

Ah! The worst case scenario thought experiment. So, I must take the concept of *consent* within the make-believe universe of facts and rules imposed as an absolutely logical fact and condition! If I say consent is valid in one instance then you insist it must be valid in all instances or the concept has no concrete truth to it.

It was you, not I, who stated the conditions that supposedly render the implied consent argument valid. I only insisted that you apply your argument consistently. I saw no asterisk in your conditions that read: My implied consent argument does not apply to situations where I, Peter Taylor, personally disapprove of a constitution. It only applies to constitutions that I happen to like.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disneyland may have its own private police to enforce "rules of social conduct"; a gambling casino may hire security people to enforce rules against cheating, etc. The possibilities are endless, but none of these institutions qualifies as a "government" in any significant sense, because they do not possess "exclusive power" (i.e., sovereignty) within their jurisdictions. They are answerable to a government, which claims the right to render the final decision in matters pertaining to the legitimate use of force.

You are confused about my conception of government, either willfully, or simply because you are too afraid to seriously look at my ideas.

I knew Roy Childs. Roy Childs was a friend of mine. And you are no Roy Childs.

What would Roy have thought of your ideas? I know exactly what he would have thought. He would have thought that you are a very confused anarchist.

As for my supposedly refusing to deal with problems that you have pointed out, I have no idea what you are talking about. I won't discuss anarchism with you, because you insist on remaining willfully ignorant about what anarchists have actually argued. I have no interest in discussing a figment of your imagination that you like to call "anarchism." Should you ever decide to educate yourself in this area, I will be happy to discuss the topic with you.

Ghs

:lol:

Well, now, you use ad hominem against me, and now against a man who can't speak for himself, Roy Childs?

Roy recanted, remember? What do you think he did, run right back to Randian minarchism? I doubt it. I like to think he probably ended up creating some new conception of government that was better than Randian minarchism and better than the traditional anarchism.

Sorry George, but I can't take your word for it regarding what Roy would have said. You're a great storyteller but your credibility drops with every post.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some anti-federalists and free spirits undoubtedly protested that they did not give their consent. They were free to move west or back to where they came from. They were free to continue protesting, and they were free to change the Constitution to their liking if they followed the rules to do so. But the Founders intent was to make the Constitution the law of the land.

The main argument of Antifederalists was that the Constitution was a betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution and constituted a serious threat to individual liberty. They were largely right.

You seem to forget that America already had a constitution -- the Articles of Confederation -- before the Philadelphia Convention was held in 1787. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and other nationalists didn't like this first constitution, however, because it did not vest an independent taxing power in the central government. This was the chief objection to the Articles, and this was the single most important factor in calling for a new constitution. The nationalists wanted to give Congress the power to tax individual citizens directly, without having to work through the state legislatures, and they got what they wanted in the Constitution.

Moreover, the U.S Constitution places no limits on the taxing power of Congress. Antifederalists protested vigorously against this, insisting that some cap should be specified in the Constitution. In the Federalist Papers, both Madison and Hamilton vigorously protested against the idea of a limit on federal taxes. Such a limit was deliberately excluded from the Constitution, because the Framers did not want to hamstring the federal government. As Hamilton once observed, history teaches us that free people pay the highest taxes.

Do these sound like pro-freedom measures to you? Pardon me if I cannot get all mushy and sentimental over a document whose major purpose was to empower Congress with the unlimited power to tax.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disneyland may have its own private police to enforce "rules of social conduct"; a gambling casino may hire security people to enforce rules against cheating, etc. The possibilities are endless, but none of these institutions qualifies as a "government" in any significant sense, because they do not possess "exclusive power" (i.e., sovereignty) within their jurisdictions. They are answerable to a government, which claims the right to render the final decision in matters pertaining to the legitimate use of force.

You are confused about my conception of government, either willfully, or simply because you are too afraid to seriously look at my ideas.

I knew Roy Childs. Roy Childs was a friend of mine. And you are no Roy Childs.

What would Roy have thought of your ideas? I know exactly what he would have thought. He would have thought that you are a very confused anarchist.

As for my supposedly refusing to deal with problems that you have pointed out, I have no idea what you are talking about. I won't discuss anarchism with you, because you insist on remaining willfully ignorant about what anarchists have actually argued. I have no interest in discussing a figment of your imagination that you like to call "anarchism." Should you ever decide to educate yourself in this area, I will be happy to discuss the topic with you.

Ghs

:lol:

Well, now, you use ad hominem against me, and now against a man who can't speak for himself, Roy Childs?

Roy recanted, remember? What do you think he did, run right back to Randian minarchism? I doubt it. I like to think he probably ended up creating some new conception of government that was better than Randian minarchism and better than the traditional anarchism.

Sorry George, but I can't take your word for it regarding what Roy would have said. You're a great storyteller but your credibility drops with every post.

Shayne

Roy never recanted the argument he presented in the "Open Letter." He came to believe that anarcho-capitalism is "impractical." He would have regarded your scheme as equally impractical. Roy reverted back to the traditional minarchism proposed by Ayn Rand.

As for whether you take my word for anything Roy might have said, you seem to labor under the misconception that I give a flying fuck what you think.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roy never recanted the argument he presented in the "Open Letter." He came to believe that anarcho-capitalism is "impractical." He would have regarded your scheme as equally impractical. Roy reverted back to the traditional minarchism proposed by Ayn Rand.

It seems to me that you have some kind of interest in painting him this way. How do we verify that he indeed fell to this very pathetic intellectual state?

As for whether you take my word for anything Roy might have said, you seem to labor under the misconception that I give a flying fuck what you think.

Sure George. You stopped "caring" precisely when you started losing the arguments. You argued with me quite energetically up to the point where you recognized that you had no answer to my arguments, then the tail went right between the legs and you ran off. Remember the threats you tried to scare me off with at the end? That you were really going to show me how wrong I was, and by the time you were through demolishing my view I'd flounce off of OL, and they'd be telling stories about how you had cowardly run away from you? My, what wild fantasies you have. Hasn't quite turned out the way you thought, has it. Just like your anarchist fantasies. Reality has a way of not caring much for being clever and witty; what matters in the end is if you are right.

Perhaps it is in poor taste to rub your nose in it, but you did worse to me, and with less provocation.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one alive could know more than George about Roy Childs or care more about what Roy was all about. The best of best friends.

--Brant

Which doesn't explain why George is smearing his name without providing any evidence by claiming his mind turned into mush.

I'm sure the mushy-minded like the story though. Taking reason seriously is evidently too much for some people.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roy never recanted the argument he presented in the "Open Letter." He came to believe that anarcho-capitalism is "impractical." He would have regarded your scheme as equally impractical. Roy reverted back to the traditional minarchism proposed by Ayn Rand.

It seems to me that you have some kind of interest in painting him this way. How do we verify that he indeed fell to this very pathetic intellectual state?

As for whether you take my word for anything Roy might have said, you seem to labor under the misconception that I give a flying fuck what you think.

Sure George. You stopped "caring" precisely when you started losing the arguments. You argued with me quite energetically up to the point where you recognized that you had no answer to my arguments, then the tail went right between the legs and you ran off. Remember the threats you tried to scare me off with at the end? That you were really going to show me how wrong I was, and by the time you were through demolishing my view I'd flounce off of OL, and they'd be telling stories about how you had cowardly run away from you? My, what wild fantasies you have. Hasn't quite turned out the way you thought, has it. Just like your anarchist fantasies. Reality has a way of not caring much for being clever and witty; what matters in the end is if you are right.

Perhaps it is in poor taste to rub your nose in it, but you did worse to me, and with less provocation.

Shayne

I have said this before, and I will say it again -- nay, I will shout it from the rooftops. Shayne Wissler so completely demolished me in our earlier exchanges that I am now afraid ever to argue with him again. What is the point of arguing with a genius of Shayne's caliber? I wouldn't stand a chance, so rather than humiliate myself in public, I prefer to ignore him.

Listen up, all ye OLers! Minds of Shayne's caliber only appear once in a century or so. He is destined to be the next Ayn Rand. But, wait, even this does not do him justice! Having thoroughly exposed the errors of Ayn Rand, along with Rothbard and every other political philosopher in the modern libertarian movement, Shayne is destined to achieve heights hitherto undreamed of. So pay close attention to his theories, and you will be able to achieve freedom in an unfree world by purchasing some land, making whatever laws you like for your land, and then calling yourself a "government."

I cannot profess to understand any of this -- it strikes me as a watered-down, secular version of the afterlife in Mormonism -- but I dare not challenge Shayne Wissler, for the reasons I stated above.

I trust this will do the trick, Shayne. So, please, have mercy on a senile old man who cannot hope to compete with your unparalleled brilliance.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for responding George. I will put your two letters into my mental thrasher – and modify my open letter to Roy Childs based on your input.

I pondered over these two recent sentences from you. They are long, but packed with higher level meaning. You are one of the best writers I have ever read. You should try your hand at fiction too.

George H. Smith wrote:

Quote

Locke specifically justified government as a remedy for various "inconveniences" that would supposedly exist in an anarchistic state of nature; but, contrary to Hobbes, Locke viewed the state of nature as essentially peaceful and civilized.

In "The Nature of Government," Rand predicts that a Hobbesian state of nature -- a war of every man against every man, in effect -- would ensue if "a society provided no organized protection against force."

End quote

Isn’t that the way of Humanity? Historically, we are essentially peaceful and civilized say many Evolutionary Psychologists. We would never have advanced and become civilized if we had not united groups of humans for common efforts beyond the few members of an extended family and their homestead projects. We ascended from primitive farming, hunting and gathering to increase our prosperity and to ensure our family’s safety. We may even have a dominant gene for cooperation, expensively bestowed upon us by evolution.

That early cooperation protected us from our darker side, the Hobbesian menace of human pillagers, criminals, and brutes. So, we are both.

Look with a cruel eye on a nearly homogeneous social group of people, the Japanese. They hang together during a life shattering disaster. They don’t pillage or loot. They have courage. They cooperate. They persevere. They deserve all of humanity’s charity and respect. But at the same time some individuals in their culture would prefer people die so long as they do not lose face. We are good and we are bad. We confront reality and we evade reality.

Statist Government does not suit humans. Family based Anarchy, which is the only type that has ever existed, does not suit us, for we would only advance to the stage of farmers and hunters. Rational Government provides us the society we need to prosper and reach the stars.

Peter

Edited by Peter Taylor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for responding George. I will put your two letters into my mental thrasher – and modify my open letter to Roy Childs based on your input.

I pondered over these two recent sentences from you. They are long, but packed with higher level meaning. You are one of the best writers I have ever read. You should try your hand at fiction too.

George H. Smith wrote:

Quote

Locke specifically justified government as a remedy for various "inconveniences" that would supposedly exist in an anarchistic state of nature; but, contrary to Hobbes, Locke viewed the state of nature as essentially peaceful and civilized.

In "The Nature of Government," Rand predicts that a Hobbesian state of nature -- a war of every man against every man, in effect -- would ensue if "a society provided no organized protection against force."

End quote

Isn’t that the way of Humanity? Historically, we are essentially peaceful and civilized say many Evolutionary Psychologists. We would never have advanced and become civilized if we had not united groups of humans for common efforts beyond the few members of an extended family and their homestead projects. We ascended from primitive farming, hunting and gathering to increase our prosperity and to ensure our family’s safety. We may even have a dominant gene for cooperation, expensively bestowed upon us by evolution.

That early cooperation protected us from our darker side, the Hobbesian menace of human pillagers, criminals, and brutes. So, we are both....

On this topic, see Jeff Riggenbach's blog on "The Anarchism of Peter Kropotkin." This is an excellent overview of Kropotkin's life and ideas.

I agree with Jeff's assessment of Kropotkin. He is one of the few left-anarchists that I actually like -- on a number of issues, at least. Kropotkin's classic work, Mutual Aid, is worth reading.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now