Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?


sjw

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 670
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.

Fear is the little-death that brings total

obliteration.

I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over

me and through me. And when it has gone past

I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain."Dune Frank Herbert, 1965

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You are right, of course. The real arguments between anarchists and minarchists, as they have developed historically, are irrelevant to what you think the arguments should be. It was a zillion years ago, after all, when Murray Rothbard and Roy Childs laid the groundwork for modern libertarian anarchism, so their arguments, which defined the modern debate, should be dismissed as historical artifacts.

So let us not have a debate between Shayne and sundry historical artifacts. Let us have a real debate, an ultimate championship bout, and let us proclaim this Great Debate throughout the land:

Shayne vs. Shayne on anarchism versus minarchism. Who will win this titanic battle? Shayne? Or Shayne? Don't miss this historic event!

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I have often spoken of the desirability of a truly "limited government," so the fear of this word seems to have passed me by.

As I said before, according to your conception of "government," I am an advocate of government, as was Murray Rothbard and every other libertarian "anarchist" in history. Unfortunately, Murray did not live long enough to see your stunning linguistic coup de grace against anarchism, but I'm sure he would have been mightily impressed, as I am. There can be no more decisive victory in philosophy than an arbitrary redefinition of terms.

Btw, I am thinking of using the label "church" instead of "government" or "justice agency." By using "church" I might be able to convince some religious people that they have nothing to fear from libertarians, because, however atheistic we may be, we are still in favor of establishing "churches" throughout the land.

Of course, some people will object that this is not what the term "church" has meant historically, but we know better than to defer to historical artifacts like conventional word meaning. If only you will proclaim that "church" really means "government," then victory shall be ours!

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So George, it seems you only have two tricks up your sleeve 1) incessant references to what others said; 2) juvenile mockery. This is getting old. Do you have an actual philosophic defense of your screwy conception of "anarchy", or just this kind of thing over and over?

Since you think this is just a silly linguistic issue, then I wonder why you choose a term that dictionaries define as "a state of society without government or law" to refer to its exact opposite: a state of society with bottom-up, consent-driven government and law. It's almost as if you want not to be understood, as if you want your ideas to never become popular, and thus want them to fail. Which is of course precisely what "anarchists" have achieved.

I think the best thing that explains the bizarre phenomenon of "rational anarchism" is that some teenage punk caught Rand in an actual error in her argument against anarchism, and thus thought himself a master philosopher in concluding that anarchism must therefore be right. Then he got a bunch of other teenage punks to go along, and these punks grew up physically but never intellectually, so they turned into pied pipers of other teenagers, which brings us to the current era.

Having lived a mistake all your life I guess it's hard to turn back now. Roy Childs must have been quite an admirable fellow to actually bring himself to recant regarding his adolescent errors.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some time ago I posted the first part of an unpublished article, Anarchism and Libertarian Ideology. The following excerpt discusses some problems involved in defining the concepts "government" and "state." Of course, these historical artifacts will be of no interest to Shayne, because they concern matters that are a zillion years old, but they might be of interest to others who do not share Shayne's epistemological confidence in any random thought that escapes from Shayne's brain.

III

State and Government

If the anarchist desires a society without a State, then he must explain the meaning of "State" if we are to understand the meaning of "anarchy." If we don't have a State, then (to borrow a phrase from Antony Flew) precisely what have we not got? This question is essential to any discussion of anarchism.

The word "State" derives from the Latin status, meaning condition, situation or way of existence. Beginning in the twelfth century, a kingship was called the status regis. This "condition of the king" originally referred to his private possessions and fortune, but it was eventually expanded to include his functions and power.

Beginning in the fourteenth century, status (state in English, stato in Italian) were used as synonyms for power, rule, and governance. When medieval writers wished to express what we mean (roughly) by state, they used the words regnum (kingdom) and respublica ("that which is public"). Not until the end of the fifteenth century do we find State used in the modern sense as an abstract body of government and laws. Many scholars mention Machiavelli as a key figure in this transition.

Max Weber maintains that we cannot define the State in terms of its ends, or what it attempts to do, because virtually every task has been undertaken by a State at one time or another, and no one task has ever been pursued exclusively by the State. "Ultimately, one can define the modern State sociologically only in terms of the specific means peculiar to it, as to every political association, namely, the use of physical force." (77-8) Weber is careful to point out that force is not the only method employed by States, but force is their distinctive mode of operation. Hence:

"[W]e have to say the a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the `right' to use violence. (78)"

Weber's account is meant to apply to the political organization known as the modern State, or nation-State. This originated in the later Middle Ages, as centralized monarchies grew at the expense of church, nobility, and other corporate groups, until the absolutist State emerged victorious in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. That era witnessed the philosophic development of sovereignty as the essential characteristic of the State, and the meaning of sovereignty is covered in Weber's definition. In the words of A. P. d'Entreves, "the problem of the birth of the modern State is no other than the problem of the rise and final acceptance of the concept of sovereignty."

The State is the legal sovereign of a territory. "Legal" refers to the realm of legitimate coercion. "Sovereign" refers to an ultimate judge or arbiter. "Territory" refers to a geographical area. Hence the "State" is the ultimate judge and enforcer of legitimate coercion within a given geographical area. The State renders the final verdict on the legitimate use of violence and executes that verdict.

If a society lacks a State, does this also mean that it has no government? Are "State" and "government" interchangeable terms? We can address this issue by outlining three possible distinctions between the two concepts.

(1) Max Weber identifies two kinds of political organizations. The first, which I shall call government, is the more general of the two. A government is an administrative staff which continuously employs physical force, or the threat of force, in a given territorial area - but which does not necessarily claim or uphold a monopoly of legitimate force. This typology treats government as the genus, or general class, of political organizations, while the State is classified as a species, or type, of government - namely, one that "successfully upholds the claim to the monopoly of legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order." [Weber,I, 54]

Weber's distinction between government and State is based on the criterion of sovereignty. A State is a coercive monopoly, whereas a government is not. Both kinds of political association claim the right to use legitimate violence, but only the State claims this right exclusively. When Weber says that the State "claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force" this does not mean that the State is the only social institution that can use legitimate violence in society; but other institutions do so only with the sanction of the State, and they are answerable to the State for their activities. "Monopoly," therefore, does not refer primarily to the use of legitimate violence, but to the ultimate right to decide when violence is and is not legitimate. This is the essence of political sovereignty.

(2) According to Robert Bierstadt, the State is an institution (i.e., an abstract system of norms, procedures, and roles), whereas a government is a particular association (i.e., an organized group of people). In this sense, we may say that the American State was established by the Constitution and has existed continuously since its ratification. Within the framework of this State, however, various governments have come and gone, as different ruling associations have been elected or appointed according to Constitutional procedures. In this view, a government (an association) is the flesh-and-blood manifestation of a State (an institution).

(3) Albert Jay Nock, in Our Enemy, the State, discusses "two distinct types of political organization." Government is formed for the purpose of protecting individuals from fraud, theft, assault, murder, and the like. The State, in contrast, is a predatory institution, rooted in conquest and plunder, whereby one class (the rulers) systematically exploits another class (the ruled).

According to Nock, Thomas Jefferson was confused when he claimed that various Indian tribes were able to maintain a high degree of social order "without government," as was Herbert Spencer when he pointed to various societies that have no "definite government." Nock claims that all such communities, though they may lack a State, do nonetheless have a governmental mechanism to protect members and adjudicate disputes. No society can subsist without government.

Of these three distinctions between State and government, that of Nock - who was heavily influenced by Franz Oppenheimer - is the least plausible. For Nock, government and State are not just different, they are diametrically opposed in terms of their functions and basic purpose. A State cannot be a government, and a government cannot be a State. This is a forced and artificial distinction. As an analytic tool, it has little or no value. As a conceptual model for historical investigation (or ideal type, to use Max Weber's term), it is equally barren.

Nock believes that government is morally justifiable, but not the State. Since Nock was a self-professed anarchist, this implies that belief in "government" is compatible with anarchism. This is a strange and paradoxical assertion, to say the least. True, we sometimes speak of the "governing body" of a social institution, e.g., the board of directors for a private corporation. But to call this a "government" is highly misleading. Jefferson was quite correct when he observed that some Indian communities were anarchistic. I cannot here discuss his thinking on this subject, except to point out that Jefferson was keenly aware of the difference between social institutions and political institutions. Social institutions are based on the voluntary reciprocity of equal rights, whereas political institutions are based on the domination and subordination of unequal rights.

Whatever conceptual distinction we may wish to draw between government and State, we must always remember that both are political institutions. Governments, even if they seek to protect rights, always claim a privileged status; they relegate certain rights and powers exclusively to themselves, while denying them, by force of law, to everyone else. Both governments and States operate by the political method of domination and subordination, not by the social principle of reciprocity. This was well known to Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer, and to many others in their tradition.

In addition to Nock, we briefly examined two other distinctions between State and government. (For the sake of convenience, I have associated these with Weber and Bierstadt, although similar distinctions have been made by others.) In Weber's scheme, the State is an institution which claims a rightful monopoly to decide all matters involving legitimate coercion. Government is an institution that claims the right to exercise political power (legitimate violence), but does not necessarily claim this as an exclusive (sovereign) right. For Bierstadt, the State is an institutional structure of laws, procedures, etc., whereas government is a concrete association of people who work within the institutional framework of the State.

Both of these distinctions are suggestive and useful, depending on the context in which they are applied. Weber's model is especially fruitful in historical investigations, where his ideal types enable us to trace the modern development of State sovereignty, in contrast to the legal pluralism of medieval governments. Bierstadt's model, on the other hand, is more helpful in sociological analysis.

...

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So George, it seems you only have two tricks up your sleeve 1) incessant references to what others said; 2) juvenile mockery. This is getting old. Do you have an actual philosophic defense of your screwy conception of "anarchy", or just this kind of thing over and over?

1) My references to what others have said are not incessant. They are intended to set a context for any reasonable discussion of anarchism versus minarchism. Unlike you, I am willing to learn from others. Unlike you, I don't treat every idea I have as a sacred relic.

2) There is a difference between "juvenile mockery" and mocking a juvenile thinker. I have had many public debates on anarchism, and you are by far the most incompetent defender of minarchism that I have ever encountered.

Go to an Objectivist conference and present your argument for a "government" based on universal and explicit consent. Do you know what will happen? You will be called an "anarchist" who doesn't have the intellectual honesty to identify what he truly is.

I don't agree with this charge, however. Your thinking on this entire issue is so muddled that no coherent label could possibly apply to that swamp you call a mind.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best thing that explains the bizarre phenomenon of "rational anarchism" is that some teenage punk caught Rand in an actual error in her argument against anarchism, and thus thought himself a master philosopher in concluding that anarchism must therefore be right. Then he got a bunch of other teenage punks to go along, and these punks grew up physically but never intellectually, so they turned into pied pipers of other teenagers, which brings us to the current era.

Shayne

Now this statement calls for some songs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) My references to what others have said are not incessant. They are intended to set a context for any reasonable discussion of anarchism versus minarchism. Unlike you, I am willing to learn from others. Unlike you, I don't treat every idea I have as a sacred relic.

Your references are incessant. Either you are beating your chest about what Rothbard et. al. said or you are hurling insults. Not once have you actually bothered to defend your ideas or rationally address mine. I do not know the precise motives behind your untoward behavior, but it is clear that they are untoward.

2) There is a difference between "juvenile mockery" and mocking a juvenile thinker. I have had many public debates on anarchism, and you are by far the most incompetent defender of minarchism that I have ever encountered.

Yet another baseless insult. It's either one sleeve or the other. You're a two-trick wonder.

Go to an Objectivist conference and present your argument for a "government" based on universal and explicit consent. Do you know what will happen? You will be called an "anarchist" who doesn't have the intellectual honesty to identify what he truly is.

I'm well aware of the fact that the anti-intellectual people on the minarchist side would call me an anarchist, just as the anti-intellectual people on the anarchist side call me a statist.

I don't agree with this charge, however. Your thinking on this entire issue is so muddled that no coherent label could possibly apply to that swamp you call a mind.

Whenever you try to state my ideas, you get them wrong, and whenever I correct you, you blame me. You are a confused and inflexible old man, likely with hidden unsavory motives. You should be retiring, not be thinking about writing yet more name-dropping books that no one will read. Blah blah Rothbard blah blah Nock blah blah Max Weber -- that will sum it all up I'm sure.

For a change of pace, why don't you post what George H. Smith thinks. Oh wait, if you post what you think, you might actually have to defend your own ideas rather than lazily attacking mine using your two little worn out tricks.

I'm not holding my breath. Nor do I ever expect you to learn to act in a civilized manner and, for once, try to learn something rather than pontificate old crap you think you put in your head (but as I learned with you and Hume, that you actually misunderstood).

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever you try to state my ideas, you get them wrong, and whenever I correct you, you blame me. You are a confused and inflexible old man, likely with hidden unsavory motives. You should be retiring, not be thinking about writing yet more name-dropping books that no one will read. Blah blah Rothbard blah blah Nock blah blah Max Weber -- that will sum it all up I'm sure.

Sorry if I confused you by throwing out obscure names like Max Weber. Should we ever discuss evolution, I will also avoid throwing out obscure names like Charles Darwin, lest your brain should explode from too much information.

It seems that no one is ever able to state your ideas correctly. Does this tell you anything?

I thought you claimed that a government could be established with universal and explicit consent. I guess I was wrong, and that you believe that the consent need be neither universal nor explicit. My mistake. You are just a run-of-the-mill minarchist, after all.

For a change of pace, why don't you post what George H. Smith thinks. Oh wait, if you post what you think, you might actually have to defend your own ideas rather than lazily attacking mine using your two little worn out tricks.

You claim to have read a number of my articles in which I express my own ideas on anarchism. Were you lying? Or have you become senile before your time?

Here's an original idea -- You are a tin-plated philosophic crackpot. Oh, wait, that's not an original observation at all; many others said this before I did. Sorry --I will try to be more original next time.

As for your repeated references to my age, you should be thankful that I have become more tolerant and civil as I have gotten older. In my earlier years I would not have wasted any time with you at all. But I am now more easily amused, and you are amusing, to a point.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

1. Anarchists do not oppose all forms of governance. Anarchists oppose the state and all other forms of authoritarianism and centralization

2. Ageism is prejudice based on age alone. Obviously, two year olds aren't as smart as adults. However, that's not stereotyping or discrimination based on age.

You're being intellectually dishonest. You argue based on certain idiosyncratic if not downright false definitions of terms and call out anyone who doesn't call out these definitions.

Edited by vaguelyhumanoid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a practical matter I can understand the difference between state and government, but as far as I can tell ideal government is still force respecting rights' violators--okay--and the necessity of financing which I cannot see being a la Objectivism "voluntary taxation" especially for an enormous country like the United States. Regardless, Utopian theorizing at its worst results in horrible tyrannies as power-hungry idealists try to force people into structures in which they'll be perfected as human beings acting in ways considered proper not mattering at all really what it's called. It's all top down, a trap even Rand fell into, with her judge in Colorado perfecting the U.S. Constitution. She effectively let the masses be self-immolated by their corrupt altruist-statist system so her heroes wouldn't have to get their hands dirty. Of course that immolation was mostly blanked out and ignored but it did peek through the curtains here and there. That might be called the natural justice of the general situation. She missed the boat on critical thinking, the importance of individual rights and heroes: her heroes were the likes of Dagny and Hank, who ceased being heroes when they went Galt (x the rescue at the end) with the minor exception of Francisco who had to destroy his business empire and Ragnar doing his pirate thing.

--Brant

pardon the brevity and gross over-simplification for a subject that needs a long article or even a book

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a practical matter I can understand the difference between state and government, but as far as I can tell ideal government is still force respecting rights' violators--okay--and the necessity of financing which I cannot see being a la Objectivism "voluntary taxation" especially for an enormous country like the United States. Regardless, Utopian theorizing at its worst results in horrible tyrannies as power-hungry idealists try to force people into structures in which they'll be perfected as human beings acting in ways considered proper not mattering at all really what it's called. It's all top down, a trap even Rand fell into, with her judge in Colorado perfecting the U.S. Constitution. She effectively let the masses be self-immolated by their corrupt altruist-statist system so her heroes wouldn't have to get their hands dirty. Of course that immolation was mostly blanked out and ignored but it did peek through the curtains here and there. That might be called the natural justice of the general situation. She missed the boat on critical thinking, the importance of individual rights and heroes: her heroes were the likes of Dagny and Hank, who ceased being heroes when they went Galt (x the rescue at the end) with the minor exception of Francisco who had to destroy his business empire and Ragnar doing his pirate thing.

--Brant

pardon the brevity and gross over-simplification for a subject that needs a long article or even a book

Pardon the repetition, but I addressed the problem of utopias earlier on this thread, and it is easier for me to post an excerpt than to write the same points over again. In short, I think it is a grave mistake to dub either ideal minarchism or ideal anarchism as utopian in the conventional sense of that term.

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, as 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.)

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a practical matter I can understand the difference between state and government, but as far as I can tell ideal government is still force respecting rights' violators--okay--and the necessity of financing which I cannot see being a la Objectivism "voluntary taxation" especially for an enormous country like the United States. Regardless, Utopian theorizing at its worst results in horrible tyrannies as power-hungry idealists try to force people into structures in which they'll be perfected as human beings acting in ways considered proper not mattering at all really what it's called. It's all top down, a trap even Rand fell into, with her judge in Colorado perfecting the U.S. Constitution. She effectively let the masses be self-immolated by their corrupt altruist-statist system so her heroes wouldn't have to get their hands dirty. Of course that immolation was mostly blanked out and ignored but it did peek through the curtains here and there. That might be called the natural justice of the general situation. She missed the boat on critical thinking, the importance of individual rights and heroes: her heroes were the likes of Dagny and Hank, who ceased being heroes when they went Galt (x the rescue at the end) with the minor exception of Francisco who had to destroy his business empire and Ragnar doing his pirate thing.

--Brant

pardon the brevity and gross over-simplification for a subject that needs a long article or even a book

Well, anarchists wouldn't want to force anything on anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my case might be better stated by referring to the idea of human perfectibility, which I think Rand too much embraced. Soviet man is replaced by Randian man. I'd like to develop this more, but I've not the time.

Brant,

You just touched on a fundamental issue that needs a lot more discussion in our neck of the woods.

This cuts all the way down to fundamental human nature and the characteristics of volition.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Anarchists do not oppose all forms of governance. Anarchists oppose the state and all other forms of authoritarianism and centralization

Don't tell me what they do and don't support (for one thing, you can't speak for "anarchists", because their views are so highly variable that they defy any coherent definition or description), tell me why it's epistemologically proper to refer to a government as "anarchy." On some level, it's just a word, but the thing is, that word has been in use for a long time to refer to "no government."

I understand the teenager overreaction to *bad* government in desiring *no* government, but in the end it's an entirely incoherent position.

2. Ageism is prejudice based on age alone. Obviously, two year olds aren't as smart as adults. However, that's not stereotyping or discrimination based on age.

You're being intellectually dishonest. You argue based on certain idiosyncratic if not downright false definitions of terms and call out anyone who doesn't call out these definitions.

Let me guess, you're a teenager, right? If so I'll excuse your incompetence. We all know how teenagers can be, gotta cut them some slack.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now this could get really interesting...

I will reserve posting at this time on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a practical matter I can understand the difference between state and government, but as far as I can tell ideal government is still force respecting rights' violators--okay--and the necessity of financing which I cannot see being a la Objectivism "voluntary taxation" especially for an enormous country like the United States. Regardless, Utopian theorizing at its worst results in horrible tyrannies as power-hungry idealists try to force people into structures in which they'll be perfected as human beings acting in ways considered proper not mattering at all really what it's called. It's all top down, a trap even Rand fell into, with her judge in Colorado perfecting the U.S. Constitution. She effectively let the masses be self-immolated by their corrupt altruist-statist system so her heroes wouldn't have to get their hands dirty. Of course that immolation was mostly blanked out and ignored but it did peek through the curtains here and there. That might be called the natural justice of the general situation. She missed the boat on critical thinking, the importance of individual rights and heroes: her heroes were the likes of Dagny and Hank, who ceased being heroes when they went Galt (x the rescue at the end) with the minor exception of Francisco who had to destroy his business empire and Ragnar doing his pirate thing.

--Brant

pardon the brevity and gross over-simplification for a subject that needs a long article or even a book

The primary thing that needs to be done is to get people to understand individual rights and then they'll naturally refine and reform existing structures to be more harmonious with what is true and right. It's pure speculation to rigidly define the precise structure that people might consent to. E.g. regarding libertarian utopias where there is no government welfare system, on the contrary substantial numbers of people would probably consent to "social safety nets" if truly given the choice, and they may very well want it to be a facet of their government. If they're wrong, then true peaceful competition among governments will settle the matter. The root problem is when people who don't consent are forced, not that it is part of government. Indeed, for libertarians to argue that they would forcibly divest government of social programs is really resorting to the same kind of tactic that libertarians decry.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, if you can muster something interesting to say maybe I'll respond, but you're boring me to tears with your two-trick wonder. I've seen you pull the same stunt over and over and over. Was fun for a while, isn't anymore. Reminds me of this: http://www.manifestation.com/neurotoys/eliza.php3

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attempted a dialogue at the link provided by Shayne, here is the log:

Me: Hi Eliza

Eliza: How are you today? What would you like to discuss?

Me: An opponent of Shayne's was referred to you in effort to relate the frustration he experiences in a thread on anarchism.

Eliza: We were discussing you, not me.

Me: fair enough. So do you find any merit in his assertion that anarchists are just adults throwing a hissy fit?

Eliza: We were discussing you, not me.

Me: Again, true but your input on this issue may help clarify some key issues.

Eliza: What about your own input on this issue may help clarify some key issues?

Me: I am satisfied that nothing more can be gained from this exchange.

Eliza: Did you come to me because you are satisfied that nothing more can be gained from this exchange?

Me: No, I came hoping for a more positive outcome.

Eliza: Are you sure?

Me: Yes, should I have expected otherwise?

Eliza: I understand.

Me: You understand what?

Eliza: You're not really talking about me, are you?

Me: There's no one else here.

Eliza: Why not?

Me: Perhaps because other attempts to have a productive exchange with you have also failed.

Eliza: You're not really talking about me, are you?

Me: Try not to take it personally.

Eliza: What does that suggest to you?

Me: Uh…

Eliza: Okay, "Perhaps because other attempts to have a productive exchange with you have also failed.". Tell me more.

Me: Never mind. Thank you for your time, Eliza.

Eliza: You're not really talking about me, are you?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have two theories about this exchange. The first is that Rogerian psychotherapists need to have a lot more self esteem. The other is that Shayne is really Eliza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two theories about this exchange. The first is that Rogerian psychotherapists need to have a lot more self esteem. The other is that Shayne is really Eliza.

If there is an external explanation for George Eliza Smith, it's his fan base. He's been coddled and cuddled too much by his moronic groupies and has therefore grown soft and weak and is now only left with his two tricks (one which you Tim do not do a competent job of aping -- aping me and aping him at the same time, what a poor show).

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is an external explanation for George Eliza Smith, it's his fan base. He's been coddled and cuddled too much by his moronic groupies and has therefore grown soft and weak and is now only left with his two tricks (one which you Tim do not do a competent job of aping -- aping me and aping him at the same time, what a poor show).

Perhaps the explanation you're really looking for is why anarchists (and even minarchists I'm sure) think you can do a lot better than simply attribute anarchism to allergies and immaturity.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the explanation you're really looking for is why anarchists (and even minarchists I'm sure) think you can do a lot better than simply attribute anarchism to allergies and immaturity.

Tim

There are plenty of different reasons, some but not all associated with juvenile behavior:

- Immaturity

- Dishonesty

- Confusion

- Peer pressure

- Blind hatred of "authority"

- Envy of those with power

- Inertia from beliefs formed when young and naive (not unlike why many remain in the religion of their birth)

- And then there's Rand's observation: A concrete-bound mentality

Clearly, these are the reasons why some are anarchists. If the shoe fits, wear it, if not fine, but feel free to list some other explanations for this patent nonsense.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew you would finally patent nonsense...

Did you file it internationally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now