Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[George H. Smith]

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.

I got them from you, specifically, from your muddled musings about the many people who supposedly would consent to the U.S. Government if given a chance. A major problem with this, as I pointed out, is that the vast majority of these non-libertarians would be "consenting" to the massive violation of rights practiced by the U.S. Government, so their "consent" would have no moral significance. One cannot properly "consent" to violate the rights of innocent people.

So much for that argument.

You have also babbled on about this or that government obtaining universal consent, or even multiple governments obtaining universal consent. What you don't understand is that this is the standard argument of libertarian anarchists; i.e., there is no problem so long as an agency gets universal consent. You can call such agencies "governments" or even "ice-cream sundaes" for all I care, but you are so ignorant of the standard anarchist position that you have managed to persuade yourself that you have somehow refuted anarchism.

It as if I were rebut theism by conceding every major theistic argument, while insisting that they prove the existence not of God but of a being named Fred. I then pat myself on the back for having demolished theism, and I claim that my brilliant refutation has been misunderstood whenever someone fails to appreciate it. Even worse, I offer a reconciliation by suggesting that theists are much closer to my belief in Fred than they might realize.

This is beyond pathetic.

Ghs

[sjw]

I got them from you, specifically, from your muddled musings about the many people who supposedly would consent to the U.S. Government if given a chance. A major problem with this, as I pointed out, is that the vast majority of these non-libertarians would be "consenting" to the massive violation of rights practiced by the U.S. Government, so their "consent" would have no moral significance. One cannot properly "consent" to violate the rights of innocent people.

So much for that argument.

More silliness.

You have also babbled on about this or that government obtaining universal consent, or even multiple governments obtaining universal consent. What you don't understand is that this is the standard argument of libertarian anarchists; i.e., there is no problem so long as an agency gets universal consent. You can call such agencies "governments" or even "ice-cream sundaes" for all I care, but you are so ignorant of the standard anarchist position that you have managed to persuade yourself that you have somehow refuted anarchism.

It as if I were rebut theism by conceding every major theistic argument, while insisting that they prove the existence not of God but of a being named Fred. I then pat myself on the back for having demolished theism, and I claim that my brilliant refutation has been misunderstood whenever someone fails to appreciate it. Even worse, I offer a reconciliation by suggesting that theists are much closer to my belief in Fred than they might realize.

This is beyond pathetic.

Ghs

What's pathetic is your incessant context-dropping and inability to grasp simple points. *I'm* the one who observed that we mostly agree on the basics. *I'm* the one who observed that I mostly disagree only with what you call yourself. You're the silly person who claims to support government and claims to be an anarchist at the same time. And now you make some big issue over the fact that I already pointed out several times, as if you discovered it for yourself.

You are not an anarchist, you just like being in some club. Is this a money issue George? Your behavior is hard to explain otherwise.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I got them from you, specifically, from your muddled musings about the many people who supposedly would consent to the U.S. Government if given a chance. A major problem with this, as I pointed out, is that the vast majority of these non-libertarians would be "consenting" to the massive violation of rights practiced by the U.S. Government, so their "consent" would have no moral significance. One cannot properly "consent" to violate the rights of innocent people.

So much for that argument.

More silliness.

I will make one last effort to see if you are capable of forming a coherent chain of thought.

What exactly was your point in claiming that most (or many) people would consent to the current U.S. Government if they were given a choice? You did have a point, did you not? Or were you posting sentences at random, hoping that one might accidentally stick to a point?

You have also babbled on about this or that government obtaining universal consent, or even multiple governments obtaining universal consent. What you don't understand is that this is the standard argument of libertarian anarchists; i.e., there is no problem so long as an agency gets universal consent. You can call such agencies "governments" or even "ice-cream sundaes" for all I care, but you are so ignorant of the standard anarchist position that you have managed to persuade yourself that you have somehow refuted anarchism.

It as if I were rebut theism by conceding every major theistic argument, while insisting that they prove the existence not of God but of a being named Fred. I then pat myself on the back for having demolished theism, and I claim that my brilliant refutation has been misunderstood whenever someone fails to appreciate it. Even worse, I offer a reconciliation by suggesting that theists are much closer to my belief in Fred than they might realize.

This is beyond pathetic.

Ghs

What's pathetic is your incessant context-dropping and inability to grasp simple points. *I'm* the one who observed that we mostly agree on the basics. *I'm* the one who observed that I mostly disagree only with what you call yourself....

I call myself an "anarchist" for the same reason as every other libertarian anarchist, and that reason is precisely what minarchists disagree with. Minarchists don't believe that explicit universal consent is necessary in order to justify a government, whereas anarchists do.

You would have known this if you had taken some time to review the extensive literature on the subject rather than spinning everything out of your head. If you don't want to call yourself an anarchist, fine, but your personal preference in labels has absolutely nothing to do with the debate that has been raging in libertarian circles for over 40 years.

All you have done is to take the classic anarchist demand for explicit universal consent -- an anarchistic criterion with a pedigree far older than the modern libertarian movement -- and called it a refutation of anarchism. You have arbitrarily shuffled some labels around, nothing more. If you want to actually contribute something to this classic debate, then you first need to learn what the debate has been about.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I generally avoid the anarchist-minarchist debate because I think Ayn Rand is largely responsible for it even if she didn't supply the genesis--that that predated her--simply because of some of her influence on libertarians and that influence was her Utopian thinking. My Utopia is better than your Utopia. But both are impractical and I think impossible. I'd speculate that that might have been one, relatively minor, reason she contemned libertarians: the anarchists exposed her own political folly to closer examination. "Voluntary taxation" is an oxymoron.

--Brant

[sjw]

I generally avoid the anarchist-minarchist debate because I think Ayn Rand is largely responsible for it even if she didn't supply the genesis--that that predated her--simply because of some of her influence on libertarians and that influence was her Utopian thinking. My Utopia is better than your Utopia. But both are impractical and I think impossible. I'd speculate that that might have been one, relatively minor, reason she contemned libertarians: the anarchists exposed her own political folly to closer examination. "Voluntary taxation" is an oxymoron.

--Brant

I think I can agree with that.

On the other hand all this debating with George has given me a new appreciation for Rand's attitude about anarchists. I'm really trying to maintain my positive view of many of them but it's becoming a challenge. I think it is total epistemological corruption they are engaging in -- the distinction between "anarchy" and "government" is crystal clear. Anarcho-capitalists bizarrely try to merge the two. Can't work without turning your mind into a pretzel. And debating with somebody whose mind is turned into a pretzel is tiresome. I might come back to George's last post but I'm a bit worn out trying to juggle that and some other things. To quote Lethal Weapon "I'm too old for this shit."

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I generally avoid the anarchist-minarchist debate because I think Ayn Rand is largely responsible for it even if she didn't supply the genesis--that that predated her--simply because of some of her influence on libertarians and that influence was her Utopian thinking. My Utopia is better than your Utopia. But both are impractical and I think impossible. I'd speculate that that might have been one, relatively minor, reason she contemned libertarians: the anarchists exposed her own political folly to closer examination. "Voluntary taxation" is an oxymoron.

--Brant

I think I can agree with that.

On the other hand all this debating with George has given me a new appreciation for Rand's attitude about anarchists. I'm really trying to maintain my positive view of many of them but it's becoming a challenge. I think it is total epistemological corruption they are engaging in -- the distinction between "anarchy" and "government" is crystal clear. Anarcho-capitalists bizarrely try to merge the two. Can't work without turning your mind into a pretzel. And debating with somebody whose mind is turned into a pretzel is tiresome. I might come back to George's last post but I'm a bit worn out trying to juggle that and some other things. To quote Lethal Weapon "I'm too old for this shit."

Shayne

One engages George to learn stuff or for the joy of intellectual battle. He is not trying to win a debate; that's not his premise, but he won't stop coming with facts and analyses and the inertia of sometimes seemingly nasty "over-reaching" (Robert Campbell) such as when he was blowing Dragonfly off this forum several months ago.

--Brant

Edited December 21, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[bmacwilliam]

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.

1.) Prostitution is victimless? - Wrong

2.) A physician investing in prostition? Legality? - variable. Morality? - about as wrong as you can get.

Oh yeah, the physician violated his contract/oath in a huge way, but maybe this doesn't involve title transfer so there's no problem I guess? Harming mental health not count?

Are you friggin' serious? Are you nuts?

"He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself, and he will have no career after he gets out. "

Good!

Bob

[BaalChatzaf]

1.) Prostitution is victimless? - Wrong

2.) A physician investing in prostition? Legality? - variable. Morality? - about as wrong as you can get.

Why? It is a service that people are both willing to sell and willing to buy. Don't you believe in the free market?

If lawyers can practice law, why can't ho's sells their stuff?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

I generally avoid the anarchist-minarchist debate because I think Ayn Rand is largely responsible for it even if she didn't supply the genesis--that that predated her--simply because of some of her influence on libertarians and that influence was her Utopian thinking. My Utopia is better than your Utopia. But both are impractical and I think impossible. I'd speculate that that might have been one, relatively minor, reason she contemned libertarians: the anarchists exposed her own political folly to closer examination. "Voluntary taxation" is an oxymoron.

That can save a lot of time for other things. The anarchist-minarchist debate is surely way overdone. Both ideal are pretty much pipe dreams. There are too many rights violators in the world and others who approve of them for either ideal to be anywhere near a practical reality. If there were so few rights violators such that either ideal were obtained, there would be so little need for government or private defense agencies that one ideal would look much like the other except territory-wise.

While one can regard "voluntary taxation" as an oxymoron, voluntary contributions to a government collector is not. Some states now allow optional extra payments to the government collector to be forwarded to some charity.

[bmacwilliam]

1.) Prostitution is victimless? - Wrong

2.) A physician investing in prostition? Legality? - variable. Morality? - about as wrong as you can get.

Why? It is a service that people are both willing to sell and willing to buy. Don't you believe in the free market?

If lawyers can practice law, why can't ho's sells their stuff?

Ba'al Chatzaf

The fact that both parties engage willingly is true. Asserting that it is victimless is not true - two separate things. I'm fine with legalizing drugs too, but addiction is hardly harmless or victimless.

I also don't have any problem with legalized prostitution. I do have a problem with the morality of prostitution.

Bob

Edited December 21, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[George H. Smith]

I generally avoid the anarchist-minarchist debate because I think Ayn Rand is largely responsible for it even if she didn't supply the genesis--that that predated her--simply because of some of her influence on libertarians and that influence was her Utopian thinking. My Utopia is better than your Utopia. But both are impractical and I think impossible. I'd speculate that that might have been one, relatively minor, reason she contemned libertarians: the anarchists exposed her own political folly to closer examination. "Voluntary taxation" is an oxymoron.

--Brant

I think I can agree with that.

On the other hand all this debating with George has given me a new appreciation for Rand's attitude about anarchists. I'm really trying to maintain my positive view of many of them but it's becoming a challenge. I think it is total epistemological corruption they are engaging in -- the distinction between "anarchy" and "government" is crystal clear. Anarcho-capitalists bizarrely try to merge the two. Can't work without turning your mind into a pretzel. And debating with somebody whose mind is turned into a pretzel is tiresome. I might come back to George's last post but I'm a bit worn out trying to juggle that and some other things. To quote Lethal Weapon "I'm too old for this shit."

Shayne

One of your problems is that, lacking any knowledge of the history of political thought, you have no appreciation for the complexities and ambiguities associated with terms like "government" and "anarchy." This wouldn't be an insurmountable barrier if you at least defined your terms before barging into a controversy. But you don't. That is another one of your problems.

I addressed some of these problems here. You will note that I present various sides in a reasonable manner. I don't resort to calling minarchists names, such as overgrown teenagers or morons. That fact that you happen to be a moron has no direct bearing on minarchism. It simply makes you an incompetent defender of minarchism. It also makes me thankful that you are on the other side.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

I also don't have any problem with legalized prostitution. I do have a problem with the morality of prostitution.

Bob

Who is the victim of a jolly good and reasonably priced schtupp? The ho makes some money and the John leaves happy. What victim?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

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.

1.) Prostitution is victimless? - Wrong

2.) A physician investing in prostition? Legality? - variable. Morality? - about as wrong as you can get.

Oh yeah, the physician violated his contract/oath in a huge way, but maybe this doesn't involve title transfer so there's no problem I guess? Harming mental health not count?

Are you friggin' serious? Are you nuts?

"He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself, and he will have no career after he gets out. "

Good!

Bob

Now this is a vicious statement. The doctor in one sense got what he deserved, and I know about the case; he was trying to profit from something illegal. That's where the money is, but the judge bit him too hard. Whether he has a career in medicine after he gets out remains to be seen. I suspect he'll be able to get something going again in his field of radiology.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I generally avoid the anarchist-minarchist debate because I think Ayn Rand is largely responsible for it even if she didn't supply the genesis--that that predated her--simply because of some of her influence on libertarians and that influence was her Utopian thinking. My Utopia is better than your Utopia. But both are impractical and I think impossible. I'd speculate that that might have been one, relatively minor, reason she contemned libertarians: the anarchists exposed her own political folly to closer examination. "Voluntary taxation" is an oxymoron.

I don't blame you for avoiding the anarchist/minarchist debate, but more is involved than a battle between impractical utopias.

It is misleading to call either pure minarchism or pure anarchism "utopias." True, they are conceptions of ideal political institutions, but they are not utopias in the dictionary sense of "an ideally perfect place."

Historically, depictions of utopias, such as found most notably in the writings of Plato and More, are highly regimented societies. This is not an accidental feature. Utopian writers don't merely posit ideal political institutions; they sketch perfect societies. And, and Plato pointed out, once we achieve a perfect society, all change is degeneration into something worse. Regimentation is therefore necessary in order to arrest change.

Neither minarchists nor anarchists claim that ideal political institutions will result in perfect societies. Libertarian thinkers have always drawn a crucial distinction between coercive political institutions and voluntary social institutions, and they have sought to reduce the sphere of the political to the barest minimum and thereby leave as much room as possible for the social.

Minarchists and anarchists, unlike utopian thinkers, do not seek to arrest social change within the framework of their ideal political institutions. On the contrary, as believers in spontaneous order, they maintain that social change can be for the better. In other words, unlike utopian thinkers, libertarians reject the very idea of a "perfect" static society. Thus do libertarians fall into the tradition known as "indefinite progress." So long as freedom is maintained, there is no absolute limit to the progress that can be achieved. (This includes economic progress, scientific progress, moral progress, and so forth.)

I have some observations about the practical implications of the minarchist/anarchist debate, but I will leave those for a later post.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

The anarchist-minarchist debate is surely way overdone. Both ideal are pretty much pipe dreams. There are too many rights violators in the world and others who approve of them for either ideal to be anywhere near a practical reality.

Would you also say that Ayn Rand was pursuing a pipe dream when she advocated the "unknown ideal" of pure laissez-faire capitalism?

As Herbert Spencer pointed out, ideals, even if we never expect to achieve them, function as clearly defined goals and are therefore essential to determining which means we should adopt. To advocate "freedom" is fine, but if we lack a concrete vision of what a free society would look like, all kinds of questionable policies will be advocated in the name of freedom. I have found that the libertarians who denigrate ideal goals and who pride themselves on being "practical" tend to be the same libertarians who call for one compromise with statism after another in the name of practicality.

Ghs

[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.

1.) Prostitution is victimless? - Wrong

2.) A physician investing in prostition? Legality? - variable. Morality? - about as wrong as you can get.

Oh yeah, the physician violated his contract/oath in a huge way, but maybe this doesn't involve title transfer so there's no problem I guess? Harming mental health not count?

Are you friggin' serious? Are you nuts?

"He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself, and he will have no career after he gets out. "

Good!

Bob

This is one of the most disgusting things I have ever read on OL. A physician does not violate his professional oath by investing in prostitution. But even if he did, this would be a matter for a board of ethics within that profession to decide, not for the State.

So do you think that everyone who disagrees with you on moral issues should be thrown in jail? I see nothing immoral in prostitution per se. Should I be imprisoned as well? Who is the "victim" in consensual prostitution? Who is being coerced? Should pornography be illegal as well? After all, porn actors are paid to engage in sex.

Maybe you could get some jollies by wandering around at night, shining a flashlight into cars, and reporting any activities you don't approve of to the police. Then you could go home and jack off.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

The doctor in one sense got what he deserved, and I know about the case; he was trying to profit from something illegal. That's where the money is, but the judge bit him too hard. Whether he has a career in medicine after he gets out remains to be seen. I suspect he'll be able to get something going again in his field of radiology.

--Brant

What "sense" would that be? Businesspersons who skirt onerous regulations may get busted as a result. Do they in "one sense" deserve what they get? Again, what would that sense be?

If all you wish to say is that the physician made a dumb decision, then you will get no argument from me. But to say that he deserved what he got (i.e., a prison sentence) in any sense is absurd. If everyone who made a dumb decision was sent to prison, there would be no one left on the outside to run the prisons.

Ghs

[merjet]

The anarchist-minarchist debate is surely way overdone. Both ideal are pretty much pipe dreams. There are too many rights violators in the world and others who approve of them for either ideal to be anywhere near a practical reality.

Would you also say that Ayn Rand was pursuing a pipe dream when she advocated the "unknown ideal" of pure laissez-faire capitalism?

As Herbert Spencer pointed out, ideals, even if we never expect to achieve them, function as clearly defined goals and are therefore essential to determining which means we should adopt. To advocate "freedom" is fine, but if we lack a concrete vision of what a free society would look like, all kinds of questionable policies will be advocated in the name of freedom. I have found that the libertarians who denigrate ideal goals and who pride themselves on being "practical" tend to be the same libertarians who call for one compromise with statism after another in the name of practicality.

Ghs

It was a pipe dream for Rand in that there was less and less freedom during her life. Since you brought up Rand, how much time did she spend on said debate with Murray Rothbard?

It's pipe dream to me, since I don't much expect freedom to increase during my remaining life. Of course, that doesn't preclude my trying to increase freedom, say, by voting for more freedom-minded politicians. As for spending much time on the debate, it reminds of the saying "When all is said and done, there's a lot more said than done."

Edited December 21, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[Brant Gaede]

The doctor in one sense got what he deserved, and I know about the case; he was trying to profit from something illegal. That's where the money is, but the judge bit him too hard. Whether he has a career in medicine after he gets out remains to be seen. I suspect he'll be able to get something going again in his field of radiology.

--Brant

What "sense" would that be? Businesspersons who skirt onerous regulations may get busted as a result. Do they in "one sense" deserve what they get? Again, what would that sense be?

If all you wish to say is that the physician made a dumb decision, then you will get no argument from me. But to say that he deserved what he got (i.e., a prison sentence) in any sense is absurd. If everyone who made a dumb decision was sent to prison, there would be no one left on the outside to run the prisons.

Ghs

Prostitution is flat out illegal in Arizona and New Mexico. Period. This is not an area for a businessman unless he is, as you say, dumb. And in that sense he got what he deserved--the conviction. He did not deserve that harsh sentence from the New Mexico judge.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

The anarchist-minarchist debate is surely way overdone. Both ideal are pretty much pipe dreams. There are too many rights violators in the world and others who approve of them for either ideal to be anywhere near a practical reality.

Would you also say that Ayn Rand was pursuing a pipe dream when she advocated the "unknown ideal" of pure laissez-faire capitalism?

As Herbert Spencer pointed out, ideals, even if we never expect to achieve them, function as clearly defined goals and are therefore essential to determining which means we should adopt. To advocate "freedom" is fine, but if we lack a concrete vision of what a free society would look like, all kinds of questionable policies will be advocated in the name of freedom. I have found that the libertarians who denigrate ideal goals and who pride themselves on being "practical" tend to be the same libertarians who call for one compromise with statism after another in the name of practicality.

Ghs

It was a pipe dream for Rand in that there was less and less freedom during her life. It's pipe dream to me, since I don't much expect freedom to increase during my remaining life. Of course, that doesn't preclude my trying to increase freedom, say, by voting for more freedom-minded politicians. As for spending much time on the debate, it reminds of the saying "When all is said and done, there's a lot more said than done."

Which do you think has had more practical influence -- Rand's "pipe dream" writings on an "unknown ideal" or your voting?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand and pipe dreams: She threw herself full blast right into a hostile intellectual and cultural collectivist wasteland and did not flinch.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Prostitution is flat out illegal in Arizona and New Mexico. Period. This is not an area for a businessman unless he is, as you say, dumb. And in that sense he got what he deserved--the conviction. He did not deserve that harsh sentence from the New Mexico judge.

--Brant

Does this mean that anyone who violates a victimless crime law deserves (in your sense) to be convicted? Does everyone who smokes grass in Arizona and New Mexico also deserve to be convicted?

Ghs

[merjet]

Which do you think has had more practical influence -- Rand's "pipe dream" writings on an "unknown ideal" or your voting?

She influenced the minds of a few people, but her practical success increasing freedom was nil.

[George H. Smith]

Which do you think has had more practical influence -- Rand's "pipe dream" writings on an "unknown ideal" or your voting?

She influenced the minds of a few people, but her practical success increasing freedom was nil.

I don't agree with this at all, but I don't want to get embroiled in yet another debate. I suspect there are some other OL members who will carry the standard in this battle.

What practical success has your voting had, btw? Was there an election where your single vote made the difference?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Prostitution is flat out illegal in Arizona and New Mexico. Period. This is not an area for a businessman unless he is, as you say, dumb. And in that sense he got what he deserved--the conviction. He did not deserve that harsh sentence from the New Mexico judge.

--Brant

Does this mean that anyone who violates a victimless crime law deserves (in your sense) to be convicted? Does everyone who smokes grass in Arizona and New Mexico also deserve to be convicted?

Ghs

We're into semantics now. I'm using "deserves" in a practical sense and you in the moral sense. We've really no argument with each other that I can see. When I said he didn't deserve the sentence, that was the moral sense. Note you're not going at me about that. Sorry I didn't nuance this out for you previously.

--Brant

while George is a genius, he needs a little help from time to time--grrr, grrr