Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[Brant Gaede]

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.

"A few people?" Are you trying to kid us? Her books have been read by tens of millions; only a few were influenced? Yep, she didn't write "The Wrong Man In Uniform"--the book that had so much to do with ending the draft--she was only a serious influence on the author.

--Brant

[merjet]

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

That's like asking when a bomb causes a lot of damage, what is the effect of one little fragment?

[George H. Smith]

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

We were into semantics from the very beginning. I have known you long enough to understand that you don't believe that our physician friend morally deserved to get convicted or punished. I was giving you hard time because I don't think libertarians should throw around the term "deserves" as you did in this context. It is quite misleading.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

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

We were into semantics from the very beginning. I have known you long enough to understand that you don't believe that our physician friend morally deserved to get convicted or punished. I was giving you hard time because I don't think libertarians should throw around the term "deserves" as you did in this context. It is quite misleading.

Ghs

It's a relief to know you didn't need the nuancing.

--Brant

now I can stop buttering you up

[George H. Smith]

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

That's like asking when a bomb causes a lot of damage, what is the effect of one little fragment?

When it comes to human beings, each of us is "one little fragment," so to speak, in the grand scheme of things. The question for libertarians is how each fragment can best utilize his or her abilities in the struggle for a free society.

I have no problem with people who have no great interest in the fine points of philosophy. Given their talents, they might be far more effective running businesses or, for that matter, political campaigns. What I don't like is the denigration of people whose talents and interests lie elsewhere. Libertarianism requires a division of labor between theoretical and practical minds.

It is unrealistic to expect any single person, whether this be Ayn Rand or anyone else, to reverse the tide of statism in American, and it is unfair to dismiss or underestimate the influence of a single person because she did not achieve the impossible. Ayn Rand did far more than persuade a few people. For one thing, she played a major role in shifting the boundaries of political debate in America. Ideas that were regarded as marginal when she first discussed them have now entered the mainstream of political discussion. For example, "capitalism" is no longer a dirty word, and laissez-faire types appear frequently in the media (mainly on Fox News, Fox News Radio, and especially on Fox Business News, where both Stossel and Napolitano host their own programs).

Have any of these things actually reversed the progress of statism? No, but they have given us a lot more to work from than we had several decades ago.

Ghs

[merjet]

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

"A few people?" Are you trying to kid us? Her books have been read by tens of millions; only a few were influenced? Yep, she didn't write "The Wrong Man In Uniform"--the book that had so much to do with ending the draft--she was only a serious influence on the author.

I used "few" relatively and regarding the political arena. Even if she influenced the political views of 1 million people in the U.S., that is 1/300th of the population.

[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.

"A few people?" Are you trying to kid us? Her books have been read by tens of millions; only a few were influenced? Yep, she didn't write "The Wrong Man In Uniform"--the book that had so much to do with ending the draft--she was only a serious influence on the author.

--Brant

During the 16 years that I participated in IHS summer seminars, the lecturers were given copies of the application forms. This was so we could familiarize ourselves with the backgrounds of the 30 or so students who were attending.

In one part of the application, students were asked to name the person or persons who got them interested in the ideas of freedom. For the first 6 or 7 years (beginning c. 1977), Ayn Rand was listed around 90 percent of the time, and her name usually appeared alone or at the top of a short list. As the years wore on, her name appeared less frequently, and we often saw names like Hayek, Friedman, and Mises. Nevertheless, Rand's name still appeared on at least 50 percent of the applications.

I cannot prove it, but I suspect that the increasing popularity of Hayek, Mises, and Friedman owed something to Rand's influence as well.

Ghs

[sjw]

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

Maybe I shouldn't have defined anarchists as overgrown teenagers. Maybe a better definition is: a guy just smart enough to outsmart himself, but not smart enough to reason his way out of his self-made conundrum. The only "complexity" is you looking out at the world from the standpoint of somebody whose mind is twisted into a pretzel. Very clever boy, now can you get yourself out of it?

I skimmed your article, it's not worth reading. Just the same old arbitrary definitions that created this age-old debate.

Here's the silly thing. I'm rising above it all and offering you a way to have your "anarchism" (which isn't really anarchism), and a way for those of a more traditional approach to have their way. Unlike you, I'm not dogmatic. I'll accept all-comers. Capitalists, communists, anarchists, socialists, whatever. There's just one simple and essential rule they all must follow, and by following it they can all have their way. So I don't know why you're so upset. Unless it's that it annoys you when someone solves a problem you've been stuck on for decades.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

You can't properly evaluate an article like that by skimming it.

--Brant

[sjw]

You can't properly evaluate an article like that by skimming it.

--Brant

It's an improvement over George's reading method.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

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

Maybe I shouldn't have defined anarchists as overgrown teenagers. Maybe a better definition is: a guy just smart enough to outsmart himself, but not smart enough to reason his way out of his self-made conundrum. The only "complexity" is you looking out at the world from the standpoint of somebody whose mind is twisted into a pretzel. Very clever boy, now can you get yourself out of it?

I skimmed your article, it's not worth reading. Just the same old arbitrary definitions that created this age-old debate.

Here's the silly thing. I'm rising above it all and offering you a way to have your "anarchism" (which isn't really anarchism), and a way for those of a more traditional approach to have their way. Unlike you, I'm not dogmatic. I'll accept all-comers. Capitalists, communists, anarchists, socialists, whatever. There's just one simple and essential rule they all must follow, and by following it they can all have their way. So I don't know why you're so upset. Unless it's that it annoys you when someone solves a problem you've been stuck on for decades.

Shayne

Yet another stellar contribution.

Yes, Shayne, you have risen above it all -- reason, knowledge, common sense, history, absolutely everything. No one will ever understand anything about this debate until you enlighten them. As for your "essential rule," it is of course the same rule that libertarians have been advocating for centuries. Perhaps I shouldn't have pointed this out; after all, I wouldn't want to shatter your illusion of originality. That's the great thing about being tabula rasa, isn't it, Shayne? You can reinvent the wheel over and over again. Never mind that many of your wheels are square. Keep at it. In the next 50 years, with sufficient work and dedication, you may progress to where libertarian philosophers were 300 years ago. At that point you can reinvent economics.

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

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

Sure, that's the case in some, but a minority of these situations. Most often the women are troubled and/or drug addicted and usually in desperate situations. It is not a simple transaction - most often. Not to mention buying sex is morally questionable at best.

[sjw]

Yes, Shayne, you have risen above it all -- reason, knowledge, common sense, history, absolutely everything. No one will ever understand anything about this debate until you enlighten them. As for your "essential rule," it is of course the same rule that libertarians have been advocating for centuries. Perhaps I shouldn't have pointed this out; after all, I wouldn't want to shatter your illusion of originality. That's the great thing about being tabula rasa, isn't it, Shayne? You can reinvent the wheel over and over again. Never mind that many of your wheels are square. Keep at it. In the next 50 years, with sufficient work and dedication, you may progress to where libertarian philosophers were 300 years ago. At that point you can reinvent economics.

Ghs

No it's not the non-aggression principle. Duh. I know you wish I were that clueless. Keep on wishing.

Actually I think various Founding Fathers had the same idea. I even found a bit in John Locke that supported the view I'd come to, but he didn't emphasize it nearly as strongly as I do. I think it was because in that era they didn't have the same problems we do, there wasn't a need of emphasizing it.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Yes, Shayne, you have risen above it all -- reason, knowledge, common sense, history, absolutely everything. No one will ever understand anything about this debate until you enlighten them. As for your "essential rule," it is of course the same rule that libertarians have been advocating for centuries. Perhaps I shouldn't have pointed this out; after all, I wouldn't want to shatter your illusion of originality. That's the great thing about being tabula rasa, isn't it, Shayne? You can reinvent the wheel over and over again. Never mind that many of your wheels are square. Keep at it. In the next 50 years, with sufficient work and dedication, you may progress to where libertarian philosophers were 300 years ago. At that point you can reinvent economics.

Ghs

No it's not the non-aggression principle. Duh. I know you wish I were that clueless. Keep on wishing.

I was referring to a rights principle. I apologize profusely if I have failed to plumb the depths of your profound wisdom-- so please, pretty please, if you were not referring to a rights principle, shed your light upon us and allow us to be born again in your image.

Actually I think various Founding Fathers had the same idea. I even found a bit in John Locke that supported the view I'd come to, but he didn't emphasize it nearly as strongly as I do. I think it was because in that era they didn't have the same problems we do, there wasn't a need of emphasizing it.

So this is what you actually think, eh? I must be sure to copy and save this post for future reference.

Ghs

[sjw]

I was referring to a rights principle. I apologize profusely if I have failed to plumb the depths of your profound wisdom-- so please, pretty please, if you were not referring to a rights principle, shed your light upon us and allow us to be born again in your image.

Well no that's not it either. I've told you time and time again that you're not good at reading minds.

Actually I think various Founding Fathers had the same idea. I even found a bit in John Locke that supported the view I'd come to, but he didn't emphasize it nearly as strongly as I do. I think it was because in that era they didn't have the same problems we do, there wasn't a need of emphasizing it.

So this is what you actually think, eh? I must be sure to copy and save this post for future reference.

Ghs

Yes, well I said as much in my book. So you're right in a sense, I did reinvent the wheel. The one you and your cohorts forgot about, instead spending your energies turning your minds into pretzels. Every attack you dish out on me relative to you and your crew is better dished out on you relative to your betters from the past.

So when you boil it all down, no, I haven't done much of anything new, I'm just newly emphasizing what has been mostly forgotten. How many times have I said that you agree with me (or I you)? If you take a list of all propositions I hold, and a list that you (or Rothbard) hold, the differences will be very slight. The main difference is how I organize, emphasize, and prioritize. That, and I haven't turned my mind into a pretzel while trying to say that A is not-A.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

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

Sure, that's the case in some, but a minority of these situations.

Have you not left happy after most of your encounters with prostitutes? Or did you refuse to pay them? I assume you speak from experience, given how much detailed knowledge you have about this subject.

Most often the women are troubled and/or drug addicted and usually in desperate situations. It is not a simple transaction - most often.

What kind of employment would you recommend for troubled and/or drug addicted women? Dental assistants? Bus drivers? Gun safety instructors?

Not to mention buying sex is morally questionable at best.

Do you feel guilty afterwards?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I was referring to a rights principle. I apologize profusely if I have failed to plumb the depths of your profound wisdom-- so please, pretty please, if you were not referring to a rights principle, shed your light upon us and allow us to be born again in your image.

Well no that's not it either. I've told you time and time again that you're not good at reading minds.

I'm sure you have mentioned it many times. Your ideas pass through my mind quicker than shit through a goose.

Shall we play 20 questions now? Or will you once again reveal the secret of the Holy Grail? I will tattoo it on my arm this time.

Ghs

[sjw]

I was referring to a rights principle. I apologize profusely if I have failed to plumb the depths of your profound wisdom-- so please, pretty please, if you were not referring to a rights principle, shed your light upon us and allow us to be born again in your image.

Well no that's not it either. I've told you time and time again that you're not good at reading minds.

I'm sure you have mentioned it many times. Your ideas pass through my mind quicker than shit through a goose.

Shall we play 20 questions now? Or will you once again reveal the secret of the Holy Grail? I will tattoo it on my arm this time.

Ghs

The secret? I'll give you one. From one perspective all we're talking about is packaging. It's marketing work to sell the ideas of liberty. In some sense all I'm saying is that your packaging is butt ugly. It confuses people unnecessarily. You bundle up the powers of government into a concept you call anarchy? That's bizarre on its face. Stupid marketing. And how's it been working out for you? Ron Paul trounced you all. He did more for making liberty popular in one year than you guys have done in 50.

Think Apple vs. its competitors. Its products essentially do the same thing, but present a far better interface to the user. In some sense I'm debating the wrong crowd. It's like I'm an Apple fan who went into a forum filled with Linux zealots (it pains me to make that statement since I love Linux -- but for the sake of the metaphor...)

Is my approach really comparable to Apple's? Well it's impossible to say at this point. As you say, I might fail. Going by statistics, I'll probably fail. I knew that going in. Those are the terms, and I accept them. My only point here is to better explain what I think this debate is about.

Shayne

[Selene]

How many times have I said that you agree with me (or I you)? If you take a list of all propositions I hold, and a list that you (or Rothbard) hold, the differences will be very slight. The main difference is how I organize, emphasize, and prioritize. That, and I haven't turned my mind into a pretzel while trying to say that A is not-A.

Shayne

Please produce that list as it will be extremely instrumental in settling the differences and congruences between the three (3) of you.

George Rothbard Shayne/The Chosen One/The Golden Child/The Whistler/

Thanks

Adam

Edited December 21, 2010 by Selene

[George H. Smith]

I was referring to a rights principle. I apologize profusely if I have failed to plumb the depths of your profound wisdom-- so please, pretty please, if you were not referring to a rights principle, shed your light upon us and allow us to be born again in your image.

Well no that's not it either. I've told you time and time again that you're not good at reading minds.

I'm sure you have mentioned it many times. Your ideas pass through my mind quicker than shit through a goose.

Shall we play 20 questions now? Or will you once again reveal the secret of the Holy Grail? I will tattoo it on my arm this time.

Ghs

The secret? I'll give you one. From one perspective all we're talking about is packaging. It's marketing work to sell the ideas of liberty. In some sense all I'm saying is that your packaging is butt ugly. It confuses people unnecessarily. You bundle up the powers of government into a concept you call anarchy? That's bizarre on its face. Stupid marketing. And how's it been working out for you? Ron Paul trounced you all. He did more for making liberty popular in one year than you guys have done in 50.

What makes you think that I call myself an "anarchist" when I'm marketing ideas? The minarchist/anarchist debate is an in-house controversy. I have always called myself a "libertarian" when addressing general audiences. Only in a highly specialized discussion or debate would the label "anarchist" have relevance.

Any other not-so-secret secrets that you care to share? This one was one a bust. I sure hope it wasn't the principle that you referred to earlier.

Ghs

[Mikee]

If the US government were reduced to the legitimate functions defined for government by Ayn Rand, including separation of the economy and the State, what would be the objections to this state by anarchists?

[bmacwilliam]

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: "I see nothing immoral in prostitution"

Fair enough, you're a scumbag. Fine. At least it's clear what we're dealing with here.

George: "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."

See above.

George : " A physician does not violate his professional oath by investing in prostitution"

Bullshit.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

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

Ghs

"Victimless" is absolutely absurd. Only the most superficial and irrational pretzel-logic interpretation comes up with prostitution as victimless and morally OK. Complete nonsense.

If prostitution is victimless and morally neutral (or good), ask yourself how you'd feel if your daughter decided to pursue this "profession". You know you're full of crap.

Bob

[sjw]

How many times have I said that you agree with me (or I you)? If you take a list of all propositions I hold, and a list that you (or Rothbard) hold, the differences will be very slight. The main difference is how I organize, emphasize, and prioritize. That, and I haven't turned my mind into a pretzel while trying to say that A is not-A.

Shayne

Please produce that list as it will be extremely instrumental in settling the differences and congruences between the three (3) of you.

George Rothbard Shayne/The Chosen One/The Golden Child/The Whistler/

Thanks

Adam

What, you don't care about Rand?

Shayne

[sjw]

What makes you think that I call myself an "anarchist" when I'm marketing ideas? The minarchist/anarchist debate is an in-house controversy. I have always called myself a "libertarian" when addressing general audiences. Only in a highly specialized discussion or debate would the label "anarchist" have relevance.

Interesting that even you don't think anarchy is worth promoting. Good call.

Any other not-so-secret secrets that you care to share? This one was one a bust. I sure hope it wasn't the principle that you referred to earlier.

Ghs

No, but I don't see the point in sharing with someone whose main contribution to anything is to zoom in with microscopic detail nitpicking things. Not that that's a bad skill. It's admirable. It's just not the be all end all.

Shayne