Against Anarchism

[sjw]

There's water in the well, but no bucket to bring it up.

--Brant

If I'm a mere lost student whose gotten himself sidetracked on bogus lead then there's no particularly compelling reason to get the water, nothing to see here. On the other hand, if there is something to my ideas but they are in need of improved expression or if there are additional arguments that ought to be made to address something I've missed, then that's another matter.

Given George's behavior, I think it's safe to assume that he either believes it's the first alternative or that he desires his actions to be interpreted as if he believes the first alternative, because on its face it would be counterproductive and contrary to his entire life's work for him to treat me as he has if there are important ideas to be considered here.

Which is it? That's for the reader of the essay to decide. I'll continue trying to address whatever problems there are that anyone cares to point out. My biggest difficulty is in trying to predict what the anarchist's retort to this or that will be in order to make sure his point is properly addressed. It is one thing to read (say) Murray Rothbard, it is another to know what Rothbard would have to say about this or that argument. But the biggest difficulty is that so many people, whether anarchist, Objectivist, or otherwise, really don't care that much about ideas. They have their conclusions and they're satisfied with them and that's that.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

There's water in the well, but no bucket to bring it up.

--Brant

If I'm a mere lost student whose gotten himself sidetracked on bogus lead then there's no particularly compelling reason to get the water, nothing to see here. On the other hand, if there is something to my ideas but they are in need of improved expression or if there are additional arguments that ought to be made to address something I've missed, then that's another matter.

Given George's behavior, I think it's safe to assume that he either believes it's the first alternative or that he desires his actions to be interpreted as if he believes the first alternative, because on its face it would be counterproductive and contrary to his entire life's work for him to treat me as he has if there are important ideas to be considered here.

Which is it? That's for the reader of the essay to decide. I'll continue trying to address whatever problems there are that anyone cares to point out. My biggest difficulty is in trying to predict what the anarchist's retort to this or that will be in order to make sure his point is properly addressed. It is one thing to read (say) Murray Rothbard, it is another to know what Rothbard would have to say about this or that argument. But the biggest difficulty is that so many people, whether anarchist, Objectivist, or otherwise, really don't care that much about ideas. They have their conclusions and they're satisfied with them and that's that.

Shayne

The basic problem isn't ideas. It's how every discussion seems to go adversarial.

--Brant

[sjw]

Thanks for the invitation to provide "critical feedback" on your article. I gave one criticism, and I got a lot of feedback.

You gave a lot of ad hominem, one criticism, which when I tried to explain my frame of mind regarding it in order to get more apt criticism, you flounced off.

Shayne

[Peter]

George H. Smith wrote:

"Anarchism functions mainly as an albatross around the neck of modern libertarianism.”

end quote

Shayne responded:

That's a great quote, can I use it?

end quote

It is great. George is honest. I don’t know how many on OL will actually read your somewhat long article, Shayne. I skimmed it. I may go back and reread it.

This topic is grinding to a halt, if we can’t get Ghs back into the game. Time for one of my retreads? I have always liked the minimalist approach. Skip it if you have read it.

I invite advocates and opponents of Anarchy to examine JUST the following scenario. And that is the key. Anarchy needs to be examined on the smallest possible scale, not within a preexisting country; perhaps on a desert island, where it is a problem in simple logic. I actively ask all interested to critique the problem.

These are the simple rules. There are two occupants of a given geographical area who will live on one patch of ground. The two occupants of the island must always consider Anarchy as the only society or system that they can live in. These two Anarchists named, Shayne and George, live on an island and they are not romantically involved ) Never! No way, no matter how horny they get! (mtbf: meant to be funny even though Shayne wrote: Regarding the substantive criticism you gave, I'm not married to any particular formulation.)

There is no law, no constitution, no police, no judge and no jury. Shayne and George agree that even minimalist government will lead to an ever increasing loss of their ability to do whatever they want to do, unfettered by any authority but their own. Anyone’s desires are as good as anyone else’s desires. They must interact, in this scenario if they wish to profit from each other’s presence in their society.

Now I introduce a dilemma.

Shayne and George discuss an issue (Say their property line on the desert island.) Shayne and George agree to the line.

Later, Shayne disagrees. George disagrees with Shayne’s disagreeing.

George seeks to redress the wrong. Shayne says no way, Jose. George uses force. Shayne responds with force.

The only absolute for each party is their own desires. It matters not that they may have reasoned arguments or reasonable desires. Each insists that their desires are paramount. Who the hell is anyone, to say someone else’s desires are wrong, in Anarchy?

I know the proponents of Rational Anarchy will counter by saying, why can't the arguments be reasonable and why can’t a reasonable accord be reached? But one person's “will” need not be reasonable in Anarchy, AND THAT IS THE POINT. THE FINAL ARBITERS ARE YOU AND I, OR GEORGE AND SHAYNE, AND NO ONE ELSE.

Shayne may think George is unreasonable but George thinks Shayne is unreasonable. Even if George pontificates that, “I am an “Objectivist” in everything but Politics, or a veritable Mr. Spock of logic,” Shayne’s irrationalist’s wishes carry the same weight TO HIM as George’s logic does to him. Remember even an “objectivist anarchist” in this scenario *in theory* would still need to agree that in Anarchy, your will is as valid as mine.

That is why I say Anarchy requires Subjectivism within its Politics and this originates in the Anarchist’s epistemology.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter

Notes

Is this fodder for your thread on “Psychologizing,” George? And just to piss George off a tiny bit Moore, I will include this from Ellen Moore:

“Politically, Rand actually deemed a ~moral~ civilized society required individual rights under Capitalism, with Limited Constitutional Government guaranteed by means of Objective Laws. Applying this "niof" in politics is a complex derivative conceptual conclusion based on Rand's metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics which libertarianism does not validate and accept, but has stolen without its foundations, and places it as an axiom of their political agenda where is becomes a mixed premise for those libertarians who advocate it only inconsistently. "Anarchy" means the abolition of organized government, no social or political authority exists under anarchy - which means that individuals are freed from any kind of imposed authority they may subjectively wish - even reality -- it means no lawful system of government -- and these anarchist wishes for lawlessness must be essentially subjective because they demand an abolition of any system of objective laws that could apply overall in a civil society in any geographical area.”

Ellen Moore

[George H. Smith]

There's water in the well, but no bucket to bring it up.

--Brant

If I'm a mere lost student whose gotten himself sidetracked on bogus lead then there's no particularly compelling reason to get the water, nothing to see here. On the other hand, if there is something to my ideas but they are in need of improved expression or if there are additional arguments that ought to be made to address something I've missed, then that's another matter.

Given George's behavior, I think it's safe to assume that he either believes it's the first alternative or that he desires his actions to be interpreted as if he believes the first alternative, because on its face it would be counterproductive and contrary to his entire life's work for him to treat me as he has if there are important ideas to be considered here.

Which is it? That's for the reader of the essay to decide. I'll continue trying to address whatever problems there are that anyone cares to point out. My biggest difficulty is in trying to predict what the anarchist's retort to this or that will be in order to make sure his point is properly addressed. It is one thing to read (say) Murray Rothbard, it is another to know what Rothbard would have to say about this or that argument. But the biggest difficulty is that so many people, whether anarchist, Objectivist, or otherwise, really don't care that much about ideas. They have their conclusions and they're satisfied with them and that's that.

Shayne

There are worse things in this world than soliciting and taking advice from someone who knows a lot more about a subject than you do.

My "behavior" consisted of calling attention to your misrepresentation of libertarian anarchism, and my advice would have consisted of suggestions about how you could rewrite that part so that anarchist readers would not tune you out, as I did, when they hit page 2.

You said you were interested in what I had to say, but only under certain conditions. I was not willing to jump through hoops for the privilege of helping you write a better critique of anarchism, and that was that.

Ghs

[sjw]

I know the proponents of Rational Anarchy will counter by saying, why can't the arguments be reasonable and why can’t a reasonable accord be reached? But one person's “will” need not be reasonable in Anarchy, AND THAT IS THE POINT. THE FINAL ARBITERS ARE YOU AND I, OR GEORGE AND SHAYNE, AND NO ONE ELSE.

Shayne may think George is unreasonable but George thinks Shayne is unreasonable. Even if George pontificates that, “I am an “Objectivist” in everything but Politics, or a veritable Mr. Spock of logic,” Shayne’s irrationalist’s wishes carry the same weight TO HIM as George’s logic does to him. Remember even an “objectivist anarchist” in this scenario *in theory* would still need to agree that in Anarchy, your will is as valid as mine.

It's hard to contemplate your case without an actual case to contemplate. I mean, it's one thing to claim that someone is unreasonable, it's quite another to list some concrete case in dispute, with the facts on one hand, and the two different interpretations on the other.

Shayne

[sjw]

There are worse things in this world than soliciting and taking advice from someone who knows a lot more about a subject than you do.

My "behavior" consisted of calling attention to your misrepresentation of libertarian anarchism, and my advice would have consisted of suggestions about how you could rewrite that part so that anarchist readers would not tune you out, as I did, when they hit page 2.

You said you were interested in what I had to say, but only under certain conditions. I was not willing to jump through hoops for the privilege of helping you write a better critique of anarchism, and that was that.

Ghs

I dispute this self-serving spin. As Peter suggests, you and I just don't see things the same way, and there doesn't seem to be any power on earth that can overcome that.

Shayne

[Peter]

Shayne wrote:

It's hard to contemplate your case without an actual case to contemplate. I mean, it's one thing to claim that someone is unreasonable, it's quite another to list some concrete case in dispute, with the facts on one hand, and the two different interpretations on the other.

end quote

Have you caught on that I am actually not trying to piss George off? I just want to amuse him a bit. I hope he will be interested in your article to give us some more of his rebuttal.

The point I was making, that you are referring to in the above quote, is: that to be an anarchist, one need not know who is in the right AS VIEWED BY AN OUTSIDE OBSERVER, because there is no arbitrator, with only two anarchists on the island.

Shayne wrote:

I dispute this self-serving spin. As Peter suggests, you and I just don't see things the same way, and there doesn't seem to be any power on earth that can overcome that.

End quote

Of course, you may be dealing with a case right now, with me or George on this cyber island of Atlantis, where your argument is not as valid as my argument (to me) and there is nothing you can say to prove otherwise. That is why anarchism is subjective. The one with the stronger “will” triumphs, like Kaddafi right now, in Libya. The ones with the weaker “will” are the rebels and the Crusaders. (

Go ahead, George, what were you saying? Are you feeling lucky? Dirty Shayne Harry wants to know, as does I, your humble servant.

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

There are worse things in this world than soliciting and taking advice from someone who knows a lot more about a subject than you do.

My "behavior" consisted of calling attention to your misrepresentation of libertarian anarchism, and my advice would have consisted of suggestions about how you could rewrite that part so that anarchist readers would not tune you out, as I did, when they hit page 2.

You said you were interested in what I had to say, but only under certain conditions. I was not willing to jump through hoops for the privilege of helping you write a better critique of anarchism, and that was that.

Ghs

I dispute this self-serving spin. As Peter suggests, you and I just don't see things the same way, and there doesn't seem to be any power on earth that can overcome that.

Shayne

Self-serving spin??? I made my general intentions clear earlier today in my very post on this thread. Here are the relevant parts, and I have added some italics:

Anyone who has known or worked with me over the past 40 years can tell you that I am very good at donning different thinking caps, depending on the situation. I am good at this because I have consciously worked at it, and focused on it. I am not perfect when it comes to not letting my partisan views warp my professional judgments in history and other disciplines, but I am as good at this as anyone you are likely to find in libertarian and O'st circles.

The emotionally charged environment of OL can make this difficult, especially when I am a participant in a partisan debate. But there are times when I want to take off my partisan cap and put on my scholar's cap or my historian's cap, and say, "No, this won't do." And this is how I feel about the passage I quoted above.

In short, I am willing to give you advice of the sort that a teacher would give to a student, e.g., advice on how you might make your arguments stronger...

From another post:

I have not quoted Randy's kind remarks in order to pull rank, or to suggest that I have bested you in some arguments, or anything petty like this. I have quoted them in the hope that it will help you to understand my response when, having made a sincere offer to advise you on how you might improve your article....

If you had the sense to listen to me, instead of lecturing me about "semantic" versus "true" anarchism, it might have been possible to improve your article considerably without changing your overall approach.

I don't know how I could have been more clear than this, yet you now dispute my "self-serving spin." For whatever reason, you have repeatedly misunderstood my posts today, and I am tired of getting dumped on by you for my sincere offer to assist you with that article. I rarely ask for apologies, but you owe me one.

Ghs

[sjw]

There are worse things in this world than soliciting and taking advice from someone who knows a lot more about a subject than you do.

My "behavior" consisted of calling attention to your misrepresentation of libertarian anarchism, and my advice would have consisted of suggestions about how you could rewrite that part so that anarchist readers would not tune you out, as I did, when they hit page 2.

You said you were interested in what I had to say, but only under certain conditions. I was not willing to jump through hoops for the privilege of helping you write a better critique of anarchism, and that was that.

Ghs

I dispute this self-serving spin. As Peter suggests, you and I just don't see things the same way, and there doesn't seem to be any power on earth that can overcome that.

Shayne

Self-serving spin???

I'll just address one of your points because I am trying to be nice.

I said I wasn't interested in your ad hominems. I said I was interested in your rational criticisms even if it came bundled with them. I never said anything along the lines of: "You said you were interested in what I had to say, but only under certain conditions." That is just self-serving spin.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

There are worse things in this world than soliciting and taking advice from someone who knows a lot more about a subject than you do.

My "behavior" consisted of calling attention to your misrepresentation of libertarian anarchism, and my advice would have consisted of suggestions about how you could rewrite that part so that anarchist readers would not tune you out, as I did, when they hit page 2.

You said you were interested in what I had to say, but only under certain conditions. I was not willing to jump through hoops for the privilege of helping you write a better critique of anarchism, and that was that.

Ghs

I dispute this self-serving spin. As Peter suggests, you and I just don't see things the same way, and there doesn't seem to be any power on earth that can overcome that.

Shayne

Self-serving spin???

I'll just address one of your points because I am trying to be nice.

I said I wasn't interested in your ad hominems. I said I was interested in your rational criticisms even if it came bundled with them. I never said anything along the lines of: "You said you were interested in what I had to say, but only under certain conditions." That is just self-serving spin.

Shayne

There is a lesson here for members of the OL Civility Coalition. With some people it doesn't matter how civil you try to be. Shayne invited me to comment on his article, and I replied with one criticism.

I also expressed my desire to avoid another flamewar, explaining that I was willing to give advice, based on my four decades of experience with the subject matter (anarchism), in the hope that Shayne could transform his article into something that anarchists would not regard as a joke. I stipulated, however, that I didn't want argue about my advice. Shayne could take or leave it.

What did I get in return? Did I even get a "Thanks, but no thanks"? Nope. Instead, I was accused of a number of things, including putting a self-interested spin on my own remarks, and attempting to manipulate the situation so that I could criticize Shayne but he could not respond. And why would I want to do these things?

Well, it seems that I am so menaced by Shayne's criticism of anarchism, that I view him as such a threat to my reputation, qua anarchist, in the libertarian movement, that I will do whatever is necessary to make sure he does not get a fair hearing.

I often end posts like this with a zinger, but this case is so bizarre and, in its own way, pathetic that I honestly don't know how to end it. Perhaps it is true that no good deed -- or in my case, no attempt to do a good deed -- goes unpunished.

As I have indicated before, I admire someone who goes to the trouble and expense of writing and publishing his own book in an area that I have specialized in for many years. I also sympathize with the obstacles that market intellectuals must overcome, having dealt with those obstacles myself.

I therefore decided, despite Shayne's crazy-making behavior on the "overgrown teenagers" thread, to offer a helping hand. I would have understood if he had simply declined my offer, but why he decided to put me through the ringer is beyond my comprehension.

Ghs

[sjw]

George, if you consider my ideas worthless then I don't blame you for flouncing. I do blame you for your continued bellyaching and not staying flounced -- if you're going to go, then go!

But if you think there's something of important to them then you should stop being petty, roll up your sleeves, and help sort out the lesser issues. In my opinion. The ideas are far more important than the personality issues.

For the record if someone dismisses my ideas because of some peculiarity of expression or an insult they didn't feel they deserved, then they're no less dogmatic than Peikoff. These dogmatists are not my primary priority, I'm mainly concerned about the reasonable anarchists. I am however willing to cater to the dogmatists to the extent that it's reasonable to do so.

Shayne

[Peter]

Shayne wrote:

The ideas are far more important than the personality issues.

End quote

Thunder and lightning, I wish I could follow that advice. It is difficult for me to ignore personal insults, but better thinking, writing, and reading would be the reward.

I just read a book titled, “Mariposa” by Greg Bear. In it several people take a pill for post traumatic stress disorder, but end up using a larger portion of their minds, and become geniuses. Unfortunately, too large a dose and you become a “Hannibal Lector,” brilliant, but psychopathically uncaring. I think there is a movie out right now that explores that variety of pharmaceutical.

Someone, someday may invent a Vulcan Pill, where insults are irrelevant – the search for the truth is the only thing of importance.

And love. And good food. A nice lager is equally important. But still, I think we humans seek rationality. Why else would we ask non-lovers, “What are you thinking?” rather than, “What are you feeling?”

I will now stand and watch.

Flatching (burp) but not flouncing,

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

Shayne wrote:

The ideas are far more important than the personality issues.

End quote

Thunder and lightning, I wish I could follow that advice. It is difficult for me to ignore personal insults, but better thinking, writing, and reading would be the reward.

Libertarians ought to learn to follow it and maybe they'll stop wasting their energies pulling in 20 different directions. Borrowing from Jefferson: If libertarians expect to be irrational and free, they expect what never was and never will be.

This isn't about personalities, it's not about magnanimous George giving poor old me some help. It's about the untapped power of ideas and a particular reason why they're untapped.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

George, if you consider my ideas worthless then I don't blame you for flouncing. I do blame you for your continued bellyaching and not staying flounced -- if you're going to go, then go!

I don't know whether the ideas you present in your latest article are worthless or not. I stopped reading at page 2. If they are essentially the same as the ideas you presented in the Overgrown Teenagers thread, then they are not worthless; they just don't have much to do with the minarchism/anarchism debate.

Anarchists have defended proprietary communities for a long time, so they would naturally tend to be interested in your version of this recurring theme. There may be value in it, and you might actually convince a few anarchists that a venerable anarchistic theory (i.e., the proprietary community) should be viewed as a type of governmental system instead. But anarchists have historically been very sensitive to misrepresentations of their views (e.g., as bomb-throwing terrorists), and you will be unable to gain credibility with them if you also misrepresent their views.

This is a fairly simple matter to remedy: Base your opening remarks on the positions that Rothbard and other libertarian anarchists have actually advocated, not on what you think they should have advocated.

I am sensitive to this problem partially because of the forty years I have spent battling the widespread misrepresentations of atheism by theists. As I put it in my essay "Defining Atheism," we should "consult what most atheists have really said rather than listen to uninformed critics who tell us what atheists should have said."

But if you think there's something of important to them then you should stop being petty, roll up your sleeves, and help sort out the lesser issues. In my opinion. The ideas are far more important than the personality issues.

I have had my sleeves rolled up on this issue for 40 years. And I have spent hundreds of hours with others, such as Randy Barnett, Carl Watner, and Jeff Hummel, working on the "lesser issues." But I have no interest in working with someone who shows no knowledge of what anarchists have actually advocated and who doesn't want to learn.

Would you work with someone on the "lesser issues" in your field of engineering who knew virtually nothing about the subject; and who, to make matters worse, made up his own version and berated you for not accepting and working on it? Of course you wouldn't. Suppose you offered to teach this guy some basic principles of engineering, only to be told that you are "dogmatic," and that he is only interested in working with "reasonable engineers"?

Or suppose I wrote an article on engineering (again, in whatever field you work in) in which I promise to expose its principles as worthless. You start to read the article, but on page 2 you find a summary by me of its principles that is so inaccurate as to be worthless. You then tell me that, in your professional opinion, those paragraphs should be scrapped and totally rewritten. But instead of acknowledging that you know the field far better than I do, I get indignant and attack you for not taking my ideas seriously.

You would immediately appreciate the problem here. My ideas on engineering would not count for anything, compared to yours, if I didn't take the time and go to the trouble to study engineering.

We are not talking about philosophical differences here. We are talking about accurate knowledge of hard facts.

In the field of anarchism, the issue is whether or not anarchists have, in fact, advocated the positions that you attribute to them. The answer, for the most part, is an emphatic NO. If you don't believe me, you can study the historical facts for yourself. Similarly, if I don't believe you about the principles of engineering, I can study those facts for myself.

Should I resent the fact that you present yourself as an expert (compared to me) in your field of engineering? Of course not, because this is true. So why do I get grief from you when I claim to be an expert on historical facts about anarchism? I am an expert.

For the record if someone dismisses my ideas because of some peculiarity of expression or an insult they didn't feel they deserved, then they're no less dogmatic than Peikoff. These dogmatists are not my primary priority, I'm mainly concerned about the reasonable anarchists. I am however willing to cater to the dogmatists to the extent that it's reasonable to do so.

I certainly would never dismiss your ideas because of "some peculiarity of expression or an insult." I reject your characterization of anarchism because it is wrong.

If my fictional comments on engineering were as factually inaccurate as your comments about the supposed beliefs of anarchists, you wouldn't buy your own excuse for a second. I can almost hear you now: "Peculiarity of expression, my ass! That Smith guy doesn't know zilch about engineering."

So why should I respond any differently when we are dealing in my field of expertise? Again, you may not agree with my philosophical views regarding anarchism, and that's fine. There are no "experts" in philosophy. But that is not what I am talking about here. I am talking about matters of hard fact.

Ghs

[sjw]

George, if you consider my ideas worthless then I don't blame you for flouncing. I do blame you for your continued bellyaching and not staying flounced -- if you're going to go, then go!

I don't know whether the ideas you present in your latest article are worthless or not. I stopped reading at page 2. If they are essentially the same as the ideas you presented in the Overgrown Teenagers thread, then they are not worthless; they just don't have much to do with the minarchism/anarchism debate.

Wrong George, it's an issue near to the heart of the debate, at least the debate worth having. If you want to argue that you and your buddies have been arguing irrelevancy all this time far be it from me to disagree.

“It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing, and to talk by the hour”--Thomas Jefferson

Finish the essay and then we can talk, I'm not interested in any more yammering on meta issues here from someone who has no idea what he is criticizing.

Shayne

-"Just the facts, ma'am"

[George H. Smith]

George, if you consider my ideas worthless then I don't blame you for flouncing. I do blame you for your continued bellyaching and not staying flounced -- if you're going to go, then go!

I don't know whether the ideas you present in your latest article are worthless or not. I stopped reading at page 2. If they are essentially the same as the ideas you presented in the Overgrown Teenagers thread, then they are not worthless; they just don't have much to do with the minarchism/anarchism debate.

Wrong George, it's an issue near to the heart of the debate, at least the debate worth having. If you want to argue that you and your buddies have been arguing irrelevancy all this time far be it from me to disagree.

“It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing, and to talk by the hour”--Thomas Jefferson

Finish the essay and then we can talk, I'm not interested in any more yammering on meta issues here from someone who has no idea what he is criticizing.

Shayne

-"Just the facts, ma'am"

Why should I read an essay on anarchism by someone who knows as much about anarchism as I know about engineering? I have no interest in talking to people who know nothing about a field. I offered to give you some professional advice about how not to look like a ignoramus when you discuss anarchism. You ignored my advice, which it fine with me.

As for reading more -- I don't need to plow through an entire mountain of shit to know that I am in shit. If page 2 stinks, then I am in shit -- and I have no interest in burrowing through more shit so we can chat about how much your shit stinks.

Reason and civility got me nowhere with you -- Surprise, surprise! -- so now you can whine that I have insulted you, and you can use this as an excuse for not even attempting to deal with the points I raised.

You passed up a rare opportunity here. I was serious, and I really did have some good suggestions, based on what I had previously read by you, about how you could rework your material to make a truly decent article, one that would receive serious attention by anarchists.

I will probably write that article myself. I am not exaggerating when I say that it could equal or surpass in importance my earlier articles on Justice Entrepreneurship (published in JLS). And those articles are widely regarded as landmarks in modern libertarian thought.

Ghs

[sjw]

I will probably write that article myself.

Interesting.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I will probably write that article myself.

Interesting.

Shayne

Here is some background:

1. In 1997, I wrote a 60-page, final draft overview of anarchism from a philosophical and historical perspective. I submitted this to a publisher, suggesting that it would make a good lead essay for an anthology on anarchism; I was to be the editor and to choose the other contributors.

The publisher was very interested, but they wouldn't put up any money for an advance, and this made the project infeasible not only for me but also for some of the other contributors I had approached.

2. Early this year, while reviewing old computer files for the first CD-R of my Files Project (i.e., the sale of the files on my hard drive), I found a bunch of unpublished stuff on anarchism and minarchism, much of which I had forgotten about. One of the most interesting items was a five part "Critique of Anarchism" that I had written as part of a tutorial in 2003.

In this Devil's Advocate outline of arguments, I drew on previous notes and thinking from a period of 20 years and came up with a "refutation" of anarchism which, though rather technical, I regarded as better than any real critique that I had ever read. I posted the first part of this outline, which is only a sketch of some methodological preliminaries, on OL, and it can be found here.

Upon reading the other four parts, I realized what an interesting article this would make if fleshed out, given how original my approach was. It deals a lot with the problem of landownership, but from a much different perspective than you take; even so, it occurred to me that there might be some overlap.

The obvious difficulty of writing the material up myself is that I would be defending a position (minarchism) that I don't agree with, in the final analysis. But it also occurred to me that I could write an article in which I explore the weakest points of both sides in the anarchism/minarchism controversy.

A source of frustration over the years has been the scarcity of effective proponents for minarchism. I got very discouraged with that online debate years ago, as I watched two O'ists retreat into what I regard as highly dangerous positions, philosophically speaking, including the claim that rights would not exist in a "state of nature" without government. Rights, according to these O'ists, emerge only after a legitimate government has been established. I described this argument that supposedly shows how rights presuppose a government as "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Anarchism may be defeated thereby, but only at the price of fatally undercutting Rand's political theory.

I have often said, and I still believe, that the real value of the anarchist/minarchist debate is heuristic. That is to say, by focusing our attention on some key problems in political theory (e.g., the problem of sovereignty), it compels libertarian philosophers to squarely face and resolve the truly tough problems that have haunted our predecessors for 400 years. But what I observed instead was a retreat by O'ists from Locke to Hobbes -- an absolute disaster.

The article I mentioned, as presently conceived, would attempt to use the insights provided by both anarchism and minarchism to strengthen libertarian theory overall.

Ghs

[sjw]

In this Devil's Advocate outline of arguments, I drew on previous notes and thinking from a period of 20 years and came up with a "refutation" of anarchism which, though rather technical, I regarded as better than any real critique that I had ever read. I posted the first part of this outline, which is only a sketch of some methodological preliminaries, on OL, and it can be found here.

How you define your terms determines which one violates rights. If one defines minarchy as Rand has defined it, then it violates the right to self-government. Since this is the traditional definition, and for an additional reason, I do not call myself a "minarchist." Per the terms of the debate as defined, minarchism violates rights.

Anarch*y* violates no one's rights. That's just a state of no government.

It is impossible to say whether a particular variant of anarchism violates rights without specifying what it is going to do to a rights-respecting government that naturally emerges. In my experience, many anarchists' anarchism would permit this government to emerge, hence their anarchism does not violate rights.

So, unless you want an uninteresting article, you need to be arguing with my theory of government, not with the conceptually anemic minarchism as it has been defined. Speaking of that:

A source of frustration over the years has been the scarcity of effective proponents for minarchism. I got very discouraged with that online debate years ago, as I watched two O'ists retreat into what I regard as highly dangerous positions, philosophically speaking, including the claim that rights would not exist in a "state of nature" without government. Rights, according to these O'ists, emerge only after a legitimate government has been established. I described this argument that supposedly shows how rights presuppose a government as "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Anarchism may be defeated thereby, but only at the price of fatally undercutting Rand's political theory.

I wouldn't call it throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I'd call it deranged. Such a person has completely missed the important parts of Rand. Are they even worth talking to? IMO they should be shamed and sent on their way.

Shayne

[sjw]

This is a fairly simple matter to remedy: Base your opening remarks on the positions that Rothbard and other libertarian anarchists have actually advocated, not on what you think they should have advocated.

I am sensitive to this problem partially because of the forty years I have spent battling the widespread misrepresentations of atheism by theists. As I put it in my essay "Defining Atheism," we should "consult what most atheists have really said rather than listen to uninformed critics who tell us what atheists should have said."

To some extent this is a fair criticism, so thanks.

I can do something about this in spelling out better what I am up to, but I can't do exactly what you want. The methodology of the essay is precisely NOT to make a laundry list of various and sundry (and with respect to each other, contradictory) anarchists views and refute each one in turn. I have considered adding, as a kind of appendix, a refutation of particular important cases, but so far I have not seen a need for this.

What I have discerned in anarchism is two themes: the "true" anarchism theme and the "semantic" anarchism theme. No particular anarchist is going to belong to either in a pure sense, but his ideas are represented in each. These two themes are central to anarchism and therefore central to the essay.

What would be useful is to find that I have missed some case not covered by either of these themes, or flaws in particular arguments within each theme. It is not relevant whether or not each theme doesn't perfectly fit every anarchist because that is not the point.

Also, I can do a better job introducing this concept in the essay.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

So, unless you want an uninteresting article, you need to be arguing with my theory of government, not with the conceptually anemic minarchism as it has been defined. Speaking of that:

Then I guess I will have to write an uninteresting article.

Gotta go. Should I ever run into an anarchist who believes in what you call anarchism, I will refer him to your article. Maybe he will make it past page 2.

Ghs

[sjw]

So, unless you want an uninteresting article, you need to be arguing with my theory of government, not with the conceptually anemic minarchism as it has been defined. Speaking of that:

Then I guess I will have to write an uninteresting article.

Gotta go. Should I ever run into an anarchist who believes in what you call anarchism, I will refer him to your article. Maybe he will make it past page 2.

Ghs

Well I'm going to do personal therapy sessions for each particular variant of anarchism I should probably charge...

Shayne

[sjw]

Speaking of psychologizing...

Notice how George latches on to every possible thing I say that he can take in a negative light, and then throws up a lot of dust and noise over it, while at the same time ignoring anything that a normal person might recognize as positive. Notice any parallels with how anarchists view government?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Speaking of psychologizing...

Notice how George latches on to every possible thing I say that he can take in a negative light, and then throws up a lot of dust and noise over it, while at the same time ignoring anything that a normal person might recognize as positive. Notice any parallels with how anarchists view government?

Shayne

Yeah, we anarchists are so damned critical of governments. I guess we need a serious attitude adjustment. Then we can join in singing the praises of government that are heard so often on OL. That's what I hate about this list; all we hear from those minarchists, day after day, is how wonderful governments are.

Okay, all you anarchists out there -- and this includes you, JR --let's sing along! A one and a two....

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/f3jdbFOidds?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Don't you all feel better now? Don't you all feel warm and fuzzy towards your government? Don't you just want to give Obama a big hug and say, "We love you, Mr. President!"

Ghs