Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[sjw]

I have not responded to George's other posts above, not because he hasn't been misleading regarding my actual views, he has, but because he keeps claiming to have something really big coming. But I'm going to respond to George on this because I think what he's doing here a microcosm of all of my other disagreements with him:

Readers need to keep in mind that Shayne makes this stuff up as he goes along. His taxonomy (above) is so topsy-turvy as to flatly contradict the taxonomy used by every natural law philosopher in history, including natural rights philosophers, classical liberals, and libertarians.

Actually no, I have considered this quite carefully and have held this position for some time now (not the word choice given above, the concepts). Nor do I think that what I've just said deviates from Rand. If you think it does then show us your own taxonomy, and show us Rand's if it's any different from yours. Shouldn't be hard to say what you think the right taxonomy is. Or you can just keep doing your rain dance, pretending that calling me an idiot makes me one.

Of course, Shayne has no interest in or knowledge of historical artifacts like this. He is blazing new trails with his confusing terminology, going where no man with common sense and a clear head would ever choose to go. So if Shayne feels like calling natural law "Armenian String Cheese," then natural law will become Armenian String Cheese, and that will be that.

Term-shifting is a defining characteristic of intellectual quacks. Readers of Old Atlantis will recall that the late Jason Alexander did the same thing as Shayne, claiming credit for intellectual innovations when all he was really doing was shifting the meanings of words. I should note, however, that the level of quackery achieved by Jason, owing to his fondness for neologisms, makes Shayne look like a novice quack.

"Quack" is a label that I use with some precision. Other than Shayne and Jason, I have encountered only one or two authentic quacks on elists over the past 11 years. Dedicated quacks are relatively rare, because few people are willing to invest the time needed to become a full-fledged quack. In this respect at least, Shayne is to be commended for his commitment to quackery.

Ghs

I don't claim any conceptual innovation in this area (but if it is an innovation I'd like to know), nor am I advocating that "morality" be called "moral law" or "peanut butter." My only point is that intelligent human beings ought to have the capacity to distinguish the word from the concept, and that those who can't are some species of the concrete bound mentality Rand talked about.

Regarding this "term-shifting", that sounds like a crackpot term you just made up as you went along.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I have not responded to George's other posts above, not because he hasn't been misleading regarding my actual views, he has, but because he keeps claiming to have something really big coming. But I'm going to respond to George on this because I think what he's doing here a microcosm of all of my other disagreements with him:

Readers need to keep in mind that Shayne makes this stuff up as he goes along. His taxonomy (above) is so topsy-turvy as to flatly contradict the taxonomy used by every natural law philosopher in history, including natural rights philosophers, classical liberals, and libertarians.

Actually no, I have considered this quite carefully and have held this position for some time now (not the word choice given above, the concepts). Nor do I think that what I've just said deviates from Rand. If you think it does then show us your own taxonomy, and show us Rand's if it's any different from yours. Shouldn't be hard to say what you think the right taxonomy is. Or you can just keep doing your rain dance, pretending that calling me an idiot makes me one.

I agree that my calling you an idiot is not what makes you one.

As for the "right taxonomy," read something for once in your life. I am not your Philosophy 101 instructor. If you want to pay me for tutorials in natural law and its role in the history of political thought, fine; my rate is $50 per hour. Otherwise, I have no interest in teaching you anything.

Many excellent books on this subject are available. Since you are a beginner, I would especially recommend A.P. d'Entreves, Natural Law (2nd ed., Hutchinson & Co, 1970). Should you ever reach a more advanced level, try John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford, 1980).

Ghs

[sjw]

As for the "right taxonomy," read something for once in your life. I am not your Philosophy 101 instructor.

You're not an instructor, that's for sure. But you sure are a waste of time.

Shayne

[sjw]

If there is a single reason why George doesn't like me or my views it's that I have my own views. Whenever he writes, it's by incessantly referring to this or that person and what they thought. While I don't deny the validity of this enterprise in principle (knowing and cataloging history is certainly useful and valid), I do think is a poor way to convey truth. You burden the reader with countless authors and contradictory ideas. I think it makes a good camouflage for one who does not actually have their own view. And perhaps removing this camouflage would be scary for George. Perhaps he has no real views of his own.

George refers me to books of 500 pages or more to get his understanding of Natural Law/Rights. Presumably the books he references aren't definitive either, just the starting point for a lifelong journey into countless other tomes. In my book I definitively cover this subject in 50 pages. On its face, George's method excludes the vast majority of humanity from ever understanding Natural Law, whereas with my approach there is a real hope of being able to convey these concepts in a few hours to any adult who has even a little motivation.

Is there any justification for a concept of Natural Law that requires 500 pages to explain? Natural Law, if it be truth, must be based on relatively simple concepts. Otherwise there is no hope that human beings could follow it. They would need Pope-like authorities to interpret it for them, to tell them when they did and didn't violate someone's rights, just as organized religion requires the priest class to instruct the masses on what the Bible says. Perhaps this is another reason why George hates my stance -- I deny the need for a middle man, and he's the middle man.

My views will never be popular among those who need authority figures in their lives or who need to pose as authority figures.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne, it would seem to me that "Natural Law" as used by you is law without a home in structured philosophy, but rather in cultural anthropology, sociology and psychology. Psychology can even lead one into a biological tie-in. This has some value, but the body still needs a head. If this is true you'll never get a productive exchange going with George. The minarchist position is best rhetorically stated in The Declaration of Independence. Can you do better, not rhetorically but substantively, while also criticizing it? Or have you already done it?

--Brant

[sjw]

Shayne, it would seem to me that "Natural Law" as used by you is law without a home in structured philosophy, but rather in cultural anthropology, sociology and psychology. Psychology can even lead one into a biological tie-in. This has some value, but the body still needs a head. If this is true you'll never get a productive exchange going with George. The minarchist position is best rhetorically stated in The Declaration of Independence. Can you do better, not rhetorically but substantively, while also criticizing it? Or have you already done it?

--Brant

I've given up having a productive conversation with George, at this point I'm only hoping that he has anything to say that is in any way interesting.

The Declaration of Independence is not a declaration of rights, it is a declaration of war that tips its hat to individual rights without really saying what they are (since that was not its purpose). If I were to criticize it, it would only be to say that Jefferson should have referred to "property" instead of or in addition to "pursuit of happiness". Beyond that I doubt that I would not criticize it (but I have never read it with the intention of finding things to criticize).

The closest thing to what I'm doing in the Founding documents would be the Bill of Rights, which I am entirely grateful for and do not pretend that it was politically possible to do more than what they did (they were very hard won after all), but still do have some criticisms of. The main criticism is that they are incomplete and do not make adequate reference to Natural Rights, and that they do not utterly smash legal positivism and ban this vile doctrine from the realm of government.

Shayne

Edited February 7, 2011 by sjw

[George H. Smith]

This post is a brief comment on Shayne "refutation" of anarchism. In later posts I will dissect the comments in his headline post, line by line.

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.

So this is it? This bizarre argument is supposed to be a refutation of anarchism? Since there are no smiley faces to indicate that Shayne is joking, I will proceed on the assumption that he is serious.

Shayne's argument boils down to this: If it is possible, in principle, for everyone in a community to consent to be ruled by the same government, then anarchism is refuted.

1) The first thing to note is that Shayne's comments about landownership are irrelevant to the basic argument. We can easily imagine a small township of, say, 100 people, all of whom agree to be ruled by the same government. Whether all these people own land, or whether some have agreed to abide by the "house rules" of landowners, is irrelevant to the example. If all 100 people explicitly agree to be ruled by the same government, then that government is legitimate, to that extent.

2) So why would an anarchist object to this arrangement? And in what manner does this example refute anarchism? Shayne says nothing on this matter. He seems to think that anarchists deny the possibility of ever getting 100 percent agreement of the sort illustrated in this hypothetical, so it would be nice if Shayne would cite even one libertarian anarchist who has ever claimed such a thing.

3)In fact, Shayne's example doesn't even address the anarchist position and arguments. He has refuted nothing, because no anarchist has ever denied the theoretical possibility of attaining universal consent, especially when relatively few people are involved. On the contrary, Rothbard and other anarchists have frequently used the same example of a small town to make the following points:

4) Suppose a small town is only able to support one grocery store. In this case, that one grocery store would have a de facto monopoly. That is to say, the grocery store would enjoy a monopoly in fact because there is not sufficient demand to support competing grocery stores. But this de facto monopoly has no bearing on the right of entrepreneurs to open competing grocery stories or on the right of consumers to do business with competing stores, should any become available.

5) Similarly, if everyone in our small town agrees to be ruled by the same government, then that government, like the grocery store, will enjoy a de facto monopoly. There will be no competition so long as everyone is satisfied with the services it provides.

6) The real issue here pertains to a matter of right, not to a matter of fact. Suppose the owners of the monopolistic grocery store get a law passed stating that no competing grocery stores can ever be established in the town. This would transform its legitimate de facto monopoly into an illegitimate de jure monopoly -- i.e, a monopoly claimed as a matter of right, a monopoly that could only be enforced by threatening to initiate force against potential competitors.

7) Likewise, anarchists would have a problem with Shayne's "government" only if it claimed the sovereign power that has characterized every government in history, i.e., only if it threatened to initiate force against potential competitors.

8) Suppose one of Shayne's landowners decides that he is unhappy with the government and would prefer to do business with a competing "government." Would he have the right to go elsewhere, in Shayne's system? If Shayne answers "yes" to this question, then he has embraced the key position of libertarian anarchism. If he answers "no" to this question, then he has embraced run-of-the mill minarchism.

9) There are some complexities here that I need not examine, given that Shayne doesn't even understand the difference between a de facto monopoly and a de jure monopoly, much less understand that the minarchist/anarchist controversy hinges entirely on the latter. When a supposed refutation of anarchism doesn't even address the anarchist position, then it doesn't refute anything. Shayne's "refutation" emerged from nothing except his own ignorance, and to ignorance only does it apply.

10) One final point: Most problems in political theory arise because people do not agree on certain issues. For example, the issue of religious freedom arose because people did not agree in their religious beliefs. Religious diversity therefore gave rise to the demand for religious freedom. Now, if we assume at the outset that no such disagreement exists, then we will have no practical problems at all. If we assume, for example, that everyone in the U.S. will embrace the same kind of Christianity -- a scenario that is as "possible" as the unanimity in Shayne's example --then the practical need for religious freedom is a moot point. But such unanimity, even if it existed, would not affect the right of potential dissenters to practice religion (or not) in their own way. Hence the fact that we can conceive of complete unanimity of religious belief no more "refutes" the right of religious dissent than the universal consent of Shayne's landowners "refutes" the right of individuals to delegate their right of self-defense to a justice agency other than an established government.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Shayne, it would seem to me that "Natural Law" as used by you is law without a home in structured philosophy, but rather in cultural anthropology, sociology and psychology. Psychology can even lead one into a biological tie-in. This has some value, but the body still needs a head. If this is true you'll never get a productive exchange going with George. The minarchist position is best rhetorically stated in The Declaration of Independence. Can you do better, not rhetorically but substantively, while also criticizing it? Or have you already done it?

--Brant

I've given up having a productive conversation with George, at this point I'm only hoping that he has anything to say that is in any way interesting.

The Declaration of Independence is not a declaration of rights, it is a declaration of war that tips its hat to individual rights without really saying what they are (since that was not its purpose). If I were to criticize it, it would only be to say that Jefferson should have referred to "property" instead of or in addition to "pursuit of happiness". Beyond that I doubt that I would not criticize it (but I have never read it with the intention of finding things to criticize).

Since Jefferson sometimes used "life, liberty, and property" in his other writings, I don't suppose you have a clue as to why he omitted "property" in the Declaration.

The Declaration specifically speaks of unalienable (i.e., inalienable) rights. Do you think that your property right to, say, your car is inalienable? If so, this would mean that you could never sell your car, or transfer the title to any piece of property that you own. For "inalienable" means that the right to the property in question cannot be alienated, i.e., that it cannot be surrendered or transferred to someone else.

I know it is not your style to make an effort to understand a position before you criticize it, but you might want to give it a try some day, if all else fails.

Ghs

[PDS]

I don't want to sidetrack the "debate" between George and Shayne, but it is worth remembering that at least one state in this country constitutionally recognizes "natural rights" far beyond the references by Jefferson in the DOI:

Article 1 - Declaration of Rights

§ 1. Inherent Rights

This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the State.

This is from the Alaska Constitution. How has that worked out in Alaska? Is Alaska full of Randian superheros living in "no conflict of interests among rational men" harmony? Not so much. Alaska is more or less a Nanny State.

Edited February 9, 2011 by PDS

[sjw]

George should shift some intellectual resources from his incessant ad hominem and shift it to actually trying to understand what is being discussed because clearly, his reserves are running low.

So this is it? This bizarre argument is supposed to be a refutation of anarchism? Since there are no smiley faces to indicate that Shayne is joking, I will proceed on the assumption that he is serious.

Obviously the point wasn't to systematically, academically refute every variant of anarchism, but to underscore what I think the fundamentals are. This is a thread after all, presumably one might expect back and forth debate about the fundamentals. Although in retrospect, I wonder why I might think that.

Shayne's argument boils down to this: If it is possible, in principle, for everyone in a community to consent to be ruled by the same government, then anarchism is refuted.

I take the view that if any government could legitimately exist, then insofar as anarchy is defined as "no government", it is refuted if one accepts Natural Rights as one's foundation, because clearly, one has a natural right to form a government. When anarchy is ill-defined, as you and Rothbard define it, then certainly, further arguments are needed in order to untangle the conceptual mess you've gotten yourselves into. Blaming me is like blaming an atheist for not refuting the Bible line by line.

1) The first thing to note is that Shayne's comments about landownership are irrelevant to the basic argument.

...

7) Likewise, anarchists would have a problem with Shayne's "government" only if it claimed the sovereign power that has characterized every government in history, i.e., only if it threatened to initiate force against potential competitors.

It is interesting that you comprehend the issue of sovereignty, but then do not comprehend why I bring the issue of land ownership into this subject. But this is precisely why I do. It is only when there is legitimate ownership that there can be legitimate sovereignty.

To take a simple example, suppose we agree to jointly create a neighborhood and its infrastructure, and as part of the agreement we add certain terms, such as for example that everyone must shovel their own sidewalk and must do so when it snows, or mow their lawn when it's above a certain height, or otherwise keep their house from deteriorating. When someone does not do this, then (say) a kid is hired to do it for them, but the homeowner is charged for the labor. On my view of government, this is a valid contractual arrangement, and no one can rightly secede (other than selling their home to someone who agrees to the terms and leaving the neighborhood). The issue of sovereignty and of ownership is very much at the heart of my view.

An anarchist would say, stupidly, that it was the owners property, and they had a right to secede, and thus they could let their yard go to hell if they want to. I would say that the neighbor should be fined, and if they didn't pay the fine, then, on the grounds that they violated the contract, their property should be sold to the highest bidder, and then they should receive these monies and be kicked out.

Shayne

[sjw]

Since Jefferson sometimes used "life, liberty, and property" in his other writings, I don't suppose you have a clue as to why he omitted "property" in the Declaration.

Well first of all let me remind you that I am not advocating that Jefferson change anything, because as I said, that was a declaration of war, not of rights. Rhetorical flourish on the particular points he was making is more important than technical correctness.

The Declaration specifically speaks of unalienable (i.e., inalienable) rights. Do you think that your property right to, say, your car is inalienable? If so, this would mean that you could never sell your car, or transfer the title to any piece of property that you own. For "inalienable" means that the right to the property in question cannot be alienated, i.e., that it cannot be surrendered or transferred to someone else.

I know it is not your style to make an effort to understand a position before you criticize it, but you might want to give it a try some day, if all else fails.

Ghs

Given that this is an Objectivist forum and that you often in these debates pretend that you are on Ayn Rand's side whereas I am not, I wonder why you denigrate property as an inalienable right when she put property at the very center of her definition of the proper political system.

A right to property, properly understood, does not merely refer to concrete instances of property, it refers to the principle of human action involved in gaining, exclusively using, and keeping material objects. That principle of action which is referred to by invoking a "right to property" certainly is as inalienable as any other right can be.

Shayne

[sjw]

I don't want to sidetrack the "debate" between George and Shayne, but it is worth remembering that at least one state in this country constitutionally recognizes "natural rights" far beyond the references by Jefferson in the DOI:

Article 1 - Declaration of Rights

§ 1. Inherent Rights

This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the State.

This is from the Alaska Constitution. How has that worked out in Alaska? Is Alaska full of Randian superheros living in "no conflict of interests among rational men" harmony? Not so much. Alaska is more or less a Nanny State.

This is not a declaration of rights, it's far too vague and contradictory to function as one. You're a trained lawyer, are you not? Is this really the best you can do? I am shocked, utterly shocked.

Shayne

[PDS]

I don't want to sidetrack the "debate" between George and Shayne, but it is worth remembering that at least one state in this country constitutionally recognizes "natural rights" far beyond the references by Jefferson in the DOI:

Article 1 - Declaration of Rights

§ 1. Inherent Rights

This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the State.

This is from the Alaska Constitution. How has that worked out in Alaska? Is Alaska full of Randian superheros living in "no conflict of interests among rational men" harmony? Not so much. Alaska is more or less a Nanny State.

This is not a declaration of rights, it's far too vague and contradictory to function as one. You're a trained lawyer, are you not? Is this really the best you can do? I am shocked, utterly shocked.

Shayne

I'm not trying to "do" anything.

This is an example of a government formed on the basis of "natural rights" in the real world, not in somebody's ramped up pamphlet or pipe dream. I believe it may be the only state constitution in the country to recognize "natural rights", which I happen to believe in rather strongly, by the way.

No need to shocked, or even utterly shocked, for that matter. Just bringing up a fact from the real world for everybody's consideration.

[sjw]

8) Suppose one of Shayne's landowners decides that he is unhappy with the government and would prefer to do business with a competing "government." Would he have the right to go elsewhere, in Shayne's system? If Shayne answers "yes" to this question, then he has embraced the key position of libertarian anarchism. If he answers "no" to this question, then he has embraced run-of-the mill minarchism.

The difference between me and minarchists is that I put severe limits on where man-made rules can apply -- for me, "limited government" means limited by the property ownership of consenting individuals (concerning their man-made laws/rules). The difference with me and anarchists is that I put no limit on where natural law applies. So I see the Federal Government as potentially having a valuable continental role, so long as its function is reduced to securing Natural Rights. I do not prohibit competing governments in the same jurisdiction, but I think there would tend to be a uniform natural law government over time even if there were competition. So I do not see that competition as such as being a cure for anything, but rather, that a proper comprehension of Natural Rights by a significant number of the population is of the most importance. So while I would permit competing natural law governments, I would not advocate for them, the energy is better spent advocating for Natural Rights.

Shayne

[sjw]

This is an example of a government formed on the basis of "natural rights" in the real world,

If it were, then it would be, but since it's not, it is not.

Shayne

[sjw]

This is an example of a government formed on the basis of "natural rights" in the real world, not in somebody's ramped up pamphlet or pipe dream.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when a lawyer praises an "official" document written by fellow-lawyers and denigrates a "ramped up pamphlet" written by one of us mere peasants.

Shayne

[PDS]

This is an example of a government formed on the basis of "natural rights" in the real world,

If it were, then it would be, but since it's not, it is not.

Shayne

Okay, Mr. Shayne, if you say so. Sorry to take you out of your comfort zone.

For others who might care about such things: Alaska is actually one of the 50 states in our union, and it has a constitution. I swear. I have been in the Alaska Governor's mansion and I have seen it with my own eyes.

[George H. Smith]

I take the view that if any government could legitimately exist, then insofar as anarchy is defined as "no government", it is refuted if one accepts Natural Rights as one's foundation, because clearly, one has a natural right to form a government. When anarchy is ill-defined, as you and Rothbard define it, then certainly, further arguments are needed in order to untangle the conceptual mess you've gotten yourselves into. Blaming me is like blaming an atheist for not refuting the Bible line by line.

I don't blame you for anything, except for not having a clue what the minarchism/anarchism debate has been about since its inception.

If you want to engage in term-shifting and call the Rothbardian protection agencies "governments," then be my guest. This will mean that no true anarchist, left or right, has ever have existed in history, because every anarchist has defended some kind of institution that can arbitrate and resolve disputes. According to your conception, only someone who thinks people should duke it out when any dispute arises can be a real anarchist. The moment an anarchist appeals to some kind of neutral arbitration agency, he is no longer a real anarchist.

I shall take up this issue in more detail when I consider your statement that a "home" is the smallest unit of government. Meanwhile, congratulations on demolishing an anarchism that no one has ever defended! You are a quack of the first order!

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

This is an example of a government formed on the basis of "natural rights" in the real world,

If it were, then it would be, but since it's not, it is not.

Shayne

Okay, Mr. Shayne, if you say so. Sorry to take you out of your comfort zone.

For others who might care about such things: Alaska is actually one of the 50 states in our union, and it has a constitution. I swear. I have been in the Alaska Governor's mansion and I have seen it with my own eyes.

While my father was stationed at Ladd AFB (near Fairbanks, and now Fort Wainwright), my family attended the signing of the Alaskan Constitution. The signing took place four days before my 7th Birthday, i.e., on Feb. 6, 1956.

My parents assured me that I would later treasure the memory of this historic event, but all that I recall is the excruciating boredom of listening to one politician after another give speeches.

Ghs

[sjw]

I don't blame you for anything, except for not having a clue what the minarchism/anarchism debate has been about since its inception.

Well, I do blame you for purposefully not comprehending the fact that I'm rejecting the false dichotomy you have been debating about all these decades. But I do see the motivation, you have a lot invested in this nonsense. How deep the investment goes and in what realms I'll probably never know, but clearly, your purpose here is not to get to truth of the matter.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I don't blame you for anything, except for not having a clue what the minarchism/anarchism debate has been about since its inception.

Well, I do blame you for purposefully not comprehending the fact that I'm rejecting the false dichotomy you have been debating about all these decades. But I do see the motivation, you have a lot invested in this nonsense. How deep the investment goes and in what realms I'll probably never know, but clearly, your purpose here is not to get to truth of the matter.

Shayne

Forge ahead, Don Quixote! You will find plenty of windmills to attack. And if refuting positions that no one has ever defended gives you a sense of pseudo-competence, then more power to you! Good luck in your pointless meandering through the world of ideas. Who knows? One day, with a little luck, you might accidentally stumble across a real position!

Ghs

[Selene]

I don't want to sidetrack the "debate" between George and Shayne, but it is worth remembering that at least one state in this country constitutionally recognizes "natural rights" far beyond the references by Jefferson in the DOI:

Article 1 - Declaration of Rights

§ 1. Inherent Rights

This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the State.

This is from the Alaska Constitution. How has that worked out in Alaska? Is Alaska full of Randian superheros living in "no conflict of interests among rational men" harmony? Not so much. Alaska is more or less a Nanny State.

This is not a declaration of rights, it's far too vague and contradictory to function as one. You're a trained lawyer, are you not? Is this really the best you can do? I am shocked, utterly shocked.

Shayne

I'm not trying to "do" anything.

This is an example of a government formed on the basis of "natural rights" in the real world, not in somebody's ramped up pamphlet or pipe dream. I believe it may be the only state constitution in the country to recognize "natural rights", which I happen to believe in rather strongly, by the way.

No need to shocked, or even utterly shocked, for that matter. Just bringing up a fact from the real world for everybody's consideration.

PDS:

"Shayne only visits reality as a tourist." <<<< This line is from A 1000 Clowns with Jason Robards Jr. and it works real well here.

"Alaska’s tradition of constitutional independence is rooted in Americans’ historic understanding of the importance of the states as sovereign bodies. As Justice Brandeis noted, “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (dissenting)."

These are the Minutes of their Constitutional. I have not had time to go through them, but the use of "natural rights" is quite interesting.

Thanks.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

Since Jefferson sometimes used "life, liberty, and property" in his other writings, I don't suppose you have a clue as to why he omitted "property" in the Declaration.

Well first of all let me remind you that I am not advocating that Jefferson change anything, because as I said, that was a declaration of war, not of rights. Rhetorical flourish on the particular points he was making is more important than technical correctness.

The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of war? You are quite the revisionist. War between the colonies and Great Britain had already erupted before the Declaration was written or signed. It was -- surprise! -- a declaration of American independence, not a declaration of war.

The Declaration is probably the most philosophically precise political document ever written. Jefferson was being technically correct when he omitted "property" from his trio of inalienable rights. (Another probable reason, in addition to the one I mentioned, is that Jefferson did not want to elevate slavery, which is a type of property right, to the status of an "unalienable" right.)

Lastly, Jefferson nowhere claims that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are the only inalienable rights. The passage in question reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Given that this is an Objectivist forum and that you often in these debates pretend that you are on Ayn Rand's side whereas I am not, I wonder why you denigrate property as an inalienable right when she put property at the very center of her definition of the proper political system.

To say that property rights are not inalienable because we can in fact transfer (i.e., alienate) our rights to property is not to denigrate them in the least. It is simply to explain that they are not inalienable and why Jefferson did not include them in his list of inalienable rights.

There were other issues involved as well, such as a serious controversy over the terms of the social contract that colonists had supposedly entered into with Britain. But how does one explain such things to someone who is tabula rasa in history and, what is worse, refuses to educate himself?

Suffice it to say that Jefferson was not writing to please O'ists. He was using the commonly accepted Lockean terminology of his day.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Benjamin Franklin contributed some editorial revisions to The Declaration. Maybe more. (George?)

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Benjamin Franklin contributed some editorial revisions to The Declaration. Maybe more. (George?)

--Brant

Franklin was on the five-man committee assigned to draft the Declaration, but his contributions were minor, at best. I have an entire chapter on the Declaration in Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism that covers some of the same material that I discussed in my Knowledge Products tape on the Declaration over 25 years ago. This passage from Themes deals with the meaning of "self-evident" truths, as applied to Jefferson's defense of inalienable rights.

Perhaps the most compelling argument against the interpretation we are here considering has nothing to do with philosophy. It has to do with the probable fact that Jefferson wasn’t even responsible for the term “self-evident.” In the original draft of the Declaration, Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable….” In this draft the words “sacred & undeniable” are crossed out and “self-evident” substituted in their place. Since this editorial change appears to be in the handwriting of Benjamin Franklin (who served on the five-man committee responsible for drafting the Declaration), most historians credit him with the term “self-evident.”

Jefferson later characterized alterations made by other committee members as “merely verbal” and insisted that they did not fundamentally change the meaning of what he wished to say. This indicates that Jefferson didn’t view the change from “sacred and undeniable” to “self-evident” as anything more than a stylistic improvement, which doesn’t make a lot of sense if we interpret “self-evident” in a technical philosophical sense.

Ghs