Thoughts on Rand, Government, and Anarchism


Recommended Posts

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

I never said anything remotely like this about Roy.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Thanks. JR was also very close to Roy. In fact, Jeff spent much more time with Roy for a period when Roy and I basically were not speaking. I flew Roy out to Tucson in 1974 to serve as best man at my wedding. We had a ferocious argument during a conversation in my living room, and that cooled our friendship considerably for a while.

We reconciled later, however, and for the last three years of Roy's life we spoke on the phone virtually every day.

Roy started to back away from anarchism much earlier than many people realize. After Roy became active in the Libertarian Party (he thought seriously at one point about running for Senator on the LP ticket), he realized that the label "anarchist" would be a political liability, to say the least. This is part of what he meant by calling anarchism "impractical." This was not a label that would help libertarians gain traction in the political arena -- and he was right, of course..

The earliest indication I got about Roy's reservations about anarchism occurred c. 1972. Roy arranged with Nathaniel Branden to have a private "debate" in Barbara Branden's living room. (She then lived in Franklin West Towers, a beautiful high rise that I later moved into during my Knowledge Products years.) Roy was the big gun in anarchism, so I tagged along as more of a backup than anything else. Barbara served the same function with Nathaniel. There was no doubt about it: This was supposed to be the big showdown between two intellectual heavyweights.

But things did not go as expected. Roy barely put up a fight, to say the least. In fact, when Nathaniel made his first point (about the "anarchy" in the Old West), Roy stroked his beard and said, "That's an interesting point, Nathan." I almost had a stroke. This was the kind of argument that I had repeatedly seen Roy attack as "epistemological rat poison," and I expected him to be on Nathan like white on rice. But nothing like this ever happened. Time and again, Roy acted like Nathan was raising points that had never occurred to him before. He was being a wimp, and deliberately so.

After around 30 minutes of this nonsense, I finally picked up the ball and became the one defending anarchism against Nathan. Roy barely said a word, except at one point he said he liked observing the debate from the sidelines, because it enabled him to see the merit in both sides. At this point, when I glared at Roy as if I was about to slug him, Nathan said to Roy something like this: "Roy, I would be very angry with you if I were George. This debate was supposed to be primarily between the two of us, but you didn't seem willing to argue, so you left George with no choice but to step in. He is using your arguments, and you aren't even backing him up." Nathan clearly understood that Roy was employing some kind of tactic. (I knew what the tactic was but didn't want to say anything in front of Nathan and Barbara).

Anyway, after around two hours we called it quits and arranged for a second meeting. When Roy and I got into his VW, I hit the ceiling. "Roy, don't you ever dare pull a stunt like that again. There is no way I will go to a second debate unless you promise to hold up your end and forget about playing Mr. Moderation."

Roy agreed, and things went much better in the second session. Even so, it was abundantly clear, based on a number of things Roy said to me, that he was searching for a less radical approach -- a "middle-ground," as he called it -- that would make libertarianism more acceptable to the general public. This backtracking became more pronounced, as I said, after Roy became active in the LP.

My honest opinion is that Roy never fully developed his refutation of anarchism. That he started writing a refutation can be seen from the introductory fragment, "Anarchist Illusions," that was found in his papers and published posthumously in Liberty Against Power, the anthology of Roy's writings edited by Joan Kennedy Taylor. This fragment indicates the direction that Roy would have taken, but, having lived in the same apartment building with Roy for two years in the early 1970s, and having seen how he wrote articles, I seriously doubt that he would have left this article hanging after an introduction if he knew how to finish it. This is not to say that Roy could not have finished the piece with a credible argument. I just don't think he ever fleshed out the argument.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Do you know if Ayn Rand ever read Roy's "Open Letter"?

Ellen

I have no personal knowledge of this, but according to Ron Neff's excellent multi-part article on Roy's anarchism :

Roy was sensitive to the fact that the Open Letter had not been particularly deferential to Ayn Rand, whom he admired deeply. The opening sentence of the letter, as published in October 1969 and as reprinted on the Web and in Joan Kennedy Taylor's collection of essays by Roy, Liberty against Power, is: "The purpose of this letter is to convert you to free market anarchism." The original opening sentence of the letter as sent to Rand the previous July, however, read: "I sincerely hope you will consider this letter with every bit of intelligence at your command," and continued with "The purpose of this letter, etc."

On the last occasion on which Roy met Rand, a young anarchist attempted to thrust a copy of the published Open Letter into her hands. Roy actually interfered with this attempt, saying, "Don't bother her with that." It is doubtful that the eager anarchist knew that it was the author himself who had prevented him from fulfilling his mission. Rand, of course, certainly never suspected it.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Part Five of his article on Roy's anarchism, Ron Neff speculates on the reason for Roy's later retreat from anarchism. His explanation is very similar to mine.

With that as a backdrop, let us recall his remark to George Smith that anarchism was "not practical." I do not think he meant by that that anarchism was an ideal that could never be achieved, or that competing defense agencies could not behave justly. I think he meant that anarchism merely exacerbated the alienation from American culture its adherents already felt, especially adherents who came from an Objectivist background. It is clear from his own participation in the Libertarian Party and from the comments he made in "Ayn Rand and the Libertarian Movement" that he thought liberty was to be achieved through political action, and that to refuse to be involved in electoral politics was to cede the field to statists. And therefore political action was necessary. Since anarchism was incompatible with political action, it was incompatible with the achievement of liberty. And therefore it was false and destructive. [22]

I urge everyone to read Ron's excellent article in its entirety. (I did not discover it until an hour ago.) He discusses some writings on anarchism by Roy that even I had forgotten about.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Do you know if Ayn Rand ever read Roy's "Open Letter"?

Ellen

I have no personal knowledge of this, but according to Ron Ron Neff's excellent multi-part article on Roy's anarchism :

Roy was sensitive to the fact that the Open Letter had not been particularly deferential to Ayn Rand, whom he admired deeply. The opening sentence of the letter, as published in October 1969 and as reprinted on the Web and in Joan Kennedy Taylor's collection of essays by Roy, Liberty against Power, is: "The purpose of this letter is to convert you to free market anarchism." The original opening sentence of the letter as sent to Rand the previous July, however, read: "I sincerely hope you will consider this letter with every bit of intelligence at your command," and continued with "The purpose of this letter, etc."

On the last occasion on which Roy met Rand, a young anarchist attempted to thrust a copy of the published Open Letter into her hands. Roy actually interfered with this attempt, saying, "Don't bother her with that." It is doubtful that the eager anarchist knew that it was the author himself who had prevented him from fulfilling his mission. Rand, of course, certainly never suspected it.

Ghs

Once I sent something to Ayn Rand in the summer of 1968 before The Break, but I sent it to her at 120 East 34th where I thought she must be living--she was--not through The Objectivist or NBI. It wasn't for the eyes of any staff and had nothing to do with any philosophical exegesis. I had previously sent her a letter from Vietnam through normal channels. I sort of remember it and it's probably in her archives. On the upper left side of my stationary was a green beret with, I think, crossed knives underneath. I explained to her how soldiers needed and used their brains in combat situations. This was in response to something she had written sort of to the contrary. It must have also contained a lot of the usual gush and admirer guff. (I also remember when I subscribed to The Objectivist. I was visiting relatives in New Jersey--the spring of 1966--out of Ft. Bragg, NC, and went to its offices at 120 East 34th, in uniform (khakis), which was an apartment actually, and signed up with a very nice woman who must have been Elayne Kalberman. I read many years later that Barbara Branden was on a world cruise that spring.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand would have hated Roy's letter, if she saw it at all. At that stage of her life, with all the work she had done over many decades, she wasn't likely to be anybody's student or lecture recipient about political philosophy. That pretty much stopped with Isabel Patterson over 25 years before. Then there were all that left-wing hippie anti-war thing going on at the time. I remember, for instance--I must have it in storage somewhere--the front page of The New York Times Sunday magazine showing a couple of left-wing college libertarian types with clenched fists against a red motif. I can see the smoke that must have come out of her ears seeing that.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1896, the individualist anarchist Francis Tandy published a book titled Voluntary Socialism. In this presentation of the ideas associated with Benjamin Tucker, Tandy argues for creating private "protection agencies" modeled after insurance companies.

We need to remember that the word "socialism" did not carry the same connotations in Tandy's day that it does today. The Tuckerites used the word to signify "social cooperation," so by "voluntary socialism" Tandy simply meant voluntary social cooperation, in contrast to the compulsory social cooperation dictated by States. This terminology was common at the time.

This passage from Chapter V (Defense of Person and Property) addresses an issue that has come up numerous times on OL:

Such institutions as I have suggested would derive their support, both financial and moral, from their subscribers. Any that were unjust or tyrannical would soon lack patronage, and so competition would give us the best article at the lowest cost, in the administration of justice as in everything else.

The oft quoted argument that this is merely abolishing the State in order to establish a lot of little States is hardly worthy of comment. These institutions lack all the elements which are essential characteristics of the State. The State is primarily invasive, these are defensive. The State is founded on compulsory co-operation, while these are distinctively voluntary. The State claims an absolute control over all within its border, while these permit the freest competition. In other words, one is the State, and the other is an honest business undertaking. What we do demand, if you wish to put it that way, is that the State shall restrict itself to the protection of person and property and the maintenance of Equal Freedom, and then, in conformity with that principle, cease to compel anyone to support it. If you wish to call what is left “a State,” our only disagreement will be on the use of the word.

Note how Tandy's reference to an institution devoted to the protection of person and property but which does not compel anyone to support it comes very close to Rand's notion of a government supported by voluntary financing. The only difference is that Rand would prohibit competing institutions, even if people wished to pay for their services.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Benjamin R. Tucker, "The Relation of the State to the Individual."

An address by Mr. Tucker delivered before the Unitarian Ministers' Institute, at the annual session held in Salem, Mass., October 14, 1890.

Anarchism, in dealing with this subject, has found it necessary, first of all, to define its terms. Popular conceptions of the terminology of politics are incompatible with the rigorous exactness required in scientific investigation. To be sure, a departure from the popular use of language is accompanied by the risk of misconception by the multitude, who persistently ignore the new definitions; but, on the other hand, conformity thereto is attended by the still more deplorable alternative of confusion in the eyes of the competent, who would be justified in attributing inexactness of thought where there is inexactness of expression. Take the term "State," for instance, with which we are especially concerned today. It is a word that is on every lip. But how many of those who use it have any idea of what they mean by it? And, of the few who have, how various are their conceptions! We designate by the term "State" institutions that embody absolutism in its extreme form and institutions that temper it with more or less liberality. We apply the word alike to institutions that do nothing but aggress and to institutions that, besides aggressing, to some extent protect and defend. But which is the State's essential function, aggression or defence, few seem to know or care. Some champions of the State evidently consider aggression its principle, although they disguise it alike from themselves and from the people under the term "administration," which they wish to extend in every possible direction. Others, on the contrary, consider defence its principle, and wish to limit it accordingly to the performance of police duties. Still others seem to think that it exists for both aggression and defence, combined in varying proportions according to the momentary interests, or maybe only whims, of those happening to control it. Brought face to face with these diverse views, the Anarchists, whose mission in the world is the abolition of aggression and all the evils that result therefrom, perceived that, to be understood, they must attach some definite and avowed significance to the terms which they are obliged to employ, and especially to the words "State" and "government." Seeking, then, the elements common to all the institutions to which the name "State" has been applied, they have found them two in number: first, aggression; second, the assumption of sole authority over a given area and all within it, exercised generally for the double purpose of more complete oppression of its subjects and extension of its boundaries. That this second element is common to all States, I think, will not be denied, - at least, I am not aware that any State has ever tolerated a rival State within its borders; and it seems plain that any State which should do so would thereby cease to be a State and to be considered as such by any. The exercise of authority over the same area by two States is a contradiction. That the first element, aggression, has been and is common to all States will probably be less generally admitted. Nevertheless, I shall not attempt to re-enforce here the conclusion of Spencer, which is gaining wider acceptance daily; that the State had its origin in aggression, and has continued as an aggressive institution from its birth. Defence was an afterthought, prompted by necessity; and its introduction as a State function, though effected doubtless with a view to the strengthening of the State, was really and in principle the initiation of the State's destruction. Its growth in importance is but an evidence of the tendency of progress toward the abolition of the State. Taking this view of the matter, the Anarchists contend that defence is not an essential of the State, but that aggression is. Now what is aggression? Aggression is simply another name for government. Aggression, invasion, government, are interconvertible terms. The essence of government is control, or the attempt to control. He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader; and the nature of such invasion is not changed, whether it is made by one man upon another man, after the manner of the ordinary criminal, or by one man upon all other men, after the manner of an absolute monarch, or by all other men upon one man, after the manner of a modern democracy. On the other hand, he who resists another's attempt to control is not an aggressor, an invader, a governor, but simply a defender, a protector; and the nature of such resistance is not changed whether it be offered by one man to another man, as when one repels a criminal's onslaught, or by one man to all other men, as when one declines to obey an oppressive law, or by all men to one man, as when a subject people rises against a despot, or as when the members of a community voluntarily unite to restrain a criminal. This distinction between invasion and resistance, between government and defence, is vital. Without it there can be no valid philosophy of politics. Upon this distinction and the other considerations just outlined, the Anarchists frame the desired definitions. This, then, is the Anarchistic definition of government: the subjection of the non-invasive individual to an external will. And this is the Anarchistic definition of the State: the embodiment of the principle of invasion in an individual, or a band of individuals, assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area. As to the meaning of the remaining term in the subject under discussion, the word "individual," I think there is little difficulty. Putting aside the subtleties in which certain metaphysicians have indulged, one may use this word without danger of being misunderstood. Whether the definitions thus arrived at prove generally acceptable or not is a matter of minor consequence. I submit that they are reached scientifically, and serve the purpose of a clear conveyance of thought. The Anarchists, having by their adoption taken due care to be explicit, are entitled to have their ideas judged in the light of these definitions.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A word of explanation about my last two posts with quotations from Tandy and Tucker. (Tandy and Tucker -- Sounds like a British comedy team. :lol: )

I posted this material because I previously called Randian anarchism an "In-House" anarchism, and before long I hope to discuss the issue of whether it qualifies as "anarchism" in the broader historical sense. I happened across the two passages while I was reviewing some relevant material, and, since I have a tendency to forget where I read particular passages, I thought it was best to post them now.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George wrote:

. . . I previously called Randian anarchism an "In-House" anarchism, and before long I hope to discuss the issue of whether it qualifies as "anarchism" in the broader historical sense . . . .

end quote

I have copies of Roy’s and Neff’s two articles, via cut and paste. When I took them out of the magazine print style they were in, and enlarged the text, I lost the paragraph breaks; then I fixed that, or nearly so, but it took a half an hour. I have skimmed them.

I don’t think Rational Anarchists are the philosophical, evil equivalents of Emmanuel Kant, but they sure try to be. Back to basics, George, there ain’t no “In-House” Objectivist Anarchism. There is a huge demarcation line when you use Objectivism’s metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and then Rand’s political philosophy, and then, and then, “And then along came Jones.” Whoops, you drop off the edge of a flat earth.

From “Why Atheism,” by George H. Smith, page 70

*Truth* is the correspondence between a proposition and a fact (a *fact* is that which is i.e., that which exists independent of any perception, thought, belief, or knowledge claim.)

A proposition is said to be *true* if, and only if, it corresponds to a *fact*.

End of Georgies’ quotes

A true proposition, according to Rand, is one that correctly *identifies* a fact of reality.

End of Georgies’ Rand quote

Is Planned, Rational Anarchism a fact of reality or a fiction? Is there other evidence of planned anarchy, beyond words? It needs to be put through a logician's “symbolic logic sieve. You can’t see it because there are no blueprints. Descriptions are vague. The fictional actors and fictional participants in planned anarchy sound like angels, not the malevolent JR’s or the erudite, but nerdy Ghs, (and I imagine him as bumbling – no offense. I just remember seeing George in a video wearing a pair of Hugh Hefner pajamas).

I am still in my convinced mode. Objectivism is 98.5 percent correct and contextually amendable. Planned Anarchy is 100 percent wrong, and un-fixable, even by practical anarchist Shane.

“It” (It is all 5 Rational Anarchists) seem to deliberately misunderstand Rand. They parse the words in her Government article which could stand a re-write, but she is gone, and they have no interest in understanding what she imprecisely, though most likely meant. They take it out of the context of her total system.

Anarchy’s denunciations, formulations, incantations and spells only fleetingly pertain to emergency, unplanned anarchy. In a total breakdown, I will do what every other human, though not scheming anarchists, will be doing, in an unplanned fashion. Arming myself and bonding and banding together with other decent individuals for protection from predatory humans and for our mutual benefit. Then we will elect a sheriff. He will be a Republican :o)

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, your whole discussion of past epiphanies of yours (many paralleling mine, apropos of Roy Childs' "Open Letter"), and of comparative distinctions, has been fascinating to me — including those quotes.

My only demurral is, in that Tucker quote (and for too many other writers, mostly pre-20th-Century), the lack of paragraphs. That does make it very hard to read, simply in physical terms of eye travel.

I don't see the sotto voce insertion of paragraph breaks as being problematic for such quotations, nor a matter of changed meaning, though you may well differ on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think Rational Anarchists are the philosophical, evil equivalents of Emmanuel Kant, but they sure try to be.

It is a struggle, but I sure try my best to be the evil equivalent of Emmanuel Kant.

Who is Emmanuel Kant, btw? Was he even more evil than Immanuel Kant?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Yes, this all underscores an important one of your problems. You thought that Rand was a genius in political philosophy, and that if you could find a contradiction, then that made you a genius too. What you should have learned instead was that maybe your idol wasn't as brilliant as you thought she was, at least not in the area of political philosophy. You should have then set her aside and looked elsewhere. For example, John Locke, which as I have said before, was largely on the right track, even to the point of at least hinting at the key problem with our current systems regarding their lack of consent. You childishly dismiss this point because it doesn't fit your narrative, but the facts speak for themselves. John Locke was a serious political philosopher, and Ayn Rand was a hack political philosopher, merely writing up in artful terms the political philosophy she observed at the core of America, not really ever questioning anything about that core.

Now this massive blunder that you and your cohorts fell into is typical of young, very smart people, who don't have an experienced mentor around them. You guys just went off the rails very early, and never got back on track. And now it seems that you refuse to recognize it, evidently, that would be too painful to even consider. But perhaps you see more clearly why the title "overgrown teenagers" was not merely a thoughtless epithet.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Yes, this all underscores an important one of your problems. You thought that Rand was a genius in political philosophy, and that if you could find a contradiction, then that made you a genius too. What you should have learned instead was that maybe your idol wasn't as brilliant as you thought she was, at least not in the area of political philosophy. You should have then set her aside and looked elsewhere. For example, John Locke, which as I have said before, was largely on the right track, even to the point of at least hinting at the key problem with our current systems regarding their lack of consent. You childishly dismiss this point because it doesn't fit your narrative, but the facts speak for themselves. John Locke was a serious political philosopher, and Ayn Rand was a hack political philosopher, merely writing up in artful terms the political philosophy she observed at the core of America, not really ever questioning anything about that core.

Now this massive blunder that you and your cohorts fell into is typical of young, very smart people, who don't have an experienced mentor around them. You guys just went off the rails very early, and never got back on track. And now it seems that you refuse to recognize it, evidently, that would be too painful to even consider. But perhaps you see more clearly why the title "overgrown teenagers" was not merely a thoughtless epithet.

Shayne

In Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, I wrote:

The least original part of Rand's philosophy is her political theory. Indeed, she says little that was not said many times over by Classical Liberals -- advocates of natural rights, free markets, and limited government during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries....

You have to be the worst guesser I have ever seen. I would think that your ignorant swings would hit a target once in a while, as a matter of dumb luck, but you cannot even manage that much.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think Rational Anarchists are the philosophical, evil equivalents of Emmanuel Kant, but they sure try to be.

It is a struggle, but I sure try my best to be the evil equivalent of Emmanuel Kant.

Who is Emmanuel Kant, btw? Was he even more evil than Immanuel Kant?

Ghs

You guys are not to get away with ignoring d'Manuel Kant, the evilest eviler of all.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be the worst guesser I have ever seen. I would think that your ignorant swings would hit a target once in a while, as a matter of dumb luck, but you cannot even manage that much.

Ghs

It's not guessing at all. The premise of your mockery of me is that to find a contradiction in Rand makes one a genius. You guys did so, ergo you're boy geniuses.

And besides, not much else explains why you'll argue ad infinitum with Pete Taylor but won't take up actually substantial issues with your position. Pete's saying the same things Randians have been saying forever, and when you look at Roy Childs' argument and their ever constant failure to address it, you really just have to think these people are deranged or retarded. It's simply not that complicated to grasp Childs' argument, and he utterly demolished Randian "minarchism."

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think Rational Anarchists are the philosophical, evil equivalents of Emmanuel Kant, but they sure try to be.

It is a struggle, but I sure try my best to be the evil equivalent of Emmanuel Kant.

Who is Emmanuel Kant, btw? Was he even more evil than Immanuel Kant?

Ghs

You guys are not to get away with ignoring d'Manuel Kant, the evilest eviler of all.

--Brant

I hear that Kant wrote a manual on evil. <_<

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be the worst guesser I have ever seen. I would think that your ignorant swings would hit a target once in a while, as a matter of dumb luck, but you cannot even manage that much.

Ghs

It's not guessing at all. The premise of your mockery of me is that to find a contradiction in Rand makes one a genius. You guys did so, ergo you're boy geniuses.

And besides, not much else explains why you'll argue ad infinitum with Pete Taylor but won't take up actually substantial issues with your position. Pete's saying the same things Randians have been saying forever, and when you look at Roy Childs' argument and their ever constant failure to address it, you really just have to think these people are deranged or retarded. It's simply not that complicated to grasp Childs' argument, and he utterly demolished Randian "minarchism."

Shayne

Peter has entertainment value at times. You never do.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be the worst guesser I have ever seen. I would think that your ignorant swings would hit a target once in a while, as a matter of dumb luck, but you cannot even manage that much.

Ghs

It's not guessing at all. The premise of your mockery of me is that to find a contradiction in Rand makes one a genius. You guys did so, ergo you're boy geniuses.

And besides, not much else explains why you'll argue ad infinitum with Pete Taylor but won't take up actually substantial issues with your position. Pete's saying the same things Randians have been saying forever, and when you look at Roy Childs' argument and their ever constant failure to address it, you really just have to think these people are deranged or retarded. It's simply not that complicated to grasp Childs' argument, and he utterly demolished Randian "minarchism."

Shayne

Peter has entertainment value at times. You never do.

Ghs

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter has entertainment value at times. You never do.

Ghs

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Aw, have I been paying more attention to little Petie than I have to Shayney Whayney? You are both my darling little boys, and I love you both the same. No need to be jealous. :lol:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter has entertainment value at times. You never do.

Ghs

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Aw, have I been paying more attention to little Petie than I have to Shayney Whayney? You are both my darling little boys, and I love you both the same. No need to be jealous. :lol:

Ghs

:lol:

If only you were as good at political philosophy as you are with ad hominem.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George wrote:

Who is Emmanuel Kant, btw? Was he even more evil that Immanuel Kant?

end quote

That does sound like one of Charley Sheen's call girl when spelled with an 'e.'

I was just watching that great flick, "Deliverance," which is still not quite over. The part where the sheriff (played by the actual author, James Dickey) interrogates the survivors is coming up next. After these white collar, white water rafting, proponents of limited government, use the retaliatory use of force in an emergency situation, to successfully defend themselves against the anarchist, moonshine making, jailhouse homo's, the Jon Voight character is sorry for what he did.

In real life a person in that situation would feel remorse, but also Glee. I got this info from an article about survivors of army fiefights with the Viet Cong. The author of the Psy article was surprised that these adult soldiers, raised under the tutelage of Doctor Spock would feel brief remorse and then Glee. They should have been namby pambies.

Anyway, there are some sad, sacks of shit in this world, and to this day, their parts are still being played to perfection.

Was that smarmy enough?

Always fun.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Didn't want to start a new thread so I did a search to find one relevant to what I was wondering:

Is there a reason that the right to retaliatory force is as important on an individual level to the right to life, action, and property?

Rand thought this right could be sacrificed, even though it is this right in particular that allows for civility. More accurately it is the expectation of retaliatory force that allows for civility (and therefore freedom), though not necessarily on an individual level.

My other question is about consent. Why is 100% consent necessary for a government to be rightful? Surely those being arrested for breaking laws will disagree with those laws.

Also: Has anyone read Escape from Leviathan?

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