Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[sjw]

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

The burden of proof is on the one who asserts a right to land by the method of "point and own" or "file and own" or "fence and own".

I've proven my own method of "own by use" elsewhere.

Shayne

[studiodekadent]

Shayne,

Whilst I am not an anarchist (I am an Hayekian minarchist (and yes, my philosophy is still Objectivism)), I must disagree with your original post.

Free market anarchism has provided much in the way of intelligent political analysis and many theoretical contributions to liberty. And yes, I do indeed have free-market anarchist sympathies; I don't believe it would work without a significant improvement (by Objectivist standards) in the moral character of the general population, however.

There is plenty of value that Objectivists could get from engaging with the free-market anarchist tradition. But your original post did not engage with free market anarchism. Rather, it spun a series of rationalistic deductions and ultimately climaxed in a piece of character assassination. "Anarchists are overgrown teenagers," seriously?!?

For one, this seems to assume that all anti-authoritarianism displayed by teenagers is automatically immature and unjustified. This is not only a monumental overgeneralization, but I find it patently offensive. Ayn Rand had a wonderful respect for young people; she often seemed to believe they were in many respects MORE rational than their elders (by being untainted by society's irrationality). Clearly you don't seem to have the same attitude (indeed, you plainly reject such an attitude in your original post).

For two, you invoke property rights as a justification. This would make you legally correct; I do believe that parents can legally invoke property rights. But "legally acceptable" and "morally just" are entirely different matters. Plenty of parents are more than happy to impose utter tyranny and inflict standards supported by no more than arbitrary whim. The first concept of "good" most human beings learn is "good behavior" which ultimately works out to "behavior the parent/authority figure finds convenient." Some parents are child-beating fundamentalist morons that are more than happy to basically torture their child with beatings and a fear of hell in order to control them. Again, you may be legally correct; said fundie moron child-beater does have a property right, but this does not make said parent MORAL.

Third, your theory does ultimately rest on the proposition that the adolescent must be able to leave whenever they so choose. This often is not the case and many parents would indeed use the power of the state to reclaim a rebellious 16 year old runaway. Theoretically the adolescent can get legally emancipated but this is not an easy process.

Fourth, you completely misunderstand anarchism in the first place. At the very least, the free market anarchists would NOT object to the proposition that a government which is universally consented to is legitimate. Anarchists are against COERCED order. They are for VOLUNTARY order. The example you bring up (a universally consented-to government) is clearly an example of a voluntary order with universally-consented legal principles; an anarchy.

I am not going to defend the stupid pseudo-socialist anarchist idiots that attack G20 summits and scream "fight the power" and read copies of Mikhail Bauknin that they purchased with Daddy's Mastercard. But the free market anarchist tradition is something you clearly misunderstand.

Grandiose, sweeping statements like: "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" might be fun to write (I suspect you were strongly tempted to add a "QED, bitch" at the end of said statement), but that specific statement at least is based on a very shallow view of one subgroup of anarchism. Not to mention how utterly patronizing you come across, claiming that all anarchists are simply psychologically immature and getting off over revenge fantasies against their parents, displaced into a desire to abolish the State.

[George H. Smith]

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

If you can get "universal consent," then no libertarian anarchist would have a problem with your "government." To claim that your scenario "refutes anarchism as a theory" is preposterous. The only thing libertarian anarchists object to is a coercive monopoly. There is no problem if people voluntarily choose to contract with a single agency for the protection of their rights. A problem arises only if that agency forcibly prohibits them from contracting with other agencies that can also protect rights.

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.

You and those who agree with you are free to form whatever "government" you like. What you don't have a right to do is force others -- those who don't agree with you -- to submit to the jurisdiction of the agency that you happen to prefer.

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

The pertinent question is: Are you 100 percent clueless on this subject or only 99 percent?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

If you don't want to be governed by a government you still aren't entitled to violate rights and if you do the government you hadn't consented to might rightly slap you down no matter how much you posture and protest about "consent." The person whose rights you violated didn't consent to you violating them, now, did he? You cannot initiate physical force and then claim the moral high ground as a moat protecting your actions even if you first announced you had no government governing you but carte blanche to do anything you wanted therefore. If "consent" is not a primary then competing governments is nonsense except in the sense one is much less rights' violating than the other so let's get rid of one and embrace the other. I have no idea how to have a perfect non-rights' violating government even out of the ideal but hardly developed Randian context. What you get is not any perfect government but an electorate on the premise that a society should always strive for more freedom and a smaller and smaller government knowing that in the best of worlds Utopia will never be achieved and even if it could be it couldn't be maintained.

--Brant

Edited December 19, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[merjet]

If you can get "universal consent," then no libertarian anarchist would have a problem with your "government." To claim that your scenario "refutes anarchism as a theory" is preposterous. The only thing libertarian anarchists object to is a coercive monopoly. There is no problem if people voluntarily choose to contract with a single agency for the protection of their rights. A problem arises only if that agency forcibly prohibits them from contracting with other agencies that can also protect rights.

I don't believe this is the only problem. Suppose person P, a subscriber to rights agency A1, becomes involved in a dispute with another person, and A1 does not handle the dispute to P's satisfaction. Then P could go to another agency A2, which promises to handle the dispute to P's satisfaction. Then if A2 does not perform to P's satisfaction, P could try A3.

[BaalChatzaf]

If you can get "universal consent," then no libertarian anarchist would have a problem with your "government." To claim that your scenario "refutes anarchism as a theory" is preposterous. The only thing libertarian anarchists object to is a coercive monopoly. There is no problem if people voluntarily choose to contract with a single agency for the protection of their rights. A problem arises only if that agency forcibly prohibits them from contracting with other agencies that can also protect rights.

I don't believe this is the only problem. Suppose person P, a subscriber to rights agency A1, becomes involved in a dispute with another person, and A1 does not handle the dispute to P's satisfaction. Then P could go to another agency A2, which promises to handle the dispute to P's satisfaction. Then if A2 does not perform to P's satisfaction, P could try A3.

I assume the services are for sale in a service market. Do you have a problem with choice?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

I assume the services are for sale in a service market. Do you have a problem with choice?

Yes, if A2 or A3 is Tony Soprano's gang of thugs.

[BaalChatzaf]

I assume the services are for sale in a service market. Do you have a problem with choice?

Yes, if A2 or A3 is Tony Soprano's gang of thugs.

One man's thug is another man's paladin. And what if the Sherriff of Notingham is agency A1?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

delete duplicate

Edited December 19, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[George H. Smith]

I assume the services are for sale in a service market. Do you have a problem with choice?

Yes, if A2 or A3 is Tony Soprano's gang of thugs.

Tony Soprano's gang of thugs will be too busy vying for positions of power in your monopolistic government.

Ghs

[merjet]

Tony Soprano's gang of thugs will be too busy vying for positions of power in your monopolistic government.

Yes, gangs of thugs employed by governments are a problem like they are running so-called private defense agencies.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[sjw]

If you can get "universal consent," then no libertarian anarchist would have a problem with your "government."

You may want to look around you someday. Most of your neighbors consent to their governments. Ergo they would exist under your "anarchy." The only problem with them is that they unconsensually govern you. That's all that needs to be fixed, but anarchy is supposed to be about government not being legitimate, not merely about somebody who wants to go live all by himself under an anarchic condition (but mind Brant's point. He nails it if you subtract out his cynicism).

To claim that your scenario "refutes anarchism as a theory" is preposterous. The only thing libertarian anarchists object to is a coercive monopoly. There is no problem if people voluntarily choose to contract with a single agency for the protection of their rights. A problem arises only if that agency forcibly prohibits them from contracting with other agencies that can also protect rights.

Yes, I'm aware of ancap parlor tricks.

The pertinent question is: Are you 100 percent clueless on this subject or only 99 percent?

Ghs

No I'm well aware of Rothbard, I just see his position as a silly shell game. Anarchy in its only coherent meaning is absurd. As you yourself admit, we have a right to form government, we just have to mind the right of consent. The ancap view tries to sit somewhere between the absurd and the reasonable, but that means it's still tainted with the absurd. It's almost like they want their ideas not to be taken seriously by the mainstream. But if you look at it from a natural rights angle, the US setup as it currently is, is structurally not a lot different than what would be legitimate under strict consent. There could be Federal, State, and city jurisdictions, with similar roles of each. We just have to winnow. Ancaps try to focus on what's different, but it'd be more reasonable and better marketing to focus on what is similar.

I don't call you an ancap because in principle you're on my side. You just don't like it. You're like a kid who doesn't want to eat his vegetables. Come on George, they're good for you.

Shayne

[sjw]

Shayne,I suspect you were strongly tempted to add a "QED, bitch" at the end of said statement ... Not to mention how utterly patronizing you come across, claiming that all anarchists are simply psychologically immature and getting off over revenge fantasies against their parents, displaced into a desire to abolish the State.

Take a chill pill.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

People prefer to argue. It's more fun. They already know "it."

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

If you can get "universal consent," then no libertarian anarchist would have a problem with your "government."

You may want to look around you someday. Most of your neighbors consent to their governments. Ergo they would exist under your "anarchy." The only problem with them is that they unconsensually govern you. That's all that needs to be fixed, but anarchy is supposed to be about government not being legitimate, not merely about somebody who wants to go live all by himself under an anarchic condition (but mind Brant's point. He nails it if you subtract out his cynicism).

How do you know that most of my neighbors consent to the current U.S. government? If all current taxes were made voluntary, how many people would pay them? This would be a real test of consent. So long as allegiance to a government is compulsory, we have no reliable means of determining what percentage of its citizens would consent to be governed by it.

If, as you say, "anarchy is supposed to be about government not being legitimate," this is because a government that does not claim the coercive monopoly of territorial sovereignty is not a "government" at all, as that label is commonly understood in political philosophy (and by Randians). Sovereignty is a defining characteristic of government, and the anarchistic objection to government hinges on this essential element.

To claim that your scenario "refutes anarchism as a theory" is preposterous. The only thing libertarian anarchists object to is a coercive monopoly. There is no problem if people voluntarily choose to contract with a single agency for the protection of their rights. A problem arises only if that agency forcibly prohibits them from contracting with other agencies that can also protect rights.

Yes, I'm aware of ancap parlor tricks.

Do you have any inkling -- any at all -- of what libertarian minarchists and anarchists have been arguing about for the past 50 years?

The pertinent question is: Are you 100 percent clueless on this subject or only 99 percent?

No I'm well aware of Rothbard, I just see his position as a silly shell game. Anarchy in its only coherent meaning is absurd. As you yourself admit, we have a right to form government, we just have to mind the right of consent. The ancap view tries to sit somewhere between the absurd and the reasonable, but that means it's still tainted with the absurd. It's almost like they want their ideas not to be taken seriously by the mainstream. But if you look at it from a natural rights angle, the US setup as it currently is, is structurally not a lot different than what would be legitimate under strict consent. There could be Federal, State, and city jurisdictions, with similar roles of each. We just have to winnow. Ancaps try to focus on what's different, but it'd be more reasonable and better marketing to focus on what is similar.

I don't call you an ancap because in principle you're on my side. You just don't like it. You're like a kid who doesn't want to eat his vegetables. Come on George, they're good for you.

I can abide twits, even arrogant twits, but twits who are both arrogant and ignorant are another matter.

How on earth you arrived at the conclusion that a government that operates with universal consent and lacks the coercive power of taxation would not be "structurally not a lot different" from the current "setup" is beyond me.

As for whether I am on your side, I don't know how to be on the side of someone who does not understand the relevant issues and who cannot clearly explain his position.

Ghs

[sjw]

How do you know that most of my neighbors consent to the current U.S. government? If all current taxes were made voluntary, how many people would pay them? This would be a real test of consent. So long as allegiance to a government is compulsory, we have no reliable means of determining what percentage of its citizens would consent to be governed by it.

It's compulsory precisely because that's what most people want. Put to them the alternative of 1) a government of compulsory taxation; 2) anarchy. You and your anarchist buddies are arguing precisely the thing that will guarantee a government of compulsory taxation because hardly anyone wants anarchy.

If, as you say, "anarchy is supposed to be about government not being legitimate," this is because a government that does not claim the coercive monopoly of territorial sovereignty is not a "government" at all, as that label is commonly understood in political philosophy (and by Randians). Sovereignty is a defining characteristic of government, and the anarchistic objection to government hinges on this essential element.

This is a confused objection. Yes, government has territorial sovereignty, but that's not the problem. The problem is pretending the territory is bigger than it actually is. Limited government must mean limited territory. Proper government consists not in huge nationalistic swaths (except as natural law jurisdictions), but rather towns and cities surrounded by wild natural law jurisdictions -- jurisdictions where you and your anarchist buddies can reside in as long as you want and not be subject to government (unless you violate natural rights), though I don't think you'd want to. Most people would voluntarily subject themselves to living in a taxable jurisdiction rather than living with mother nature (and those that didn't like the tax rate could create their own towns with a lower tax rate -- go ahead and try zero and see how that works out for you). Coercion is an unnecessary means of getting tax revenue.

Do you have any inkling -- any at all -- of what libertarian minarchists and anarchists have been arguing about for the past 50 years?

The wrong things. It's a pretty good sign of a false choice when you have an argument like that going on for so long, don't you think?

I can abide twits, even arrogant twits, but twits who are both arrogant and ignorant are another matter.

I can abide stubborn old men who will never change their ways, as well as their insults that miss the mark. I'm sure you've done enough good in the world that overall it doesn't matter if you never see the light.

How on earth you arrived at the conclusion that a government that operates with universal consent and lacks the coercive power of taxation would not be "structurally not a lot different" from the current "setup" is beyond me.

As for whether I am on your side, I don't know how to be on the side of someone who does not understand the relevant issues and who cannot clearly explain his position.

Ghs

You're on my side, you just don't see all the implications. I think our differences are more in the area of predicting what will actually happen in a scenario of universal consent than about the underlying principles.

Shayne

Edited December 20, 2010 by sjw

[studiodekadent]

You may want to look around you someday. Most of your neighbors consent to their governments. Ergo they would exist under your "anarchy." The only problem with them is that they unconsensually govern you. That's all that needs to be fixed, but anarchy is supposed to be about government not being legitimate, not merely about somebody who wants to go live all by himself under an anarchic condition (but mind Brant's point. He nails it if you subtract out his cynicism).

Emphasis mine.

The emphasized section clearly demonstrates you do not understand anarchism. It also shows you have a package-deal notion of "state" and "government." A consensual government IS theoretically possible. A consensual State, by definition, is not.

Yes, I'm aware of ancap parlor tricks.

Cleary you aren't. People seriously attempting to engage with ideas do not snidely denounce any opposition's ideas as "parlor tricks."

I don't call you an ancap because in principle you're on my side. You just don't like it. You're like a kid who doesn't want to eat his vegetables. Come on George, they're good for you.

Yet more snide, condescending, patronizing, offensive comments.

Saying in effect that "disagreement is immature" is one of the worst sins of Freudianism. And right now, you are comitting it gleefully. It is also the kind of stupidity engaged in by traditionalist, myopic power-luster parents.

Take a chill pill.

The fact that this is the only 'rebuttal' you can conjure to my post shows everything I need to know about your so-called argument.

[sjw]

It is also the kind of stupidity engaged in by traditionalist, myopic power-luster parents.

Speaking of Freud, you've sure got a big chip on your shoulder.

The fact that this is the only 'rebuttal' you can conjure to my post shows everything I need to know about your so-called argument.

You entangle your points with pointless whiny umbrage taking. I can tell how any discussion with you is going to turn out so I opt out. Has nothing to do with not being able to address your points. If you want to bring up something without whining about how I hurt your poor little feelings then feel free, I'll respond.

Shayne

[studiodekadent]

It is also the kind of stupidity engaged in by traditionalist, myopic power-luster parents.

Speaking of Freud, you've sure got a big chip on your shoulder.

The fact that this is the only 'rebuttal' you can conjure to my post shows everything I need to know about your so-called argument.

You entangle your points with pointless whiny umbrage taking. I can tell how any discussion with you is going to turn out so I opt out. Has nothing to do with not being able to address your points. If you want to bring up something without whining about how I hurt your poor little feelings then feel free, I'll respond.

Shayne

I'm not even going to continue this excuse for a debate.

Your entire refutation boils down to "you disagree with me because you hate your parents," which apart from being untrue (my parents were not tyrannical and as such they are not among the subgroup of parents I targeted earlier) is indeed psychologizing.

You don't understand Anarchism, you claim to be able to deal with my arguments yet you deliberately avoid doing so because apparently you'd rather accuse people that disagree with you of having psychological deficiencies, and your snide dismissiveness is worse than what I've encountered even from academic philosophers and orthodox "randroid" pseudo-Objectivists.

Reply all you like. I won't continue this further.

[sjw]

I'm not even going to continue this excuse for a debate.

Your entire refutation boils down ...

There's been no refutation or debate -- it's a waste of time to debate somebody who whines as much as you do.

... you deliberately avoid doing so because apparently you'd rather accuse people

Rather than stopping your whining you'd rather invent fictitious reasons why there's no point in your stopping whining. You're no mind-reader, you're just a petulant whiner.

Shayne

[Selene]

Getting down to the faithful few...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m87UDdLA4ws

[George H. Smith]

How do you know that most of my neighbors consent to the current U.S. government? If all current taxes were made voluntary, how many people would pay them? This would be a real test of consent. So long as allegiance to a government is compulsory, we have no reliable means of determining what percentage of its citizens would consent to be governed by it.

It's compulsory precisely because that's what most people want. Put to them the alternative of 1) a government of compulsory taxation; 2) anarchy. You and your anarchist buddies are arguing precisely the thing that will guarantee a government of compulsory taxation because hardly anyone wants anarchy.

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

If, as you say, "anarchy is supposed to be about government not being legitimate," this is because a government that does not claim the coercive monopoly of territorial sovereignty is not a "government" at all, as that label is commonly understood in political philosophy (and by Randians). Sovereignty is a defining characteristic of government, and the anarchistic objection to government hinges on this essential element.

This is a confused objection. Yes, government has territorial sovereignty, but that's not the problem. The problem is pretending the territory is bigger than it actually is. Limited government must mean limited territory. Proper government consists not in huge nationalistic swaths (except as natural law jurisdictions), but rather towns and cities surrounded by wild natural law jurisdictions -- jurisdictions where you and your anarchist buddies can reside in as long as you want and not be subject to government (unless you violate natural rights), though I don't think you'd want to. Most people would voluntarily subject themselves to living in a taxable jurisdiction rather than living with mother nature (and those that didn't like the tax rate could create their own towns with a lower tax rate -- go ahead and try zero and see how that works out for you). Coercion is an unnecessary means of getting tax revenue.

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.

Ghs

[sjw]

Getting down to the faithful few...

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Maybe we could also say:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant whiny entitlement-mongering sissies and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Perhaps this is the root of the problem. Reason and individualism are just too much for people. They can't handle the truth. They can't handle rational standards or absolutes. They need to be comforted and coddled and pandered to. But politicians know this, don't they? Just look at what success they've had. They control the entire planet, and have done so employing this method. I'll never be a politician.

Shayne

[sjw]

How do you know that most of my neighbors consent to the current U.S. government? If all current taxes were made voluntary, how many people would pay them? This would be a real test of consent. So long as allegiance to a government is compulsory, we have no reliable means of determining what percentage of its citizens would consent to be governed by it.

It's compulsory precisely because that's what most people want. Put to them the alternative of 1) a government of compulsory taxation; 2) anarchy. You and your anarchist buddies are arguing precisely the thing that will guarantee a government of compulsory taxation because hardly anyone wants anarchy.

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.

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.

Ghs

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).

You've got a lot of great names listed there. You've all said some great stuff. Now you want to rest on your laurels or pretend there's nothing new under the sun that you didn't already think of. I suppose you and the other heroes can go riding off into the sunset and leave all of us to just pour over your works for gems of wisdom, and then wonder why nothing changes.

Shayne

[Selene]

Getting down to the faithful few...

They can't handle the truth.

I'll never be a politician.

Shayne

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

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