Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[sjw]

And you could never be honorable enough to be a politician. Moreover, you couldn't get anyone to vote for you.

I honor truth above pandering to your emotional problems. I'm sure you prefer Hilary Clinton and Obama's "honor" to that. In fact that was basically my point.

Are you able to understand that the anarchism that is being discussed by various persons on OL bears no resemblance to whatever straw man anarchist that you have erected in your cornfield?

Let us try this, would you be so kind as to take George's point of view and lay out his argument. This is an excellent method to employ in any debate.

Go ahead, I would be interested to see what words you would chose to lay out his position.

Adam

George has said elsewhere that he believes in government so long as it's based on consent, so I do not count him as an anarchist. I don't really have a beef with a non-anarchist like George, except to quibble with what word he chooses to describe his pro-government view.

Shayne

[sjw]

George has said elsewhere that he believes in government so long as it's based on consent, so I do not count him as an anarchist. I don't really have a beef with a non-anarchist like George, except to quibble with what word he chooses to describe his pro-government view.

As it happens, George has mentioned elsewhere as having been kicked off (or heckled or something) of anarchist forums for not being a true anarchist. They're right. He's not an anarchist.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Most people want to be coerced? Amazing, simply amazing.

If the choice is a coercive government (i.e., what they have or small tweaks from it) or anarchy, they will pick government. They've already made this choice. I don't know why you'd be surprised at the observation.

According to your twisted logic, which is essentially the shopworn tacit consent argument warmed-over, the subjects of every government throughout in history can be said to have "consented" to be ruled, no matter how brutal that rule may have been. Of course, it is probably the case that, given a choice, a lot of people would choose to be ruled by the U.S. government, but this is far different from claiming that they have chosen to be so ruled. If a panhandler sticks a gun in your face and demands five dollars, it might be the case that you would have given him the money voluntarily, without be coerced. But after he threatens your life, it is absurd to claim that you in fact consented to give him the money.

This procedure is called drawing basic distinctions. Try it, practice it, learn it, treasure it. It might make you coherent.

I have been involved in the anarchism/minarchism controversy for nearly 40 years now. I have had public debates with John Hospers, Tibor Machan, and William Thomas (of the Atlas Society) and I have engaged in private arguments with Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, Roy Childs in his later years, and many other competent defenders of minarchism. And never have I encountered anyone who is as ill-informed, confused, and ignorant about this subject as you are. It's downright embarrassing. Go educate yourself if you want me to take you seriously.

Given that, it's interesting that you can't pin down a single falsehood in anything I've said (the best you can do is twist my words into falsehood, as you did above just now).

Why should I waste time debating a person who lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the subject under consideration? Would you discuss the intricacies of higher mathematics with a person who doesn't know how to add and subtract?

Ghs

[Bosco]

George has said elsewhere that he believes in government so long as it's based on consent, so I do not count him as an anarchist. I don't really have a beef with a non-anarchist like George, except to quibble with what word he chooses to describe his pro-government view.

Shayne

I think he has said that an association of individuals based on voluntary consent certainly may call itself a government, but properly understood, it would not be a government if it lacked a claim on coercive territorial sovereignty. I don't know how that would be a "pro-government" position.

Tim

[sjw]

According to your twisted logic, which is essentially the shopworn tacit consent argument warmed-over, the subjects of every government throughout in history can be said to have "consented" to be ruled, no matter how brutal that rule may have been. Of course, it is probably the case that, given a choice, a lot of people would choose to be ruled by the U.S. government, but this is far different from claiming that they have chosen to be so ruled. If a panhandler sticks a gun in your face and demands five dollars, it might be the case that you would have given him the money voluntarily, without be coerced. But after he threatens your life, it is absurd to claim that you in fact consented to give him the money.

This procedure is called drawing basic distinctions. Try it, practice it, learn it, treasure it. It might make you coherent.

You're being silly. This is not a "tacit consent argument." It's a prediction. One you agree with it seems. Go door to door and give people a paper to sign, asking if they want a Federal Government or not, and most will sign, even knowing that it comes with the strings of consent violations that we all deal with. So they sign, and we don't sign because we don't agree with the violation of consent. We're in the minority. We have to convince them to stop coercing us. Not to give up their government. You guys have been doing it wrong all this time. Your arguments are not aimed at the essential problem.

Why should I waste time debating a person who lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the subject under consideration? Would you discuss the intricacies of higher mathematics with a person who doesn't know how to add and subtract?

Ghs

Well first of all, there seems not to be much to debate since you agree with me (or I could say I agree with you since you sanctioned government by consent before I did).

But comparing basic issues like this to higher mathematics? That's more silliness. The essential argument for Natural Law and government is simple. If it weren't then this whole enterprise of advocating for liberty would be pointless because most would not have the capacity to understand. On the contrary, every normal human being has the ability to understand these issues backwards and forwards.

But it makes sense having been steeped in anarcho-capitalist mumbo jumbo that you'd think it's an arcane topic.

Shayne

[sjw]

George has said elsewhere that he believes in government so long as it's based on consent, so I do not count him as an anarchist. I don't really have a beef with a non-anarchist like George, except to quibble with what word he chooses to describe his pro-government view.

Shayne

I think he has said that an association of individuals based on voluntary consent certainly may call itself a government, but properly understood, it would not be a government if it lacked a claim on coercive territorial sovereignty. I don't know how that would be a "pro-government" position.

Tim

"I defend anarchism, or society without the State, because I believe that innocent people cannot be forced to surrender any of their natural rights. Those who wish to delegate some of their rights to a government are free to do so, provided they do not violate the rights of dissenters who choose not to endorse their government." -- George H. Smith.

He and I are on precisely the same page. I think he should be free to go over yonder and enjoy his anarchic society. And he should leave the people who don't want that free to enjoy their government. Everybody's happy except the power mongers.

The only "fly in the ointment" here is the genesis of such a state. Since everything's been done on a coercive basis to this point, it's hard to envision the untangling process. If you think about this from first principles from the origination of government, it is easier. Trying to figure a way to untangle what we have now is hard.

Shayne

Edited December 20, 2010 by sjw

[George H. Smith]

According to your twisted logic, which is essentially the shopworn tacit consent argument warmed-over, the subjects of every government throughout in history can be said to have "consented" to be ruled, no matter how brutal that rule may have been. Of course, it is probably the case that, given a choice, a lot of people would choose to be ruled by the U.S. government, but this is far different from claiming that they have chosen to be so ruled. If a panhandler sticks a gun in your face and demands five dollars, it might be the case that you would have given him the money voluntarily, without be coerced. But after he threatens your life, it is absurd to claim that you in fact consented to give him the money.

This procedure is called drawing basic distinctions. Try it, practice it, learn it, treasure it. It might make you coherent.

You're being silly. This is not a "tacit consent argument." It's a prediction...

Here is what you wrote:

If the choice is a coercive government (i.e., what they have or small tweaks from it) or anarchy, they will pick government. They've already made this choice.... (My italics.)

This is a lot more than a prediction.

Do words have any meaning for you at all? Or do you toss words around willy-nilly so you can deny that you said something later, should that need arise?

Ghs

[sjw]

Here is what you wrote:

If the choice is a coercive government (i.e., what they have or small tweaks from it) or anarchy, they will pick government. They've already made this choice.... (My italics.)

This is a lot more than a prediction.

Do words have any meaning for you at all? Or do you toss words around willy-nilly so you can deny that you said something later, should that need arise?

Ghs

Well obviously it's not willy-nilly since my central point stands.

I wasn't trying to make a tacit consent argument, to the extent that it looked like I was it was merely from the fact that this is extemporaneous. I said they've already made the choice, and this is poorly put because I wouldn't make the argument that they have consented, I would only argue that it's a moot issue since if they had the chance to consent then they would. For these people, if you tried to tell them how violated they were because they didn't get a chance to sign up they'd probably laugh at you or think that you were making an academic issue out of nothing.

Are you that perfect of a writer that the only possible reasons you can attribute to something like that is dishonesty and corruption? I wish I were that perfect, for me it takes an effort and sometimes I screw up. You might cut some slack for some of us mere mortals.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

George has said elsewhere that he believes in government so long as it's based on consent, so I do not count him as an anarchist. I don't really have a beef with a non-anarchist like George, except to quibble with what word he chooses to describe his pro-government view.

Shayne

I think he has said that an association of individuals based on voluntary consent certainly may call itself a government, but properly understood, it would not be a government if it lacked a claim on coercive territorial sovereignty. I don't know how that would be a "pro-government" position.

Tim

"I defend anarchism, or society without the State, because I believe that innocent people cannot be forced to surrender any of their natural rights. Those who wish to delegate some of their rights to a government are free to do so, provided they do not violate the rights of dissenters who choose not to endorse their government." -- George H. Smith.

He and I are on precisely the same page. I think he should be free to go over yonder and enjoy his anarchic society. And he should leave the people who don't want that free to enjoy their government. Everybody's happy except the power mongers.

The only "fly in the ointment" here is the genesis of such a state. Since everything's been done on a coercive basis to this point, it's hard to envision the untangling process. If you think about this from first principles from the origination of government, it is easier. Trying to figure a way to untangle what we have now is hard.

Shayne

There is the problem of coexistence of the Statists and the Anarchists. It is basically unsolvable. Why? Because the Statists create a Thing that must grow. There is no truly principled stopping point for the growth of State power and scope. If people were capable of respecting each other's rights we would not need a State. But we do need a State. Why? Because self-control is imperfect at best and hardly constant. There is always the Crisis and the Emergency that urges people with the best intentions (the paving stones on the road to hell) to encroach upon the lives of their fellows

Ursula K. Le Guin dealt with the problem of co-existence of the two kinds of life for an organized society. She came up with a marvelous novel -The Dispossessed- in which there was literally one planet for the Statist folk and another for the Anarchists. Limited trade exists between the two worlds. And even on the Anarchist world there are Power Trippers and those who must dominate their fellows or try to do so. You might want to read this. Le Guin gets into the heads of Statists and the Anarchists.

I think Le Guin is a better novelist than Rand and she manages to inject philosophy into her novels in a humane and understated way, quite different from Rand's polemic and bombast.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

There is the problem of coexistence of the Statists and the Anarchists. It is basically unsolvable. Why? Because the Statists create a Thing that must grow. There is no truly principled stopping point for the growth of State power and scope. If people were capable of respecting each other's rights we would not need a State.

Since I'm capable of respecting rights I tend to think others are. If Nock is right and people like me and him are a fluke then I don't see how I'd know it. It's a lovely self-satisfying view but I don't see the empirical grounding for it. I don't see how you'd know it unless you're not capable of respecting rights either.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

There is the problem of coexistence of the Statists and the Anarchists. It is basically unsolvable. Why? Because the Statists create a Thing that must grow. There is no truly principled stopping point for the growth of State power and scope. If people were capable of respecting each other's rights we would not need a State.

Since I'm capable of respecting rights I tend to think others are. If Nock is right and people like me and him are a fluke then I don't see how I'd know it. It's a lovely self-satisfying view but I don't see the empirical grounding for it. I don't see how you'd know it unless you're not capable of respecting rights either.

Shayne

Solution. A land for the Statists and a land for the Anarchists. And seldom shall the twain meet.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

Solution. A land for the Statists and a land for the Anarchists. And seldom shall the twain meet.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Interestingly that leaves no land for the non-statists-non-anarchists.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

Solution. A land for the Statists and a land for the Anarchists. And seldom shall the twain meet.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Interestingly that leaves no land for the non-statists-non-anarchists.

Shayne

Anyone favoring a central authority that enforces its authority by force is a Statist. Armed police authorized by the law and bearing arms to enforce the law is an instance of Statism. Anarchists have customs and protocols. Statists have laws.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

Solution. A land for the Statists and a land for the Anarchists. And seldom shall the twain meet.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Interestingly that leaves no land for the non-statists-non-anarchists.

Shayne

Anyone favoring a central authority that enforces its authority by force is a Statist. Armed police authorized by the law and bearing arms to enforce the law is an instance of Statism. Anarchists have customs and protocols. Statists have laws.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So if one of the anarchists lobs a rock across the border and breaks a "statist's" window, then what is the warranted reply?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I wasn't trying to make a tacit consent argument, to the extent that it looked like I was it was merely from the fact that this is extemporaneous. I said they've already made the choice, and this is poorly put because I wouldn't make the argument that they have consented, I would only argue that it's a moot issue since if they had the chance to consent then they would. For these people, if you tried to tell them how violated they were because they didn't get a chance to sign up they'd probably laugh at you or think that you were making an academic issue out of nothing.

So it is okay to force people to do x if, in your opinion, they would have done x voluntarily, without being coerced? Then if someone complains that real consent was never given, you dismiss this as a "moot issue," because consent -- again, in your opinion -- would have been given in a hypothetical scenario.

It this your argument? If it is, then does your crystal ball also reveal to you precisely who would consent and who would not?

I know you are averse to making fine distinctions, but you might ponder the common distinction between justification and legitimacy. In libertarian terms, justification, a moral concept, pertains to whether a given government can actually pass the consent test. Legitimacy, a sociological concept, pertains to when people subjectively believe that their government is justified. (This is obviously a matter of degree, of more-or-less, depending on the number of people involved.)

Within this framework, we can say that the U.S. Government is not justified, but that it does enjoy a high degree of legitimacy.

Is this what you were trying to say?

Ghs

[sjw]

So it is okay to force people to do x if, in your opinion, they would have done x voluntarily, without being coerced? Then if someone complains that real consent was never given, you dismiss this as a "moot issue," because consent -- again, in your opinion -- would have been given in a hypothetical scenario.

It this your argument? If it is, then does your crystal ball also reveal to you precisely who would consent and who would not?

I know you are averse to making fine distinctions, but you might ponder the common distinction between justification and legitimacy. In libertarian terms, justification, a moral concept, pertains to whether a given government can actually pass the consent test. Legitimacy, a sociological concept, pertains to when people subjectively believe that their government is justified. (This is obviously a matter of degree, of more-or-less, depending on the number of people involved.)

Within this framework, we can say that the U.S. Government is not justified, but that it does enjoy a high degree of legitimacy.

Is this what you were trying to say?

Ghs

We each have our strengths. I'm not averse to the fine details, on the contrary I admire your ability. I wonder if it's a good idea to pick on each other for having less skill in some area or another.

Coming back to the details, no, that is not my argument. It's certainly not okay to force people.

I agree that government enjoys a high degree of what you call legitimacy. Regarding your concept of moral justification, I think it's more complicated than saying it is or isn't. Clearly, it is intolerably wicked to not have universal consent. This is tantamount to slavery. But it'd also be wrong to rip the rug out from under all the non-consensual relationships all at once, doing so would cause a major human disaster. Given that it's oversimplified to claim the government isn't morally justified. There is a moral justification in keeping things mostly as they are in the very short term, while we iterate toward the proper solution over the course of (say) a decade.

This is the context of my argument. Given what I see as the ideal, I see this as a winnowing process, an evolution not a revolution. I see all major US institutions remaining intact in the long term, with the vast majority of people universally consenting to them. I see government as a diseased patient, and universal consent being the cure that saves government from itself. I do not believe that most people would opt out of what would result (but it is crucial that they be free to do so).

In this context it is a moot issue whether or not somebody has actually signed on the dotted line to endorse government.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I agree that government enjoys a high degree of what you call legitimacy. Regarding your concept of moral justification, I think it's more complicated than saying it is or isn't. Clearly, it is intolerably wicked to not have universal consent. This is tantamount to slavery. But it'd also be wrong to rip the rug out from under all the non-consensual relationships all at once, doing so would cause a major human disaster. Given that it's oversimplified to claim the government isn't morally justified. There is a moral justification in keeping things mostly as they are in the very short term, while we iterate toward the proper solution over the course of (say) a decade.

This is the context of my argument. Given what I see as the ideal, I see this as a winnowing process, an evolution not a revolution. I see all major US institutions remaining intact in the long term, with the vast majority of people universally consenting to them....

A good friend of mine for 30 years, a highly-respected physician, recently began serving a three-year prison sentence for supposedly committing a victimless crime. He invested in an escort service after clearing the legality of this action with his attorney. The police barged in while he was with a patient and took him away in handcuffs. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself, and he will have no career after he gets out.

Another good friend of mine, a woman well-known in libertarian circles, served two prison terms, the first for around 6 years and the second for 7 1/2 years, for drug offenses. She died not long after finishing her second sentence.

Why don't you tell them how people would consent to the U.S. government, if given the choice, and how it would "be wrong to rip the rug out from under all the non-consensual relationships all at once, doing so would cause a major human disaster."

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

So if one of the anarchists lobs a rock across the border and breaks a "statist's" window, then what is the warranted reply?

Shayne

Throw a rock back. And if the the two domains are separated sufficiently as in Le Guin's novel there will be no rocks thrown.

Except for barter, the Anarchists and the Statists have no basis to mingle. The Statists want to rule, claiming they bring the Law, the Anarchists do not wish to be ruled. See Judge Dredd.

It does not matter if the State begins minimally with the intention of preserving the rights, life and property of the people who ordain it. Sooner or later those who take power in the State will seek to expand it. History is full of such doings. The State has in imperative to expand its scope, always in the name of right and law and in response to emergency and crisis. That is why periodic revolution is required, to control the growth of the cancer, the State.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

A good friend of mine for 30 years, a highly-respected physician, recently began serving a three-year prison sentence for supposedly committing a victimless crime. He invested in an escort service after clearing the legality of this action with his attorney. The police barged in while he was with a patient and took him away in handcuffs. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself, and he will have no career after he gets out.

Another good friend of mine, a woman well-known in libertarian circles, served two prison terms, the first for around 6 years and the second for 7 1/2 years, for drug offenses. She died not long after finishing her second sentence.

Why don't you tell them how people would consent to the U.S. government, if given the choice, and how it would "be wrong to rip the rug out from under all the non-consensual relationships all at once, doing so would cause a major human disaster."

Ghs

You're preaching to the choir. The trouble with anarchists is that they let their rage at injustice (which is quite warranted) overwhelm their reason. Which is why the title of this thread is apt.

When I say "major human disaster" I'm talking about mass mayhem and death. At the present moment, there's a given statistical likelihood that what happened to your friends will happen to you or I. It's not acceptable. But abolishing the government will only dramatically increase the likelihood that something disastrous happens to us. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

A good friend of mine for 30 years, a highly-respected physician, recently began serving a three-year prison sentence for supposedly committing a victimless crime. He invested in an escort service after clearing the legality of this action with his attorney. The police barged in while he was with a patient and took him away in handcuffs. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself, and he will have no career after he gets out.

Another good friend of mine, a woman well-known in libertarian circles, served two prison terms, the first for around 6 years and the second for 7 1/2 years, for drug offenses. She died not long after finishing her second sentence.

Why don't you tell them how people would consent to the U.S. government, if given the choice, and how it would "be wrong to rip the rug out from under all the non-consensual relationships all at once, doing so would cause a major human disaster."

Ghs

You're preaching to the choir. The trouble with anarchists is that they let their rage at injustice (which is quite warranted) overwhelm their reason. Which is why the title of this thread is apt.

I said nothing about abolishing the government immediately.

You are a real prick.

Ghs

[sjw]

I said nothing about abolishing the government immediately.

Well then I fail to see what your point is. I guess the difference is just what I said it was earlier: that the only difference between our views is how we think a universal consent system would play out. You seem to think it would play out to anarchy, whereas I think most people would form governments (and I think some people would remain in an anarchic state too, which is fine with me). There are various practical reasons why it matters who is right here. E.g. assuming you get society to agree, then you need to design the transitional steps toward the ideal. You can't do that without a particular vision of the ideal. Also, even though the moral question is fundamental, the question "how would it work" is not irrelevant to motivating people. If they think your idea is impractical then they won't care about it. I think most people are going to say that anarchy is impractical. And I think they are right.

You are a real prick.

Nobody's perfect.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I said nothing about abolishing the government immediately.

Well then I fail to see what your point is. I guess the difference is just what I said it was earlier: that the only difference between our views is how we think a universal consent system would play out. You seem to think it would play out to anarchy, whereas I think most people would form governments (and I think some people would remain in an anarchic state too, which is fine with me). There are various practical reasons why it matters who is right here. E.g. assuming you get society to agree, then you need to design the transitional steps toward the ideal. You can't do that without a particular vision of the ideal. Also, even though the moral question is fundamental, the question "how would it work" is not irrelevant to motivating people. If they think your idea is impractical then they won't care about it. I think most people are going to say that anarchy is impractical. And I think they are right.

I haven't even discussed the practical matter of how a transition might come about. You are making up this stuff as you go along.

The issue is this: You seem to regard the U.S. Government as semi-justified, Why? Because, even though no one has actually consented to be ruled by it, many people (in your opinion) would consent if given a chance.

But what would these people be consenting to? They would be "consenting" to empower the U.S. Government with the authority to initiate force against innocent people. The vast majority of these people would not be libertarians, so they would have no problem with "consenting" to a government that engages in the widespread violation of individual rights. Such "consent" has no moral authority whatsoever. It would not make the U.S. Government even partially justified.

There are other problems with your scenario as well. In short, you have devised a sloppy, poorly thought-out hypothetical and used it to support an equally sloppy and poorly thought-out conclusion.

You are a real prick.

Nobody's perfect.

Tell me something. Where does a punk like you find the nerve to call Murray Rothbard, Randy Barnett, and other high-caliber anarchists "overgrown teenagers" who have let their rage overwhelm their reason? If you ever encountered such people in person, they would slice and dice you in a matter of minutes and then return to more challenging tasks, such as deciding what to have for dinner.

I have obvious disagreements with minarchism, but I have frequently acknowledged the competency of many of its leading defenders.

Ghs

[sjw]

I haven't even discussed the practical matter of how a transition might come about. You are making up this stuff as you go along.

Well you can jump up and down making insulting claims all day, doesn't make them true. So I hope it at least makes you feel better.

The issue is this: You seem to regard the U.S. Government as semi-justified, Why? Because, even though no one has actually consented to be ruled by it, many people (in your opinion) would consent if given a chance.

It's pure anarchist silliness to ask whether it is justified or not. This is the teenager part coming out again. I've already been over this, are you purposefully being stupid or is your inability to see the big picture innate?

But what would these people be consenting to? They would be "consenting" to empower the U.S. Government with the authority to initiate force against innocent people. The vast majority of these people would not be libertarians, so they would have no problem with "consenting" to a government that engages in the widespread violation of individual rights. Such "consent" has no moral authority whatsoever. It would not make the U.S. Government even partially justified.

There's no helping you if you want to persist in stubbornly clinging to oversimplified views of the world.

There are other problems with your scenario as well. In short, you have devised a sloppy, poorly thought-out hypothetical and used it to support an equally sloppy and poorly thought-out conclusion.

Actually everything I say just goes clean over your head. I can live with that. We all have our limitations. I still think you'd make a good editor.

Tell me something. Where does a punk like you find the nerve to call Murray Rothbard, Randy Barnett, and other high-caliber anarchists "overgrown teenagers" who have let their rage overwhelm their reason? If you ever encountered such people in person, they would slice and dice you in a matter of minutes and then return to more challenging tasks, such as deciding what to have for dinner.

I have obvious disagreements with minarchism, but I have frequently acknowledged the competency of many of its leading defenders.

Ghs

Well my daddy can beat up your daddy, so nyah nyah.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

The issue is this: You seem to regard the U.S. Government as semi-justified, Why? Because, even though no one has actually consented to be ruled by it, many people (in your opinion) would consent if given a chance.

It's pure anarchist silliness to ask whether it is justified or not. This is the teenager part coming out again. I've already been over this, are you purposefully being stupid or is your inability to see the big picture innate?

So you don't care whether or not a government is justified? Then you have no interest or stake in the minarchism/anarchism debate, because justification has been the focus of that debate for many decades.

One thing is certain: Few people will ever take you seriously, and your influence will be zilch. I wish you the best of luck as you continue down the path of intellectual failure. I humbly suggest the following epitaph for your tombstone:

Here lies Shayne. Here also lies the only person who ever understood or appreciated Shayne's ideas.

Requiescat in pace, Shayne and Shayne.

Ghs

[sjw]

So you don't care whether or not a government is justified? Then you have no interest or stake in the minarchism/anarchism debate, because justification has been the focus of that debate for many decades.

The point I've been making is that it can be reformed such that it can be justified. I've also been clear that lack of consent in the current system is THE problem with it. So I don't know where you get these ridiculous context-dropping assertions from.

One thing is certain: Few people will ever take you seriously, and your influence will be zilch. I wish you the best of luck as you continue down the path of intellectual failure. I humbly suggest the following epitaph for your tombstone:

Here lies Shayne. Here also lies the only person who ever understood or appreciated Shayne's ideas.

Requiescat in pace, Shayne and Shayne.

Ghs

Such has been the fate of many who have tried to improve human understanding in the realm of politics. I try my best. Feel free to mock me for it if it makes an old man feel better. It seems rather complimentary for various reasons, so I suppose I should thank you for it.

Shayne