Against Anarchism

[George H. Smith]

The proper definition is that government exists in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference.

Oh, really? Have fascistic governments existed "in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference"? Does your definition fit communistic governments? How about fundamentalist Islamic governments?

You gotta love people who define "government" with no reference to the real world. Perhaps we could define other institutions with your method. Let's see...How shall I define the institutions known as "churches?"

Well, it would be nice if churches existed in order to foster rational thinking, (just as it would be nice if governments defended individual liberty), so I will define "church" as a place where people go, often on Sundays, to engage in rational thinking.

This wishful thinking works for me! I think I will define "bank" next, since I have often fantasized about a bank that will give me all the money I want.

Ghs

He simply should have put what kind of government down. He obviously means some kind of "right" government.

--Brant

Yeah, I figured as much, but I know from experience that I need to get Shayne to be very specific about things. In case you haven't noticed, he has a tendency to twist and turn a lot when he bumps up against a difficult point.

My query about what percentage (roughly) of real governments have been proper governments will lead to an interesting discussion, provided Shayne chooses to answer it. But I won't hold my breath.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Only one real government, George, but I'm not telling. (I may want to move there.)

--Brant

I talk for cash

[caroljane]

Only one real government, George, but I'm not telling. (I may want to move there.)

--Brant

I talk for cash

Somehow I do not think you mean Canada.

The Isle of Man?

[jriggenbach]

In the California prison system, cell phones were, and are, being smuggled in by union prison guards to be sold for $1,000 per cell phone to convicted murderers and drug dealers who continue to run their enterprises from their cells.

One guard made $150,000 last year by smuggling in the phones. He was, when he was discovered, merely fired. No criminal prosecution because the union is one of the strongest in California.

What "enterprises" are "convicted murderers" continuing to run from their cells?

Why should a guard be prosecuted for supplying a cel phone to a willing customer? Are we endorsing the laws against drug dealing (working as an unlicensed pharmacist) here?

And I assume you mean, judging from your usual posts, that government is to be feared unless it's run by Republicans.

JR

[George H. Smith]

Only one real government, George, but I'm not telling. (I may want to move there.)

--Brant

I talk for cash

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the percentage of real governments in history with a "proper purpose" is 00.01. This would mean that 99.99 percent of real governments have not had a proper purpose and were therefore not proper governments.

Given this low percentage of proper governments, on what basis can we take the extremely rare characteristic of protecting rights and proclaim it to be the only proper purpose of a government? This strikes me as a peculiar way of selecting an essential characteristic.

What if no government in history ever had a proper purpose? Would we insist that a non-existent characteristic (protecting rights) should be regarded as the essential characteristic of a proper government? At what point, if any, should we simply conclude that the institution known as "government" has no necessary relationship to protecting rights at all? Or has this possibility been ruled out in advance?

Ghs

[jriggenbach]

What if no government in history ever had a proper purpose? Would we still insist that a non-existent characteristic should be regarded as the essential characteristic of a proper government? At what point, if any, should we simply conclude that the institution known as "government" has no necessary relationship to protecting rights at all? Or has this possibility been ruled out in advance?

I think you know that it has.

JR

[Peter]

George wrote:

You are not an O'ist, so probably believe in the moral legitimacy of coercive taxation. But the anarchist/minarchist debate is a battle between two ideals, and one of those is the O'ist ideal of a government that lacks the power to tax.

End quote

And George wrote:

My query about what percentage (roughly) of real governments have been proper governments will lead to an interesting discussion, provided Shayne chooses to answer it. But I won't hold my breath.

end quote

There you go again, George. Taxation is evil. Shayne can speak for himself but . . .

Now, you were earlier, insisting on a strict definition of “Government”, so let me regress and nit-pick too. If coercive or “reluctant” or even “mostly agreeable” taxation is the moral killer of a government’s legitimacy, then tax-free Saudi Arabia COULD BE an anarchist’s legitimate ideal. There is more to a government’s legitimacy than taxation, as with the United States Constitution.

We do pay our taxes with the least resistance of all the countries in the civilized world. But nothing is exempt from the law of identity. A man-made product did not have to exist, but, once made, it does exist. A man’s actions did not have to be performed, but once performed, they are completed. Man’s volition gives him great, but not unlimited latitude to change his character; but if he does change, by golly, the change becomes a fact.

The existing fact of compulsory taxation does not mean that the burden cannot be lessened, or that the rate cannot be changed, because it has changed in the past. Nor does existing, compulsory taxation mean that eventually a Government cannot be financed through voluntary taxation, or even more likely by tolls, i.e., paying for services rendered.

Americans are a unique group of people. At its inception we created the only moral system of government to have ever existed. You declare the United States is immoral because of cohesive taxation. Balderdash. Ayn Rand wrote of the US “You have preserved the spirit of those original founding principles and you are their symbol. There were contradictions and omissions in those principles, and there may be in yours - but I am speaking of the essentials.”

An Objectivist Government or modern Tea Party Movement must address the Constitution and rewrite portions of it and add some crucial amendments to it, like The Repeal Amendment where any law, rule, regulation, or tax passed by Congress can be repealed upon a vote of two-thirds of state legislatures. .

When we do change the Constitution, we must keep one principle as an absolute.“There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement. Or, to put it another way, he must accept ‘the separation of force and whim’ (any whim including his own). Such in essence is the proper purpose of a Government: to make social existence possible to men, by protecting the benefits and combating the evils which men can cause to one another.” AYN Rand.

This absolute principle of renouncing the use of physical force requires funding. How will voluntary funding pay for Government functions, general military and police readiness and pay for a military build-up and war? Ayn Rand wrote: ‘The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing – how to determine the best means of applying it in practice – is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law.’

This is an area to which the experts will provide the solution, George. Voluntary financing will be one of the last changes implemented by an Objectivist/Tea Party Government, but it is a NECESSARY moral obligation and it can be accomplished.

Don’t piss your life away.

Fight for your rights. Fight for a better government.

Brothers and sisters, stand your ground!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Live long and prosper,

Peter Taylor

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

Taxation

In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing—how to determine the best means of applying it in practice—is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.

Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future.

What the advocates of a fully free society have to know, at present, is only the principle by which that goal can be achieved.

The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the following premises: that the government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income—that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion. Consequently, the principle of voluntary government financing regards the government as the servant, not the ruler, of the citizens—as an agent who must be paid for his services, not as a benefactor whose services are gratuitous, who dispenses something for nothing.

End quote

In the words of Ayn Rand, rights are "the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context-the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics." (Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness, paperback edition, p. 92.)

[George H. Smith]

What if no government in history ever had a proper purpose? Would we still insist that a non-existent characteristic should be regarded as the essential characteristic of a proper government? At what point, if any, should we simply conclude that the institution known as "government" has no necessary relationship to protecting rights at all? Or has this possibility been ruled out in advance?

I think you know that it has.

JR

Yes, and that makes two of us.

Back to my earlier church example. If we can find a church or two in history that has promoted rational thinking (and this would not be difficult), then why can't we say that the proper purpose of a church is to promote rational thinking? Then we can conclude that 99.99 percent of real churches throughout history have not been proper churches.

So what is wrong with this reasoning?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Following are two excerpts from a lengthy three-part article, "The Ethics of Voting," that I published in The Voluntaryist in 1982. These sections are reasonably self-contained. I am posting them here in order to save myself the trouble of explaining some of these things later, as I develop my argument about the relevance of real governments to the anarchist/minarchist debate. You can find the entire text here.

6. The Modern State

“To really understand the State,” wrote the anarchist Peter Kropotkin, one must “study it in its historical development” (The State: Its Historic Role, Haldeman-Julius, 1947, p. 7). This historical perspective teaches us that the State is a designed institution; it was forcibly imposed to accomplish specific objectives. By understanding these objectives, which have since become institutionalized, we are better able to understand the structure and internal functioning of States existing today. When we examine the division of labor within a factory, it helps to know what the factory was designed to produce. Similarly, when we examine the State, it is vital to know the purpose(s) that generated this complex and massive association. States have varied considerably in their structure and jurisdiction, but all of them fit the description by Franz Oppenheimer in The State (Vanguard, 1926). Oppenheimer distinguishes two basic methods of acquiring wealth: the economic means (labor and voluntary exchange) and the political means (“the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others”). This leads to a succinct description: “The state is an organization of the political means” (p. 27).

The State, for Oppenheimer, is organized theft—a method of systematic plunder. This is true but incomplete. The State is a union of thieves, but not all such unions are States. State theft is distinguished by being legitimized, i.e., its coercive actions are generally regarded by the subject population as morally and/or legally proper. This feature is emphasized by Max Weber in his classic discussion of the modern State:

A ruling organization will be called “political” insofar as its existence and order is continuously safeguarded within a given territorial area by the threat and application of physical force on the part of the administrative staff. A compulsory political organization with continuous operations will be called a “state” insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order. (

Economy and Society

, Univ. of California Press, 1978, 1, p. 54).

This harmonizes with the notion of the State employed by libertarians in the debate between minarchism and anarchism. For example, Ayn Rand—perhaps the foremost proponent of minarchism—defines “government” as “an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.” (The Virtue of Selfishness, New American Library, p. 107).

“A given geographical area”—this allusion to territorial sovereignty recurs throughout the libertarian debates on the legitimacy of government. Although this is important, it is usually overlooked that territorial jurisdiction is a feature not of all States (or governments) throughout history, but of what historians refer to as “the modern State.” This does not mean that such States did not exist before the modern era: the ancient Greek city-states exercised territorial sovereignty, as did the Han Empire of China and the Roman Empire. But the modern States of Western Europe, which were to become models of State-building throughout the world (England and France were especially influential), were not extensions of the ancient world; they developed from the successful, and often brutal, centralization of power by monarchs during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. (The origin of this trend can be traced back even further—perhaps to 1100, according to Joseph Strayer, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State, Princeton, 1970.)

Historians generally regard the sixteenth century as pivotal in the development of the modern State. It was during this period that monarchs began to dominate rival claimants to power (especially the nobility and church). The march to territorial sovereignty accelerated its bloody pace. “The state-makers,” as Charles Tilly notes, “only imposed their wills on the populace through centuries of ruthless effort.”

The effort took many forms: creating distinct staffs dependent on the crown and loyal to it; making those staffs (armies and bureaucrats alike) reliable, effective instruments of policy; blending coercion, co-optation and legitimation as means of guaranteeing the acquiescence of different segments of the populations; acquiring sound information about the country, its people and its resources; promoting economic activities which would free or create resources for the use of the state . . . . Ultimately, the people paid. (

The Formation of National States in Western Europe

, ed. Charles Tilly, Princeton, 1975, p. 24.)

The American State was also designed, though under different conditions than those in Europe. As part of the British Empire, the colonies were subject to colonial administration. Under the aegis of Robert Walpole, however, the colonies enjoyed a lengthy period of “salutary neglect” wherein mercantilist regulations were loosely enforced, if at all. When this lax policy ended in 1763—owing to the crushing financial burden incurred by Britain during the Seven Years War—the English found enforcement to be extremely difficult. Lax policies, plus the difficulty of governing from thousands of miles away, had permitted the colonists to evolve their own systems of local government which hindered centralization. A system of “competing governments” arose which prevented either side from attaining complete domination.

This changed with the successful completion of the American Revolution. Revolutions, however just, have unintended consequences of considerable magnitude. Two consequences of the American Revolution are important here: first, debts incurred during the war convinced many of the need for a centralized government with taxing power; second, with the British eliminated, there was no effective brake on the formation of a national State. The major competitor had been kicked out, and the field was clear for those who desired a State, provided it was not the British State.

But a new State (especially one born in revolution against monarchy) faced the considerable problem of legitimacy. A solution was readily found in a written Constitution authorized by “the people.” (We needn’t examine that fraud here.) Thus came into being one of the first modern “power maps” or “manifestoes of nationalism,” to use the apt phrases of Ivo Duchacek (Power Maps: Comparative Politics of Constitutions, American Bibliographic Center, 1973).

The national government maintained its territorial sovereignty (over a growing amount of territory) without serious internal challenge until the Civil War. Sectional conflict between the North and South had erupted long before this, of course, but the political dominance of the Democratic Party (which enjoyed support from both sides) prevented an open break. This unified support disintegrated, however, in the 1850s, largely thanks to Stephen Douglas and his support of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

A badly divided Democratic Party lost the presidency to the Republicans in 1860; and the deep South seceded in response to the ascension of a sectional candidate to the presidency. Lincoln, an ex-Whig, was thoroughly imbued with nationalist doctrines; and this president who would not have made war to liberate slaves was—nonetheless willing to wage war in order to “preserve the union.” (“Secession,” as Lincoln correctly said, “is the essence of anarchy.”) The Fort Sumter incident provoked other southern states to join the Confederacy, and thus began the bloodiest conflict in American history. Some 600,000 people lost their lives in this titanic struggle between two States, each attempting to establish sovereignty. The most significant chapter in American State-building was written with the blood of thousands.

We see that, however modern States differ in the details of their origin, and however they differ in the extent of their power, all share a common design. All were explicitly intended to establish territorial sovereignty. All insist that they are the final arbiters in matters pertaining to law within a given geographical area. (The scope of the law varies dramatically, of course, from State to State.) All States proclaim compulsory jurisdiction: a person is regarded as subject to the State, with or without his consent, as long as he resides in or is passing through a certain area (land, sea, or air). This territorial sovereignty is the foundation of all other State activities.

This historical digression is an important ingredient in developing an institutional analysis of the State. The State is a designed institution, forcibly imposed. State-builders had specific objectives in mind, foremost of which was to secure territorial sovereignty. The internal structure of the State was dictated (and continues its evolution today) with sovereignty foremost in mind. Virtually all functions of government—a standing army, an internal police, a monopolistic judiciary, a ruthless taxing power, public schools, etc.—may be seen as supports for the monopolization of power....

8. “Invasive Per Se”: The Minarchist-Anarchist Debate

The core of anarchism is the claim that the State is necessarily invasive, or invasive per se. This is also the point of contention between anarchism and minarchism. If the basic institutional purpose of the State is one which could be accomplished by voluntary means, then the State is not necessarily invasive. If one were to argue (however implausibly) that the institutional purpose of the State is to deliver mail, then the fact that existing States use invasive means (taxation and a coercive monopoly) to provide this service would have no direct bearing on the theoretical question of whether invasive means must be employed to accomplish this goal. A totally voluntary mail service could be established; and if mail delivery is the defining characteristic of the State, then we have the theoretical possibility of a “voluntary State.” In this view, one could push for the elimination of the invasive aspects of the current government until it is pared down to its “proper” function of mail delivery. If we substitute “defense of individual rights” for “mail delivery” (one is as arbitrary as the other), we have the minarchist argument for the possibility of a non-invasive State.

The anarchist rejects the argument that the basic institutional purpose of the State is one which could theoretically be achieved by voluntary means. The anarchist considers the fundamental purpose of the State to be territorial sovereignty, and this is inherently invasive. Beginning with the libertarian prohibition of invasive acts, the anarchist adds the insight that the State is invasive per se—i.e., it must commit invasive acts to fulfill its basic purpose. When the nonaggression premise is applied to this view of the State, the consequence is a total rejection of the State on libertarian grounds. Thus, as I argued in Part One, anarchism is more than libertarianism. Anarchism is the nonaggression axiom combined with a particular view of the State—a view that relies on institutional analysis.

The minarchist-anarchist debate revolves around the essential (or defining) purpose of government. Minarchists assert that the “proper” function of government is defense of individual rights, broadly conceived (police, military, and judicial system). But it is unclear what “proper” means here. If it means “morally proper”—i.e., the State cannot legitimately exceed these boundaries—then no anarchist will disagree. No institution, by whatever name we call it, may properly violate rights. But why the State should be the focus of defense remains a puzzle. Minarchists must show that States were designed (in a substantial number of cases) with the defense of rights as a fundamental purpose. Unfortunately for them, history does not smile on this thesis. Territorial sovereignty was clearly the purpose leading to the organization and consolidation of modern States. This required a monopoly of legitimized coercion to eliminate potential competitors or those opposed to sovereignty altogether. The State’s monopoly on the means of coercion left it little choice but to provide a semblance of defense for its subject. The provision of these “services” plays an important role in legitimizing State rule (to preserve “law and order”), without which mass compliance would be difficult to achieve....

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Only one real government, George, but I'm not telling. (I may want to move there.)

--Brant

I talk for cash

Somehow I do not think you mean Canada.

The Isle of Man?

I didn't know my homosexuality was so obvious. Seriously, boy toys are fine as far as they go and for what you can do, but a woman has much better and more varied equipment, including that primary organ, the brain. And no matter how much you push and pull, you can't get milk out of a bull. ("We don't have a cow.")

--Brant

dazed and confused--you did that to me

[Selene]

Thanks JR;

"In the California prison system, cell phones were, and are, being smuggled in by union prison guards to be sold for $1,000 per cell phone to a convicted murderer who was allegedly tormenting his victim's family, and several drug dealers and gang leaders who continued to run their enterprises from their cells."

I am not an advocate of our central government being run by either Democrats or Republicans.

In an ideal setting no government is preferred.

In a non-ideal setting, a government approaching zero interference in a citizen's action wherein he does not initiate force is workable.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

Edited March 26, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Peter]

George wrote:

“. . . as I develop my argument about the relevance of real governments . . .

but you also wrote in 1997:

Although it is sometime useful to distinguish between the meanings of "State" and "government," such distinctions are irrelevant to the present discussion, so I shall use the terms interchangeably. Following the classic discussion of the sociologist and historian Max Weber, I shall define the "State" as a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."

End quote

Is a distinction irrelevant to the current discussion, George?

Excerpts from:

IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM

Copyright George H. Smith (november 1997)

I call this rational anarchism, because it is grounded in the belief that we are fully capable, through reason, of discerning the principles of justice; and that we are capable, through rational persuasion and voluntary agreement, of establishing whatever institutions are necessary for the preservation and enforcement of justice. It is precisely because no government can be established by means of reason and mutual consent that all Objectivists should reject that institution as unjust in both theory and practice . . . .

End quote

So why can’t rational people through reason, establish whatever institutions are necessary for the preservation and enforcement of justice? I trust Thomas Jefferson and John Adams over George and some other anarchistic irrationalist, to do just that. And any one or two anarchists will be battling other anarchists for sovereignty and that is just observation, not psychologizing.

Quote

Likewise, an activity, if moral when pursued by a government, is equally moral when pursued by someone else. All this should be obvious to those who agree with the principles put forth by Ayn Rand. If, therefore, the principles of justice are objective (i.e., knowable to human reason), then a government can no more claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force than it can claim a monopoly on reason . . . .

End quote

That is illogical. A million citizens. Would 50 percent be rational? That’s a half million voices of reason. 100 anarchists. Who knows what percent are rational. There are probably 10 *Rational Anarchists* for every 90 *bomb throwing anarchistic nihilists.* There is no positively known number of voices of reason in any group, but I can guarantee the odds are that anarchist voices will be raised in anger and frustration that their will is being thwarted.

Quote

If, however, justice is neither subjective nor intrinsic, but instead is objective - i.e., if it can be derived by rational methods from the facts of man's nature and the requirements of social existence - then the principles of justice are knowable to every rational person. This means that no person, group of persons, association, or institution whether known as "government," "State," or by any other name - can rightfully claim a legal monopoly in matters pertaining to justice . . . .

End quote

“Knowable to every rational person,” says George. We are not all rational. The monopoly of government as the “final arbiter” in matters of justice is rational, since you can’t point to your anarchist society which has never been and will never be by your following admission.

Quote

I don't defend anarchism because I ever expect to see an anarchist society. (An anarchist America is almost as unlikely as an Objectivist America.) But I do think we can effectively combat statism with the right intellectual ammunition, and this includes the total repudiation of political sovereignty in favor of individual rights and voluntary institutions.

End quote

I am working towards an Objective government and I can get closer to that in the elections of 2012 and 2014 and onwards. At the same time, from George’s point of view I am working towards Anarchy. so what‘s his beef? He says he never expects to see an anarchist society, so why not work openly for an Objective Government? Its on the way to YOUR unachievable Never Never Land.

George wrote in"The Ethics of Voting,"

Anarchism is the nonaggression axiom combined with a particular view of the State—a view that relies on institutional analysis.

End quote

Says you. But JR, or Adam, or Dan or every other anarchist in existence may disagree and they are fully capable through reason in divining justice according to you. Well- the Hell's Angels, Outlaws, Mafia and other anarchist associations may disagree with you in Anarchist Distopia.

I will read your latest excerpt more thoroughly tomorrow, George. I am missing "Fringe."

Perplexed,

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

George wrote:

“. . . as I develop my argument about the relevance of real governments . . .

but you also wrote in 1997:

Although it is sometime useful to distinguish between the meanings of "State" and "government," such distinctions are irrelevant to the present discussion, so I shall use the terms interchangeably. Following the classic discussion of the sociologist and historian Max Weber, I shall define the "State" as a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."

End quote

Is a distinction irrelevant to the current discussion, George?

Probably not.

Ghs

[caroljane]

Only one real government, George, but I'm not telling. (I may want to move there.)

--Brant

I talk for cash

Somehow I do not think you mean Canada.

The Isle of Man?

I didn't know my homosexuality was so obvious. Seriously, boy toys are fine as far as they go and for what you can do, but a woman has much better and more varied equipment, including that primary organ, the brain. And no matter how much you push and pull, you can't get milk out of a bull. ("We don't have a cow.")

--Brant

dazed and confused--you did that to me

While you are reeling I can't resist one of my fave Little Johnny stories, brought to mind by Ghs's mute one. It has nothing do do with anarchism but does reference cows.

Little Johnny tells his teacher that he can't come to school the next day when there will be an important test. The teacher expostulates. What is so important that it can't wait till the weekend?

"Honest Teach, I hafta go. I gotta take our cow Daisy over to Farmer Green's to get served by the bull. We need calves and it's the only day he'll take her."

"But surely Johnny, your father could do that!"

"Well, yeah..I guess he could...but not as good as the bull!"

[George H. Smith]

It has nothing [t]o do with anarchism but does reference cows.

Every once in a while I encounter a sentence that I suspect has never been written before in the history of humankind. It has nothing to do with anarchism but does reference cows is one of those sentences.

Ghs

[caroljane]

It has nothing [t]o do with anarchism but does reference cows.

Every once in a while I encounter a sentence that I suspect has never been written before in the history of humankind. It has nothing to do with anarchism but does reference cows is one of those sentences.

Ghs

Thanks George,I sure hope it hasn't. They are touchy about plagiary on this site.

[caroljane]

Only one real government, George, but I'm not telling. (I may want to move there.)

--Brant

I talk for cash

Somehow I do not think you mean Canada.

The Isle of Man?

I didn't know my homosexuality was so obvious. Seriously, boy toys are fine as far as they go and for what you can do, but a woman has much better and more varied equipment, including that primary organ, the brain. And no matter how much you push and pull, you can't get milk out of a bull. ("We don't have a cow.")

--Brant

dazed and confused--you did that to me

Brant, I am sorry my Manx reference was taken in a way I did not intend. I wasn't even thinking about the Manx tailless cats, or anything.

The Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey also have huge autonomy and nearly no taxes and a lot of freedom and of, well, cows.

[sjw]

Btw, roughly how many real governments in history have been proper governments, in your judgment? More than ten? More than fifty?

Let's just say for sake of argument that 0% have been proper, that the best that's ever happened is that people imagined

their government to be trying to fulfill a proper role (however incompetently), but in fact it never really was trying, ergo the 0%.

Now let me ask you a question. How often have you actually been rational, as opposed to merely proclaiming that you are? 20% of the time? 10%? 0%?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Btw, roughly how many real governments in history have been proper governments, in your judgment? More than ten? More than fifty?

Let's just say for sake of argument that 0% have been proper, that the best that's ever happened is that people imagined

their government to be trying to fulfill a proper role (however incompetently), but in fact it never really was trying, ergo the 0%.

Now let me ask you a question. How often have you actually been rational, as opposed to merely proclaiming that you are? 20% of the time? 10%? 0%?

Shayne

When did I ever proclaim that I am rational? That is a rumor that has been circulating about me for a long time, a rumor that I can neither conform nor deny.

Okay, according to your estimate, 0.00 percent of real governments have been proper governments.

Suppose we agree that we need some kind of institution to protect rights. My problem is why you picked the institution of government for this honor, if no real government has ever actually protected rights or even attempted to protect rights.

Your choice of government as the institution that should protect rights is completely arbitrary -- indeed, counter-productive -- given the above. Why did the institution of government get this job when real governments have been the greatest violators of rights? Why not pick, say, the Mafia and arbitrarily declare that the "proper" purpose of the Mafia is to protect rights?

Ghs

[sjw]

Okay, according to your estimate, 0.00 percent of real governments have been proper governments.

Suppose we agree that we need some kind of institution to protect rights. My problem is why you picked the institution of government for this honor, if no real government has ever actually protected rights or even attempted to protect rights.

Your choice of government as the institution that should protect rights is completely arbitrary -- indeed, counter-productive -- given the above. Why did the institution of government get this job when real governments have been the greatest violators of rights? Why not pick, say, the Mafia and arbitrarily declare that the "proper" purpose of the Mafia is to protect rights?

Ghs

Suppose that 0% of the moral codes have been proper moral codes. You now create a new system that identifies the principles that govern proper behavior. Do you call it a moral code? Or do you call it amoralism?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Okay, according to your estimate, 0.00 percent of real governments have been proper governments.

Suppose we agree that we need some kind of institution to protect rights. My problem is why you picked the institution of government for this honor, if no real government has ever actually protected rights or even attempted to protect rights.

Your choice of government as the institution that should protect rights is completely arbitrary -- indeed, counter-productive -- given the above. Why did the institution of government get this job when real governments have been the greatest violators of rights? Why not pick, say, the Mafia and arbitrarily declare that the "proper" purpose of the Mafia is to protect rights?

Ghs

Suppose that 0% of the moral codes have been proper moral codes. You now create a new system that identifies the principles that govern proper behavior. Do you call it a moral code? Or do you call it amoralism?

Shayne

Are you willing to answer my question? If not, please say so explicitly. Then we can move on to something else, such as moral codes.

Ghs

[sjw]

Okay, according to your estimate, 0.00 percent of real governments have been proper governments.

Suppose we agree that we need some kind of institution to protect rights. My problem is why you picked the institution of government for this honor, if no real government has ever actually protected rights or even attempted to protect rights.

Your choice of government as the institution that should protect rights is completely arbitrary -- indeed, counter-productive -- given the above. Why did the institution of government get this job when real governments have been the greatest violators of rights? Why not pick, say, the Mafia and arbitrarily declare that the "proper" purpose of the Mafia is to protect rights?

Ghs

Suppose that 0% of the moral codes have been proper moral codes. You now create a new system that identifies the principles that govern proper behavior. Do you call it a moral code? Or do you call it amoralism?

Shayne

Are you willing to answer my question? If not, please say so explicitly. Then we can move on to something else, such as moral codes.

Ghs

I thought I told you to stop being thick-headed? My answer is quite clear already.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Okay, according to your estimate, 0.00 percent of real governments have been proper governments.

Suppose we agree that we need some kind of institution to protect rights. My problem is why you picked the institution of government for this honor, if no real government has ever actually protected rights or even attempted to protect rights.

Your choice of government as the institution that should protect rights is completely arbitrary -- indeed, counter-productive -- given the above. Why did the institution of government get this job when real governments have been the greatest violators of rights? Why not pick, say, the Mafia and arbitrarily declare that the "proper" purpose of the Mafia is to protect rights?

Ghs

Suppose that 0% of the moral codes have been proper moral codes. You now create a new system that identifies the principles that govern proper behavior. Do you call it a moral code? Or do you call it amoralism?

Shayne

Are you willing to answer my question? If not, please say so explicitly. Then we can move on to something else, such as moral codes.

Ghs

I thought I told you to stop being thick-headed? My answer is quite clear already.

Shayne

It is not clear to me, so please explain it. Or quote from the post where you do explain it.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Btw, roughly how many real governments in history have been proper governments, in your judgment? More than ten? More than fifty?

Let's just say for sake of argument that 0% have been proper, that the best that's ever happened is that people imagined

their government to be trying to fulfill a proper role (however incompetently), but in fact it never really was trying, ergo the 0%.

Now let me ask you a question. How often have you actually been rational, as opposed to merely proclaiming that you are? 20% of the time? 10%? 0%?

Shayne

When did I ever proclaim that I am rational? That is a rumor that has been circulating about me for a long time, a rumor that I can neither conform nor deny.

Okay, according to your estimate, 0.00 percent of real governments have been proper governments.

Suppose we agree that we need some kind of institution to protect rights. My problem is why you picked the institution of government for this honor, if no real government has ever actually protected rights or even attempted to protect rights.

Your choice of government as the institution that should protect rights is completely arbitrary -- indeed, counter-productive -- given the above. Why did the institution of government get this job when real governments have been the greatest violators of rights? Why not pick, say, the Mafia and arbitrarily declare that the "proper" purpose of the Mafia is to protect rights?

Ghs

That Mafia doesn't want the job. Another gang's got it--a much bigger, badder gang.

--Brant

what to do is the real question, not should we pick this or pick that and we all be happy just being rational up in the clouds