Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[George H. Smith]

Why is it immoral to buy or sell sex? Because you say so?

Ghs

Yes, there is no other justification of morality - clearly.

This is the caliber of argument that I have come to expect from you.

Ghs

[sjw]

George:

On my view the most fundamental problem with minarchists and anarchists is the failure to grasp the meaning and distinction between man-made law and natural law.

Man-made law can only apply to your own home, or to property that the owners jointly agree that the law will apply to. An Amish town could be created where all the members create arbitrary laws (within certain limits) that apply there. Maybe they even have some elements of communist-like laws, where all members pool resources. Can anarchists logically deny the right to do this? No. You wouldn't even try. You just call this "anarchy" even though it so clearly is not.

Natural law can be applied everywhere. I have a right to come to anyone's defense, therefore I can delegate that right to a third party. So a "federal" government, that guarantees natural law in a sweeping area of land, like a continent, is perfectly valid. You'd ask how this could be funded, but I think you ask that only because you live under a federal government that stops pirates and gangs from forming and roving from city to city looting and then escaping into the wilderness. Every city has an interest in securing the wild lands and the oceans from pirates. They further have an interest in joining forces to keep out hostile totalitarian regimes, like China or Russia.

So from these two angles, it is clear that anarchy is an absurd view, having no support whatever from the principles of natural law. Which is not to say that I endorse minarchy. I have never seen a minarchist actually claim full support of natural law, importantly, the consent of the governed. Show me one who has. In my book all minarchists are in principle totalitarians -- they seek to apply man-made laws to you without your consent, and they seek total continental domination, a jurisdiction of their arbitrary man-made laws. But in my view, only a strict concept of natural law is permitted, unless the individual consented to various man-made constructs.

Shayne

[RagJohn]

aren't we skipping a VERY important point? You will never GET universal consent to any sort of gov't, because so many people are hateful, spiteful, disagreable just for the hell of it, if not out of a sense of entitlement,etc. A good % of people would pay no taxes at all, to include myself. If you can't get me to agree to give you the money, then you can damned well bet that I will do all in my power to not let you TAKE my money, too.

[skrzprst]

2 points:

1. Anarchism isn't against laws, it's against rulers. An anarchist opposes authoritarianism and centralized power, not rules.

2. Ageism is irrational collectivism, pure and simple.

[Selene]

2 points:

1. Anarchism isn't against laws, it's against rulers. An anarchist opposes authoritarianism and centralized power, not rules.

2. Ageism is irrational collectivism, pure and simple.

Excellent.

Shayne is the only overgrow teenager.

[sjw]

2 points:

1. Anarchism isn't against laws, it's against rulers. An anarchist opposes authoritarianism and centralized power, not rules.

Anarchism is against government, thus it is against even non-authoritarian forms, such as government of consensually delegated authority, i.e., representatives.

2. Ageism is irrational collectivism, pure and simple.

Yeah, and two-year-olds might be able to create a grand unified theory of physics... Wouldn't want to be "ageist" and think they probably couldn't.

Shayne

[Selene]

Jackie:

Shayne is not allowed on my welcome wagon.

Adam

[sjw]

2 points:

1. Anarchism isn't against laws, it's against rulers. An anarchist opposes authoritarianism and centralized power, not rules.

2. Ageism is irrational collectivism, pure and simple.

Excellent.

Shayne is the only overgrow teenager.

Beware of people who pander to your weakness.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

2 points:

1. Anarchism isn't against laws, it's against rulers. An anarchist opposes authoritarianism and centralized power, not rules.

Anarchism is against government, thus it is against even non-authoritarian forms, such as government of consensually delegated authority, i.e., representatives.

Yet another colossally ignorant contribution by Shayne to the minarchist/anarchist debate.

Nothing in anarchist theory prohibits consensually delegated authority to representatives, provided the principals have a rightful claim to the powers they seek to delegate.

Shayne doesn't need to read what libertarian anarchists have actually said on this and similar topics. He simply makes stuff up as he goes along, and that, for him, passes for knowledge.

Ghs

[sjw]

Yet another colossally ignorant contribution by Shayne to the minarchist/anarchist debate.

Nothing in anarchist theory prohibits consensually delegated authority to representatives, provided the principals have a rightful claim to the powers they are delegating.

Shayne doesn't need to read what libertarian anarchists have actually said on this and similar topics. He simply makes stuff up as he goes along, and that, for him, passes for knowledge.

Ghs

Another sample of intellectual contortionist thought from GHS. Anarchy is a clear enough concept for non-contortionists to grasp.

I don't give a shit what intellectually dishonest libertarian anarchist contortionists like GHS have said, anarchism means no government, of any kind, period. GHS's "anarchism" is just a weaselly way of backpedaling toward something sensible without actually arriving.

Check your premises, you intellectual hack.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I think critics of anarchism keep mixing up the state with government. I think it's the state that's being criticised by the libertarian anarchists.

--Brant

Edited February 1, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

Yet another colossally ignorant contribution by Shayne to the minarchist/anarchist debate.

Nothing in anarchist theory prohibits consensually delegated authority to representatives, provided the principals have a rightful claim to the powers they are delegating.

Shayne doesn't need to read what libertarian anarchists have actually said on this and similar topics. He simply makes stuff up as he goes along, and that, for him, passes for knowledge.

Ghs

Another sample of intellectual contortionist thought from GHS. Anarchy is a clear enough concept for non-contortionists to grasp.

I don't give a shit what intellectually dishonest libertarian anarchist contortionists like GHS have said, anarchism means no government, of any kind, period. GHS's "anarchism" is just a weaselly way of backpedaling toward something sensible without actually arriving.

Check your premises, you intellectual hack.

Shayne

Anarchism means no government of any kind? What a brilliant insight! This will surely rank as your greatest contribution to libertarian theory.

Now if you could only figure out what a "government" is, you might be in pretty good shape. But by no means should you read anything about how the terms "government" and "state" arose historically and how they are commonly used today in political theory, especially in libertarian political theory. After all, we wouldn't want to pollute that pristine mind of yours with useful knowledge.

So keep making stuff up as you go along, by all means. Then, after you vanquish a libertarian anarchism that exists only in your own mind, you can take on other villainous windmills.

Ghs

[Selene]

Just pandering to your weakness Shayne

[sjw]

Anarchism means no government of any kind? What a brilliant insight! This will surely rank as your greatest contribution to libertarian theory.

Now if you could only figure out what a "government" is, you might be in pretty good shape. But by no means should you read anything about how the terms "government" and "state" arose historically and how they are commonly used today in political theory, especially in libertarian political theory. After all, we wouldn't want to pollute that pristine mind of yours with useful knowledge.

So keep making stuff up as you go along, by all means. Then, after you vanquish a libertarian anarchism that exists only in your own mind, you can take on other villainous windmills.

Ghs

I'm looking forward to reading your forthcoming book(s), where instead of foaming at the mouth, you actually say something useful for a change.

Shayne

[sjw]

I think critics of anarchism keep mixing up the state with government. I think it's the state that's being criticised by the libertarian anarchists.

--Brant

<Yawn>

Shayne

[Selene]

[sjw]

Not looking forward to anything from you Selene, I think you've reached your peak with these court jester antics.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Anarchism means no government of any kind? What a brilliant insight! This will surely rank as your greatest contribution to libertarian theory.

Now if you could only figure out what a "government" is, you might be in pretty good shape. But by no means should you read anything about how the terms "government" and "state" arose historically and how they are commonly used today in political theory, especially in libertarian political theory. After all, we wouldn't want to pollute that pristine mind of yours with useful knowledge.

So keep making stuff up as you go along, by all means. Then, after you vanquish a libertarian anarchism that exists only in your own mind, you can take on other villainous windmills.

Ghs

I'm looking forward to reading your forthcoming book(s), where instead of foaming at the mouth, you actually say something useful for a change.

Shayne

Here's a tip, Shayne.

The next time you wade into an old controversy while claiming to have vanquished one of the sides, pay some attention to what that side has actually argued. Your standard argument --to the effect that it is possible, in principle, to obtain universal and express consent for a "government" -- has no bearing on anarchism per se. It is an irrelevant point. No modern libertarian anarchist has ever denied the legitimacy of a protection agency that enjoys this kind of de facto monopoly. Anarchists object only to agencies that claim a de jure monopoly, i.e., coercive jurisdiction over a territorial area, regardless of whether the people in that territory consent or not. This coercive monopoly, traditionally known as "sovereignty," has been the defining characteristic of the modern state for centuries.

In short, your "refutation" of anarchism consists of an argument that anarchists themselves have defended for centuries. You may as well claim to have refuted Objectivism on the grounds that you can prove the objectivity of human knowledge. Or to have refuted Christianity by proving that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead on the third day. How are people supposed to react to such bizarre claims?

Ghs

[sjw]

Here's a tip, Shayne.

The next time you wade into an old controversy while claiming to have vanquished one of the sides, pay some attention to what that side has actually argued. Your standard argument --to the effect that it is possible, in principle, to obtain universal and express consent for a "government" -- has no bearing on anarchism per se. It is an irrelevant point. No modern libertarian anarchist has ever denied the legitimacy of a protection agency that enjoys this kind of de facto monopoly. Anarchists object only to agencies that claim a de jure monopoly, i.e., coercive jurisdiction over a territorial area, regardless of whether the people in that territory consent or not. This coercive monopoly, traditionally known as "sovereignty," has been the defining characteristic of the modern state for centuries.

In short, your "refutation" of anarchism consists of an argument that anarchists themselves have defended for centuries. You may as well claim to have refuted Objectivism on the grounds that you can prove the objectivity of human knowledge. Or to have refuted Christianity by proving that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead on the third day. How are people supposed to react to such bizarre claims?

Ghs

I'm well aware of the fact that you guys are allergic to the term "government", while simultaneously, in order to address the arguments against anarchism, you have incrementally been shifting toward a redefinition of "anarchism" to mean "government based on consent."

I object to this maneuver and refuse to accept your warped conception of "anarchy". So don't confuse my refusal to accept your warped definition of terms as my not understanding the fact that you warp your own definitions.

I have said as much numerous times, but you do not seem to be able to muster enough intellectual honesty to recognize my actual position, preferring a strawman view instead. Or perhaps I shouldn't blame an old man for lacking the flexibility to question long since frozen intellectual stances.

Shayne

[Selene]

Not looking forward to anything from you Selene, I think you've reached your peak with these court jester antics.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Time to put on the popcorn!

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Here's a tip, Shayne.

The next time you wade into an old controversy while claiming to have vanquished one of the sides, pay some attention to what that side has actually argued. Your standard argument --to the effect that it is possible, in principle, to obtain universal and express consent for a "government" -- has no bearing on anarchism per se. It is an irrelevant point. No modern libertarian anarchist has ever denied the legitimacy of a protection agency that enjoys this kind of de facto monopoly. Anarchists object only to agencies that claim a de jure monopoly, i.e., coercive jurisdiction over a territorial area, regardless of whether the people in that territory consent or not. This coercive monopoly, traditionally known as "sovereignty," has been the defining characteristic of the modern state for centuries.

In short, your "refutation" of anarchism consists of an argument that anarchists themselves have defended for centuries. You may as well claim to have refuted Objectivism on the grounds that you can prove the objectivity of human knowledge. Or to have refuted Christianity by proving that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead on the third day. How are people supposed to react to such bizarre claims?

Ghs

I'm well aware of the fact that you guys are allergic to the term "government", while simultaneously, in order to address the arguments against anarchism, you have incrementally been shifting toward a redefinition of "anarchism" to mean "government based on consent."

I object to this maneuver and refuse to accept your warped conception of "anarchy". So don't confuse my refusal to accept your warped definition of terms as my not understanding the fact that you warp your own definitions.

I have said as much numerous times, but you do not seem to be able to muster enough intellectual honesty to recognize my actual position, preferring a strawman view instead. Or perhaps I shouldn't blame an old man for lacking the flexibility to question long since frozen intellectual stances.

Shayne

You can object to anything you like, and you can call the private protection agencies advocated by libertarian anarchists since the 19th century anything you like. (There has been no shifting here, incrementally or otherwise. The problem, once again, is your astonishing ignorance of the rudiments of this controversy.)

If your argument is that libertarian anarchists are really defending a type of "government" -- then, fine, I am defending an institution that you prefer to call a "government." Happy now?

Unfortunately, knowledgeable Objectivists and other minarchists who understand the relevant issues will not be so easily mollified, but if a change of words makes little Shayne happy, so be it. You may now pat yourself on the back and do a victory dance.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

Yet another colossally ignorant contribution by Shayne to the minarchist/anarchist debate.

Nothing in anarchist theory prohibits consensually delegated authority to representatives, provided the principals have a rightful claim to the powers they are delegating.

Shayne doesn't need to read what libertarian anarchists have actually said on this and similar topics. He simply makes stuff up as he goes along, and that, for him, passes for knowledge.

Ghs

Another sample of intellectual contortionist thought from GHS. Anarchy is a clear enough concept for non-contortionists to grasp.

I don't give a shit what intellectually dishonest libertarian anarchist contortionists like GHS have said, anarchism means no government, of any kind, period. GHS's "anarchism" is just a weaselly way of backpedaling toward something sensible without actually arriving.

Check your premises, you intellectual hack.

Shayne

There is a lesson for you to learn here Jackie.

l'enfer, c'est les autres

[caroljane]

Yet another colossally ignorant contribution by Shayne to the minarchist/anarchist debate.

Nothing in anarchist theory prohibits consensually delegated authority to representatives, provided the principals have a rightful claim to the powers they are delegating.

Shayne doesn't need to read what libertarian anarchists have actually said on this and similar topics. He simply makes stuff up as he goes along, and that, for him, passes for knowledge.

Ghs

Another sample of intellectual contortionist thought from GHS. Anarchy is a clear enough concept for non-contortionists to grasp.

I don't give a shit what intellectually dishonest libertarian anarchist contortionists like GHS have said, anarchism means no government, of any kind, period. GHS's "anarchism" is just a weaselly way of backpedaling toward something sensible without actually arriving.

Check your premises, you intellectual hack.

Shayne

There is a lesson for you to learn here Jackie.

l'enfer, c'est les autres

et l'etat, c'est moi

[sjw]

You can object to anything you like, and you can call the private protection agencies advocated by libertarian anarchists since the 19th century anything you like. (There has been no shifting here, incrementally or otherwise. The problem, once again, is your astonishing ignorance of the rudiments of this controversy.)

I'm perfectly aware of the historical artifacts. They are not logically/philosophically relevant here, they are only relevant from a historical point of view. But since one of the things you pride yourself in is knowledge of what other people have said, I understand that you have to drag it into the discussion at every turn, even when it is wholly irrelevant. Then having dragged in your history lessons from a zillion years ago, you pile them all up in the center of the room, crawl up to the top, and declare victory.

If your argument is that libertarian anarchists are really defending a type of "government" -- then, fine, I am defending an institution that you prefer to call a "government." Happy now?

No, because the anarchist fear of the word "government" carries a lot of other psychological baggage as well causing all sorts of other pointlessness beyond the mere shuffling of words.

Unfortunately, knowledgeable Objectivists

Stop the presses...

Shayne