Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[sjw]

On my theory of government, the smallest unit of government is in fact the home (or other unit of owned land). The owners of the home have the right to define the "laws of the land" for their land, and to tell guests to take them or leave. Now, when a child becomes a teenager, he begins to reach a time where he can support himself, and it then begins to become a fair point to tell an unruly teenager to accept the house rules or leave. Teenagers are not generally the most rational of people, and it is easy to imagine some of them taking resentment at such a proposition. This seems to me to be the psychological starting point of anarchism.

Obviously there are limits to what laws of the land you can justly make (execution for the crime of not taking out the garbage would clearly be out). But a wide range of local laws and regulations are clearly defensible. For example: no loud noises after 10pm, no making a mess of the kitchen without cleaning up, taking out the garbage, etc. are all fair game, even though they have no basis in Natural Law but the fact that there is the proposition "take my rules or leave the house" -- the natural right of consent -- standing behind them.

Now what adult anarchist is going to argue with this? I would think none. But what is the difference between this scenario, and the scenario where a land owner and his adjoining neighbors enter a compact for government? If "arbitrary" house rules -- not Natural Law, but man-made law -- can be created on one parcel of land, then certainly they can be agreed on by two, or ten, or a whole town. The only requirement for such an arrangement is universal consent to these man-made laws. One can quibble about whether or not everyone would agree, but the fact that in principle they can agree clearly refutes anarchism as a theory.

The fact is that men have a Natural Right to form government. Fundamentally then, to be an anarchist is to be one who rejects Natural Rights.

Leaving aside the actual teenagers (which I am sure make up the bulk of their number) are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

On my theory of government, the smallest unit of government is in fact the home (or other unit of owned land). The owners of the home have the right to define the "laws of the land" for their land, and to tell guests to take them or leave. Now, when a child becomes a teenager, he begins to reach a time where he can support himself, and it then begins to become a fair point to tell an unruly teenager to accept the house rules or leave. Teenagers are not generally the most rational of people, and it is easy to imagine some of them taking resentment at such a proposition. This seems to me to be the psychological starting point of anarchism.

Obviously there are limits to what laws of the land you can justly make (execution for the crime of not taking out the garbage would clearly be out). But a wide range of local laws and regulations are clearly defensible. For example: no loud noises after 10pm, no making a mess of the kitchen without cleaning up, taking out the garbage, etc. are all fair game, even though they have no basis in Natural Law but the fact that there is the proposition "take my rules or leave the house" -- the natural right of consent -- standing behind them.

Now what adult anarchist is going to argue with this? I would think none. But what is the difference between this scenario, and the scenario where a land owner and his adjoining neighbors enter a compact for government? If "arbitrary" house rules -- not Natural Law, but man-made law -- can be created on one parcel of land, then certainly they can be agreed on by two, or ten, or a whole town. The only requirement for such an arrangement is universal consent to these man-made laws. One can quibble about whether or not everyone would agree, but the fact that in principle they can agree clearly refutes anarchism as a theory.

The fact is that men have a Natural Right to form government. Fundamentally then, to be an anarchist is to be one who rejects Natural Rights.

Leaving aside the actual teenagers (which I am sure make up the bulk of their number) are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

Shayne

Everything you said was true. However there has never, in the entire history of governments, been a good government. There are only bad governments and worse governments. Every government, how auspicious its beginning, devolves into tyranny sooner or later, very often sooner. Thomas Jefferson was right to not that the Tree of Liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots. The only way to keep government reasonable is to deconstruct it and reconstruct it in every generation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

Everything you said was true. However there has never, in the entire history of governments, been a good government. There are only bad governments and worse governments. Every government, how auspicious its beginning, devolves into tyranny sooner or later, very often sooner. Thomas Jefferson was right to not that the Tree of Liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots. The only way to keep government reasonable is to deconstruct it and reconstruct it in every generation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

My position is that if government were formed upon proper principles, then it would not necessarily devolve. No government has ever been formed or reformed upon proper principles. But at one point in history, no transistor had ever been created either. There can always be a first time. Rejecting this fact on the grounds of cynicism only harms the possibility. There is no purpose in being cynical other than to cement in the status quo.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

My position is that if government were formed upon proper principles, then it would not necessarily devolve. No government has ever been formed or reformed upon proper principles. But at one point in history, no transistor had ever been created either. There can always be a first time. Rejecting this fact on the grounds of cynicism only harms the possibility. There is no purpose in being cynical other than to cement in the status quo.

Shayne

And just what miracle will keep the government held to its "proper principles". After three generations the memory of what constitutes a "proper principle" and the struggle it took to install these "proper principles" is forgotten or on its way to being forgotten. What will keep memory green?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

And just what miracle will keep the government held to its "proper principles". After three generations the memory of what constitutes a "proper principle" and the struggle it took to install these "proper principles" is forgotten or on its way to being forgotten. What will keep memory green?

Ba'al Chatzaf

No government has ever been founded on proper principles, so your speculation, in spite of being dressed up to look as if it has basis in fact, is unfounded.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

And just what miracle will keep the government held to its "proper principles". After three generations the memory of what constitutes a "proper principle" and the struggle it took to install these "proper principles" is forgotten or on its way to being forgotten. What will keep memory green?

Ba'al Chatzaf

No government has ever been founded on proper principles, so your speculation, in spite of being dressed up to look as if it has basis in fact, is unfounded.

Shayne

It it looks like no government will ever be founded on "proper principles" if the past is any guide to the future. So discourse about "proper government' is at best speculative and hypothetical. Humans have had governments (or some kind of organized rulership) for about ten thousand years. *If there has not been a proper government in ten thousand years, why expect one any time soon. It is not like there is no theory for it. The doctrine of rights has been kicking around in one form or another for at least three thousand years. Rights are implicit in Jewish Law for example and the Athenians had the notions of rights for Athenian citizens (those whose mother and fathers were Athenian). And even then two thirds of the people of Athens were either tolerated foreigners or slaves with no political rights.

*governance/rule by a central or organized power group arose about the time agriculture replaced hunting and gathering as the primary mode of human existence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

It it looks like no government will ever be founded on "proper principles" if the past is any guide to the future.

A mind that could produce such a thought is not worth arguing with. You're mired in pragmatism. God help you because I sure can't.

Shayne

[Mikee]

Everything you said was true. However there has never, in the entire history of governments, been a good government. There are only bad governments and worse governments. Every government, how auspicious its beginning, devolves into tyranny sooner or later, very often sooner. Thomas Jefferson was right to not that the Tree of Liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots. The only way to keep government reasonable is to deconstruct it and reconstruct it in every generation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

My position is that if government were formed upon proper principles, then it would not necessarily devolve. No government has ever been formed or reformed upon proper principles. But at one point in history, no transistor had ever been created either. There can always be a first time. Rejecting this fact on the grounds of cynicism only harms the possibility. There is no purpose in being cynical other than to cement in the status quo.

Shayne

This is the best post of yours, so far, I have read. A far improved government would be one where liars could not be or remain elected representatives and leeches could not vote.

[BaalChatzaf]

It it looks like no government will ever be founded on "proper principles" if the past is any guide to the future.

A mind that could produce such a thought is not worth arguing with. You're mired in pragmatism. God help you because I sure can't.

Shayne

Mired in pragmatism. That means I pay attention to facts and I read books on history. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to relive it.

Mired in pragmatism. you are bloody well told, I am mired in pragmatism. When I ride my bike I keep my eyes riveted to the road and traffic conditions. When I fly a plane I look around (I am a pilot). I always pay attention to facts. Facts are real and sometimes theories are not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

My position is that if government were formed upon proper principles, then it would not necessarily devolve. No government has ever been formed or reformed upon proper principles. But at one point in history, no transistor had ever been created either. There can always be a first time. Rejecting this fact on the grounds of cynicism only harms the possibility. There is no purpose in being cynical other than to cement in the status quo.

Shayne

This is the best post of yours, so far, I have read. A far improved government would be one where liars could not be or remain elected representatives and leeches could not vote.

Thanks Mikee. You might find my book of interest, the idealism above is a central theme. It's relatively inexpensive here: http://www.forindividualrights.com/buy

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

Thanks Mikee. You might find my book of interest, the idealism above is a central theme. It's relatively inexpensive here: http://www.forindividualrights.com/buy

Shayne

Idealism and $3.27 will buy me a medium size coffee and an Old Fashioned donut at my local Dunkin' Donuts ™ shop.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited December 18, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[sjw]

Mired in pragmatism. That means I pay attention to facts and I read books on history. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to relive it.

Mired in pragmatism. you are bloody well told, I am mired in pragmatism. When I ride my bike I keep my eyes riveted to the road and traffic conditions. When I fly a plane I look around (I am a pilot). I always pay attention to facts. Facts are real and sometimes theories are not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You missed out on the most important aspect of Ayn Rand's work: her idealism.

You're not an idealist. We'll never speak the same language. You'll incessantly misunderstand and misrepresent everything I say. It's too bad you're missing out on this aspect of the human experience, on the other hand it can be something of a burden to believe in ideals when you're surrounded by a culture that doesn't. So maybe your ignorance is your bliss.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

You're not an idealist. We'll never speak the same language. You'll incessantly misunderstand and misrepresent everything I say. It's too bad you're missing out on this aspect of the human experience, on the other hand it can be something of a burden to believe in ideals when you're surrounded by a culture that doesn't. So maybe your ignorance is your bliss.

Shayne

Bliss you say? Hardly. I have seen my current electric bill and my tax bill. Definitely not bliss.

I am too old for ideals. When I was 30 I still had some. Now I am almost 75 and I don't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

I am too old for ideals. When I was 30 I still had some. Now I am almost 75 and I don't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Idealism is demanding. I never blame anyone that old unless they try to interfere. Stop interfering. Keep your cynicism to yourself.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

If humans had no language to learn they would create one spontaneously because they are hardwired for language. If this ideal government can't come into existence with the proper principles, spontaneously so to speak, then what does come into existence is what we have to work with unless one is artificially created from a philosophy. Such constructs cannot be self-sustaining because human input will be continuous regardless and the ideal corrupted, probably into eventual tyranny. Essentially the story, and I hope not the fate, of the United States.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I am too old for ideals. When I was 30 I still had some. Now I am almost 75 and I don't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Idealism is demanding. I never blame anyone that old unless they try to interfere. Stop interfering. Keep your cynicism to yourself.

Shayne

I will NOT! I am the boy from Andersen's story -The Emperor and His New Clothes-. I have a form a Turrete's Syndrome wherein I blurt truth and spew counterexamples at the socially most inappropriate times. My wife tells me she can't take me anywhere. Wherever there is a bare-ass emperor I will say exactly what I see. When I am not blurting I am a Fair Witness (in the Heinlein sense). I will state what I see, not what the Philosophers declare to be The Truth.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

You're not an idealist. We'll never speak the same language. You'll incessantly misunderstand and misrepresent everything I say. It's too bad you're missing out on this aspect of the human experience, on the other hand it can be something of a burden to believe in ideals when you're surrounded by a culture that doesn't. So maybe your ignorance is your bliss.

Shayne

Bliss you say? Hardly. I have seen my current electric bill and my tax bill. Definitely not bliss.

I am too old for ideals. When I was 30 I still had some. Now I am almost 75 and I don't.

Your idealism is your lack of ideals? What a value! No work necessary.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I am too old for ideals. When I was 30 I still had some. Now I am almost 75 and I don't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Idealism is demanding. I never blame anyone that old unless they try to interfere. Stop interfering. Keep your cynicism to yourself.

Shayne

I will NOT! I am the boy from Andersen's story -The Emperor and His New Clothes-. I have a form a Turrete's Syndrome wherein I blurt truth and spew counterexamples at the socially most inappropriate times. My wife tells me she can't take me anywhere. Wherever there is a bare-ass emperor I will say exactly what I see. When I am not blurting I am a Fair Witness (in the Heinlein sense). I will state what I see, not what the Philosophers declare to be The Truth.

You are eschewing complex cognitive thought.

--Brant

[sjw]

Idealism is about effortful change for the better. It is a central fact of human nature that we have the ability to mentally project an ideal, and then, if our ideal is properly grounded in truth, if we put in the effort, and if we are not too unlucky, finally attain it. For the weak, striving for an ideal may demand too much effort, and because of their weakness, they may learn to resent that which is unattainable by them. They may even learn to pretend that ideals are impossible folly. Idealists should be patient with such infirmities, but they should not sacrifice a better tomorrow for the sake of the emotional problems of the weak, for not only is our failure to achieve an ideal our own loss, in the end it is their loss too. So for our good and theirs, we should ignore their cynicism as we reach for the ideal.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

You are eschewing complex cognitive thought.

--Brant

I earned my living doing applied mathematics. I do not think that is eschewing cognitive thought. In fact mathematics is the highest form of cognitive thought.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

You are eschewing complex cognitive thought.

--Brant

I earned my living doing applied mathematics. I do not think that is eschewing cognitive thought. In fact mathematics is the highest form of cognitive thought.

This is not a math forum. You are ripping my statement out of its context. It does not apply to some mathematical statement you made. I am a mathematical ignoramus.

--Brant

[RagJohn]

Originally, ALL land is STOLEN (from "the-commons"). Thereafter, it is sold or bequeathed. So the original "rule makers' are nothing more than squatters, basing their "rights' upon nothing more than the happenstance of their being there first, and having enough power to retain their "ownership" of the land that they stole. Land is not something created by man (except in a few "landfill areas). It is just there, as the ocean is just there. I was given no choice at all about where I was born, what language I learned to speak, etc, so a lot of barriers were raised to my living anywhere else, long before I realized that it was possible to live elsewhere. Those barriers have little or nothing to do with "responisbility", etc. Basically, nation states arose out of having too many people in one given locale. The Native Americans, Eskimos, etc, did without nation states just fine, for centuries, because they did not overpopulate their lands.

Edited December 19, 2010 by RagJohn

[kiaer.ts]

Originally, ALL land is STOLEN (from "the-commons"). Thereafter, it is sold or bequeathed. So the original "rule makers' are nothing more than squatters, basing their "rights' upon nothing more than the happenstance of their being there first, and having enough power to retain their "ownership" of the land that they stole. Land is not something created by man (except in a few "landfill areas). It is just there, as the ocean is just there. I was given no choice at all about where I was born, what language I learned to speak, etc, so a lot of barriers were raised to my living anywhere else, long before I realized that it was possible to live elsewhere. Those barriers have little or nothing to do with "responisbility", etc. Basically, nation states arose out of having too many people in one given locale. The Native Americans, Eskimos, etc, did without nation states just fine, for centuries, because they did not overpopulate their lands.

What pathetic historical ignorance and rubbish.

The Americas were populated entirely by states from the neolithic tribal up to the imperial level; from the warlike Eskimos, who wore suits of armor; to the unconquered Tlingit nation with its concept of intellectual property; to the Iriquois Confederacy; to the literate, numerate, and agricultural empires of Mexico and the Andes. Even today, the death rate of males by war among the Yanomamo of the Amazon is 30% (Wade, Before the Dawn) which is the exact same rate as among chimps, which, like the most primitive humans, live in tribes of about 30 members.Nor did the Australian aborigines nor the Polynesians, nor did the first, if not the latter, Amerinds (given their 13,000 year history) steal their land from anyone.

[sjw]

Originally, ALL land is STOLEN (from "the-commons").

There is an element of truth in this in that most land claims are enforced arbitrarily. Somebody points to a swath an claims to own it, in spite of any Natural Law right to it (a right created through actual use not mere pointing, paper-filing, or fence-making).

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

There is an element of truth in this in that most land claims are enforced arbitrarily. Somebody points to a swath an claims to own it

No, there's no such thing as, for example, title search.

That's what's called an arbitrary assertion, the mental equivalent of the supposed property crime you are denouncing. How easy airmchair anarchism is when you get to make everything up.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Ted Keer