Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[Selene]

There would be a lot of dead folk singers...

Well, there is not enough popcorn for this, so I am going to ask Engle to get that roasting pit ready.

And I am slaying the fatted calf and preparing the marinades.

Any food requests for this crucifixion or burning at the stake?

[sjw]

Post or repost your essential arguments against anarchism, and I will deal with them. If you are too much of a coward to take even this minimal step, then stop your whining.

I sure hope your "technical" and "substantive" arguments against anarchism are not those mentioned in your headline post on this thread. That is one godawful mess. But if you can present nothing better and would like to undergo a public crucifixion on that post alone, just let me know. Since you are bringing your own cross, I will not charge you for the nails.

So put up or shut up, wimp.

Ghs

Observe your behavior in this thread (not to mention others). Why should I trust you to be reasonable?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

If I had a hammer . . .

--Brant

No problem, Brant. I have a hammer, and it is poised to fall on the head of certain minarchist who would set libertarian theory back centuries --to the pre-Lockean days when the Aristotelian doctrine that the family is the smallest (and historically the earliest) form of "government" was used to justify a paternalistic theory of government.

It was with good reason that John Locke, Algernon Sidney, James Tyrrell, and other 17th century individualists went to considerable length to demolish this pernicious doctrine. Indeed, Locke devotes an entire chapter in his Second Treatise to showing how paternal (or parental) power differs fundamentally from political power, and much of Sidney's Discourses Concerning Government -- a book that cost him his life -- is devoted to the same topic.

Of course, our intrepid if dimwitted minarchist is not interested in historical artifacts, so he remains blissfully unaware of how the essentials of his "theory of government" were defended for centuries by absolutists and other enemies of limited government. He even lapses into the classical feudal theory of government, according to which landowners exercise legitimate governmental powers over their tenants.

We will now hear complaints from our great defender of the state that I have misunderstood or misrepresented his "arguments." Well, this is always possible when no argument is presented for anything and all that we have to go on is a string of arbitrary and unrelated assertions. We shall soon see, however, should my not-so-worthy opponent ever get up the nerve to play with the big boys. I have a bunch of questions I would like to ask him about his first sentence alone, viz: "On my theory of government, the smallest unit of government is in fact the home (or other unit of owned land)." After that, I will take the rest of his post line by excruciating line.

In short, my public crucifixion of this blowhard will be slow, thorough, and very, very painful.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Post or repost your essential arguments against anarchism, and I will deal with them. If you are too much of a coward to take even this minimal step, then stop your whining.

I sure hope your "technical" and "substantive" arguments against anarchism are not those mentioned in your headline post on this thread. That is one godawful mess. But if you can present nothing better and would like to undergo a public crucifixion on that post alone, just let me know. Since you are bringing your own cross, I will not charge you for the nails.

So put up or shut up, wimp.

Ghs

Observe your behavior in this thread (not to mention others). Why should I trust you to be reasonable?

Shayne

I knew you would chicken out.

Cluck, cluck, cluck....

Ghs

[sjw]

Observe your behavior in this thread (not to mention others). Why should I trust you to be reasonable?

Shayne

I knew you would chicken out.

Cluck, cluck, cluck....

Ghs

It's a question asked in good faith, which, true to form, you simply mock rather than answer.

Incidentally, that previous post of yours is a total distortion of my view. But whenever you misperceive, you unswervingly blame the other party. I think it's a defense mechanism you developed to protect your ego from scaling back the ambitions appropriate to a more vigorous intellect than yours has become. It appears that rather than aging gracefully, you'd rather go out as a maniac, shrieking incoherent nonsense at anyone who might challenge your views.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Well, I'm a minarchist, George. It's just I don't know how to defend it philosophically--not after seeing how much the world is all fucked up and how the vision of the best of the Founding Fathers started to disintegrate from the get go and continued to go bad without any real surcease.

--Brant

Edited February 4, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

Observe your behavior in this thread (not to mention others). Why should I trust you to be reasonable?

Shayne

I knew you would chicken out.

Cluck, cluck, cluck....

Ghs

It's a question asked in good faith, which, true to form, you simply mock rather than answer.

Incidentally, that previous post of yours is a total distortion of my view. But whenever you misperceive, you unswervingly blame the other party. I think it's a defense mechanism you developed to protect your ego from scaling back the ambitions appropriate to a more vigorous intellect than yours has become. It appears that rather than aging gracefully, you'd rather go out as a maniac, shrieking incoherent nonsense at anyone who might challenge your views.

Shayne

I will answer you in good faith. There is no question about that. But I will also demand that you explain your "theory" more carefully.

As for my supposed distortion of your views, I will now give you a chance to clarify them. Let's begin with your first sentence:

On my theory of government, the smallest unit of government is in fact the home (or other unit of owned land).

What do you mean by a "home"? A house? The land on which the house sits? The family that inhabits a house?

When you say that the smallest unit of government is in fact the home (or other unit of owned land, , you seem to say (by using the word "other") that a home is a "unit of owned land." Okay, if this is so, and if you think that the owner of a unit of land (i.e., a home) has the ultimate right to set rules for his tenants, what does this entail in regard to children and teenagers? If a husband, wife, and their children live in a rented house -- which is not their "home," according to your peculiar conception, because they own neither the house nor the land on which it sits -- then does their landlord have the legitimate authority to tell them how to raise their children? -- whether to take them to church, how they should be fed and educated, etc. Or does this authority reside ultimately with the parents, even if they don't own any land?

Moreover, if we are dealing with a unit of government here, does this mean that a government, if it gets the universal consent of all landowners, can legitimately pass laws that tell nonlandowning parents how they must raise their children in every particular? Similarly, if all the landowners happen to be fundamentalist Christians, can their government legitimately compel religious uniformity and enforce blasphemy laws again every citizen, including those who don't own any land?

I have many more questions, but I will forego asking them until you clarify you views on the matters I have stated here. I wouldn't would want to distort your views, whatever they may be.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Well, I'm a minarchist, George. It's just I don't know how to defend it philosophically--not after seeing how much the world is all fucked up and how the vision of the best of the Founding Fathers started to disintegrate from the get go and continued to go bad without any real surcease.

--Brant

There are legitimate ways to defend minarchy; I think Rand does a pretty good job, for example. But we won't find them on this thread.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Well, I'm a minarchist, George. It's just I don't know how to defend it philosophically--not after seeing how much the world is all fucked up and how the vision of the best of the Founding Fathers started to disintegrate from the get go and continued to go bad without any real surcease.

--Brant

There are legitimate ways to defend minarchy; I think Rand does a pretty good job, for example. But we won't find them on this thread.

Ghs

Oh, I have no problem with that. In fact the best defense of minarchy I remember reading was by Jack Wheeler in The Personalist in the early 1970s. That's nearly four decades ago and I don't remember it too well, just my evaluation of it at the time. I've got that mag. in storage, but I don't know which box.

My problem is taking the philosophic position and putting it to the world, both historically and contemporaneously. Integrating it all. All I get is, "Yeah, but." My default position is freedom is a positive, objective value for the human organism as biologically constituted and that people should strive for more and more of it.

--Brant

[PDS]

Well, I'm a minarchist, George. It's just I don't know how to defend it philosophically--not after seeing how much the world is all fucked up and how the vision of the best of the Founding Fathers started to disintegrate from the get go and continued to go bad without any real surcease.

--Brant

There are legitimate ways to defend minarchy; I think Rand does a pretty good job, for example. But we won't find them on this thread.

Ghs

Oh, I have no problem with that. In fact the best defense of minarchy I remember reading was by Jack Wheeler in The Personalist in the early 1970s. That's nearly four decades ago and I don't remember it too well, just my evaluation of it at the time. I've got that mag. in storage, but I don't know which box.

My problem is taking the philosophic position and putting it to the world, both historically and contemporaneously. Integrating it all. All I get is, "Yeah, but." My default position is freedom is a positive, objective value for the human organism as biologically constituted and that people should strive for more and more of it.

--Brant

Jack Wheeler. Haven't thought of him in years. Is he still alive and kicking ass?

[Brant Gaede]

Jack Wheeler. Haven't thought of him in years. Is he still alive and kicking ass?

I subscribe to his ToThePointNews.com. He's basically a neo-con influenced by Objectivism, but seemingly more in tune with William F. Buckley than Ayn Rand. He's a friend of many including Nathaniel Branden and Durk Pierson. His son Brandon just survived a year in Afghanistan as a Captain of the Marines.

--Brant

[sjw]

I will answer you in good faith. There is no question about that.

Good faith means polite (if for no other reason that it means not presuming to know what I'm talking about). In any case, I don't want the inefficient morass of your baseless insults, sarcasm, snide remarks, and other obnoxious behavior. Just keep it polite and on topic. Or is that too much to ask?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I will answer you in good faith. There is no question about that.

Good faith means polite (if for no other reason that it means not presuming to know what I'm talking about). In any case, I don't want the inefficient morass of your baseless insults, sarcasm, snide remarks, and other obnoxious behavior. Just keep it polite and on topic. Or is that too much to ask?

Shayne

Which of my questions were impolite?

Ghs

[sjw]

Which of my questions were impolite?

Ghs

I didn't read them yet.

This thread has almost entirely been turned into a garbage dump of your insults by you and your groupies. Every single interaction I have had with you in the past where you were discussing my ideas, without any exception, has ended up this way. So it is reasonable for me to try to assess what you actually mean by "good faith."

If we're going to have a legitimate debate/discussion, I expect you to be polite and primarily concerned with the truth, not with scoring rhetorical points or mocking what you disapprove of.

If we actually had a thread on OL with a polite and substantive debate in it, I think it might be a historic first.

Even though I'm not opposed to well-placed insults in principle, I suppose that a dogmatic rule of politeness makes some kind of sense given the propensity of some people to be given an inch and take a mile, to take the license of free-ranging speech and turn what should be reasonable discussion into a time-wasting mudslinging fest. So maybe I need to revise my views on this point.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Which of my questions were impolite?

Ghs

I didn't read them yet.

This thread has almost entirely been turned into a garbage dump of your insults by you and your groupies. Every single interaction I have had with you in the past where you were discussing my ideas, without any exception, has ended up this way. So it is reasonable for me to try to assess what you actually mean by "good faith."

If we're going to have a legitimate debate/discussion, I expect you to be polite and primarily concerned with the truth, not with scoring rhetorical points or mocking what you disapprove of.

If we actually had a thread on OL with a polite and substantive debate in it, I think it might be a historic first.

Even though I'm not opposed to well-placed insults in principle, I suppose that a dogmatic rule of politeness makes some kind of sense given the propensity of some people to be given an inch and take a mile, to take the license of free-ranging speech and turn what should be reasonable discussion into a time-wasting mudslinging fest. So maybe I need to revise my views on this point.

Shayne

You are the one who repeatedly complained that I would not engage in a serious discussion your views. Well, I have now so engaged. Do you plan on responding, or are you going to whine some more?

As the old saying goes, Be careful what you wish for....

Ghs

[sjw]

You are the one who repeatedly complained that I would not engage in a serious discussion your views. Well, I have now so engaged. Do you plan on responding, or are you going to whine some more?

As the old saying goes, Be careful what you wish for....

Ghs

So when I try to confirm whether what you really have in mind is honest debate/discussion or whether it's more of the same mudslinging (that seems to be your primary passion here at OL), you call it "whining." I think that answers my question about what your actual intentions are.

Mock me all you want. Any reasonable reader of this thread is going to be sympathetic to my stance with you.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

You are the one who repeatedly complained that I would not engage in a serious discussion your views. Well, I have now so engaged. Do you plan on responding, or are you going to whine some more?

As the old saying goes, Be careful what you wish for....

Ghs

So when I try to confirm whether what you really have in mind is honest debate/discussion or whether it's more of the same mudslinging (that seems to be your primary passion here at OL), you call it "whining." I think that answers my question about what your actual intentions are.

Mock me all you want. Any reasonable reader of this thread is going to be sympathetic to my stance with you.

Shayne

So what exactly do you want, Shayne? An iron-clad guarantee that I will henceforth and forever be "polite" to you? Well, if you answer my questions, which are asked in order to find out where you stand on some key issues, in a forthright manner, then you will find me as polite as the Pope at High Mass.

Look, it's fine with me if you don't want to discuss your views in a serious manner. But stop with the phony excuses to avoid this encounter. If you have the balls, then go for it. If not, then slink back into your "poor abused and misunderstood me" mode and leave the serious thinkers on OL in peace.

Ghs

[sjw]

You are the one who repeatedly complained that I would not engage in a serious discussion your views. Well, I have now so engaged. Do you plan on responding, or are you going to whine some more?

As the old saying goes, Be careful what you wish for....

Ghs

So when I try to confirm whether what you really have in mind is honest debate/discussion or whether it's more of the same mudslinging (that seems to be your primary passion here at OL), you call it "whining." I think that answers my question about what your actual intentions are.

Mock me all you want. Any reasonable reader of this thread is going to be sympathetic to my stance with you.

Shayne

So what exactly do you want, Shayne? An iron-clad guarantee that I will henceforth and forever be "polite" to you? Well, if you answer my questions, which are asked in order to find out where you stand on some key issues, in a forthright manner, then you will find me as polite as the Pope at High Mass.

Look, it's fine with me if you don't want to discuss your views in a serious manner. But stop with the phony excuses to avoid this encounter. If you have the balls, then go for it. If not, then slink back into your "poor abused and misunderstood me" mode and leave the serious thinkers on OL in peace.

Ghs

So, in answer to me trying to find out whether you intend to be polite or not, you mock me yet further.

I think this is more about me divesting you of your primary and only weapon -- your incessant ad hominem -- than about you actually wondering what I mean when I ask you to agree to be polite. You can't even lay down the terms of a debate without lapsing into ad hominem, you certainly aren't going to fare well in an actual debate.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

So, in answer to me trying to find out whether you intend to be polite or not, you mock me yet further.

I think this is more about me divesting you of your primary and only weapon -- your incessant ad hominem -- than about you actually wondering what I mean when I ask you to agree to be polite. You can't even lay down the terms of a debate without lapsing into ad hominem, you certainly aren't going to fare well in an actual debate.

Okay, enough of your chickenshit cowardice. I will, as I get the time, continue to post questions and criticisms of your headline post. If you want to respond, fine. Or, as now seems more likely, if you want to chicken out, that is fine as well. Should the latter occur, I will of course be far less polite than I would have been otherwise.

In case you didn't know, OL is a list for intellectual adults, not overgrown teenagers. Perhaps there is another forum where you can discuss your phobia for politeness. In your favor, however, we now know that you are smart enough not to attempt any defense of the undefendable. It is gratifying in a way to know that you are keenly aware of the shallowness of your own ideas and arguments. I thought you might be foolish enough to actually attempt a serious defense of your views, but, to your credit, you are not that foolish.

See, I just paid you a compliment! How polite can I get?

Ghs

[sjw]

Okay, enough of your chickenshit cowardice.

I knew several posts back that you would back out in this cowardly manner. I hoped otherwise, but had no rational expectation given my previous assessments of you.

Respond to whatever you like, without a gentleman's agreement to be gentlemen I won't substantively engage you further. I'll just say up front that at every important juncture, you have misrepresented my position, and I fully expect that to continue.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Okay, enough of your chickenshit cowardice.

I knew several posts back that you would back out in this cowardly manner. I hoped otherwise, but had no rational expectation given my previous assessments of you.

Respond to whatever you like, without a gentleman's agreement to be gentlemen I won't substantively engage you further. I'll just say up front that at every important juncture, you have misrepresented my position, and I fully expect that to continue.

Shayne

Tell me, Shayne, do you need to leave your chicken coop to write these boilerplate posts, or do have a computer in your chicken coop?

As we all know, only a true gentleman who values politeness would call anarchists "overgrown teenagers," even using this as part of a thread title. You are indeed a model of civility, and I hope to follow in your footsteps.

Of course you will claim that I have misrepresented your views, regardless of what I say. Yours is the stock reply of every intellectual phony. So far, however, all I have done is to ask some legitimate questions. I expressly did this so you could clarify your views. But you will not do this because you cannot do this. Your views are such a jumble of unconnected and undigested assertions that they defy clarification.

So whine on, Shayne. I am not sure how to say cluck, cluck, cluck with a whine, but you have obviously figured it out.

Ghs

[Selene]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL4LWt2KUB8

[sjw]

As we all know, only a true gentleman who values politeness would call anarchists "overgrown teenagers," even using this as part of a thread title. You are indeed a model of civility, and I hope to follow in your footsteps.

George Eliza Smith, the master of the foolish cheap shot.

I never said my debate here has met a standard of being polite or gentlemanly, on the contrary several times I've said I don't believe in dogmatic politeness. You drop this context just to get in a stupid cheap shot. My respect for your fans goes down with every stupid post you make.

It's clear enough given the "treasure" of GES ad hominem in this thread why I'm calling for some politeness, it's in order to actually accomplish something productive. But since you're only here for your juvenile jollies, you don't care about actually doing something useful.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

As we all know, only a true gentleman who values politeness would call anarchists "overgrown teenagers," even using this as part of a thread title. You are indeed a model of civility, and I hope to follow in your footsteps.

George Eliza Smith, the master of the foolish cheap shot.

I never said my debate here has met a standard of being polite or gentlemanly, on the contrary several times I've said I don't believe in dogmatic politeness. You drop this context just to get in a stupid cheap shot. My respect for your fans goes down with every stupid post you make.

It's clear enough given the "treasure" of GES ad hominem in this thread why I'm calling for some politeness, it's in order to actually accomplish something productive. But since you're only here for your juvenile jollies, you don't care about actually doing something useful.

Shayne

<a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/whine/thatsright2008/whine.jpg?o=3" target="_blank"><img src="http://i712.photobucket.com/albums/ww124/thatsright2008/whine.jpg" border="0"></a>

Ghs

[sjw]

I suppose if the people at OL don't want a break from the incessant mockery, the sneering, the ad hominem, if they don't want to see a polite and rational debate/discussion of important ideas even if just in one thread, then I suppose Selene has a point, I should follow Philip and take my ball and go home.

(Unlike Philip, I'm not demanding that you all grow up in all the threads, I'm just calling for a single thread and a single debate where we pretend like we can actually be civilized for a change).

Shayne