Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[Bosco]

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

Thanks Shayne. All this time I've been thinking the issue is a little more complicated, but with this handy little guide, you've saved me the trouble of trying to consider technical and moral shortcomings of the anarchist position. Now all I need is a little introspection.

- Immaturity: Nope

- Dishonesty: Nope

- Confusion: Nope

- Peer pressure: I see, "just say 'no', right?

- Blind hatred of "authority": I always thought it had more to do with a sharp distinction between authority based on consent and that based on the initiation of force.

- Envy of those with power: So we are repressing our desire to belong to political circles?

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

- And then there's Rand's observation: A concrete-bound mentality: By finding actual referents to such concepts as rights, property, justice, reason, consent and physical force?

Well, so much for the introspection thing. I guess I'll just have to keep doing it the hard way.

[George H. Smith]

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

Keeping you entertained ranks high on my list of priorities. Have you tried playing with a baby rattle?

Seriously, Shayne, do you realize how much of a fool you have been making of yourself on this thread? There are serious arguments to be made for minarchism. but you don't seem to have a clue what they are. One reason you don't have a clue is because you don't understand the views of libertarian anarchists. You argue against an imaginary foe instead.

It really wouldn't hurt you to read something on this subject. Books are not bombs planted by anarchists that explode when you open them, so you needn't fear them so much. Honest.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

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

It can be difficult to tell when Shayne is joking and when he wishes to be taken seriously. When Shayne is able to figure out the difference in his own mind, I hope he will inform the rest of us.

"Peer pressure" is my favorite on Shayne's list. In the Randian crowd that I ran with in college, there was of course enormous pressure by my peers to become an anarchist. I soon learned that this peer pressure extends to the general population. Why, even in Bloomington, nearly every person I meet is an anarchist, so it could prove socially disastrous if I abandoned my anarchist principles.

It was doubtless the same peer pressure that convinced me to become an atheist. Atheism and anarchism are so popular in America that if I were to abandon either, I would doom myself to the life of a social outcast.

Then there is my envy of those with power. I think I became an anarchist when it occurred to be that I would never become President of the United States.

I have come to believe that atheists hate God, rebel blindly against his authority, and envy ministers and priests. It seems that Shayne's theories have had an effect on me, after all.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

The real case against anarchy, whatever that ever turns out to be: To get there you have to go through minarchy, whatever that ever turns out to be, first, absent the violence and chaos of revolution or other absolute societal breakdown. (In that case everyone will be at each others' throats trying to rule the roost of whatall.) The real case for minarchism is the good guys ruling the bad guys for the sake of the good guys. If you've got the power the other guy doesn't. (Then you get corrupted . . .)

--Brant

more freedom, not more arguments: who here is arguing for less freedom?

Edited February 3, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

The real case for anarchy: It keeps George in front of his computer and off the streets where he might be a danger to pedestrians and small vehicular traffic.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

The real case against anarchy, whatever that ever turns out to be: To get there you have to go through minarchy, whatever that ever turns out to be, first, absent the violence and chaos of revolution or other absolute societal breakdown. (In that case everyone will be at each others' throats trying to rule the roost of whatall.) The real case for minarchism is the good guys ruling the bad guys for the sake of the good guys. If you've got the power the other guy doesn't. (Then you get corrupted . . .)

--Brant

more freedom, not more arguments: who here is arguing for less freedom?

As I have said many times, I would be a very happy camper if we ever achieved the Randian ideal of a limited government. Without the power to tax, there would be little to distinguish this government from the anarchistic ideal. As to whether this government would eventually evolve into the more decentralized system of legal pluralism advocated by libertarian anarchists -- well, I think this would be the natural tendency. But even if this never happened, libertarian anarchists would find little if anything to complain about so long as this limited government remained truly limited to the protection of individual rights.

The problem with a monopolistic limited government is that it probably would not remain truly limited for very long. Without competition, it would only be matter of time until this government expanded its power and became a violator of rights instead of a defender of rights. This is the chief concern that has motivated libertarian anarchists to develop schemes for competing justice agencies.

I should stop here. This is Shayne's thread, after all, and I don't want to overload his brain with too much information.

Ghs

[sjw]

Thanks Shayne. All this time I've been thinking the issue is a little more complicated, but with this handy little guide, you've saved me the trouble of trying to consider technical and moral shortcomings of the anarchist position. Now all I need is a little introspection.

I already noted those prior in this thread, though it's more of a technical rather than moral shortcoming. That list wasn't about what was wrong with anarchy, but what was wrong with anarchists.

- Immaturity: Nope

- Dishonesty: Nope

- Confusion: Nope

- Peer pressure: I see, "just say 'no', right?

- Blind hatred of "authority": I always thought it had more to do with a sharp distinction between authority based on consent and that based on the initiation of force.

- Envy of those with power: So we are repressing our desire to belong to political circles?

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

- And then there's Rand's observation: A concrete-bound mentality: By finding actual referents to such concepts as rights, property, justice, reason, consent and physical force?

Well, so much for the introspection thing. I guess I'll just have to keep doing it the hard way.

Deny all you want, it's certain that at least confusion is playing a role in your anarchy. Also there's at least some dishonesty given how you reacted to my point about envy. And also some dishonesty given that you're pretending I didn't address technical problems with anarchy. So while I'm still quite vague on why you are an anarchist, a view of your motives is shaping up. By all means, continue ignoring my technical arguments, insulting me instead of addressing them, etc., it just makes it all the more clear.

Shayne

[sjw]

Seriously, Shayne, do you realize how much of a fool you have been making of yourself on this thread?

Arguing with you is really not much different from arguing with an ARI Objectivist, so I'm already quite familiar with your general type. The only real difference is that instead of flouncing off like an ARI Objectivist would do, you foam and insult and regurgitate what your particular objects of worship have said over and over.

I realize that you are too frozen in your age-old stances, and since, evidently, those stances were not arrived at fully honestly, you have no capacity for actually squaring off with me in debate. So you foam and insult and posture.

If I walked into a religious cult and started trying to set them straight, yes, I'd understand that from their warped point of view, my views looked rather foolish. So yes, I understand what you think you see, and I care less and less for your predictable point of view the more you spew it. I expected a lot more from you GHS.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Thanks Shayne. All this time I've been thinking the issue is a little more complicated, but with this handy little guide, you've saved me the trouble of trying to consider technical and moral shortcomings of the anarchist position. Now all I need is a little introspection.

I already noted those prior in this thread, though it's more of a technical rather than moral shortcoming. That list wasn't about what was wrong with anarchy, but what was wrong with anarchists.

- Immaturity: Nope

- Dishonesty: Nope

- Confusion: Nope

- Peer pressure: I see, "just say 'no', right?

- Blind hatred of "authority": I always thought it had more to do with a sharp distinction between authority based on consent and that based on the initiation of force.

- Envy of those with power: So we are repressing our desire to belong to political circles?

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

- And then there's Rand's observation: A concrete-bound mentality: By finding actual referents to such concepts as rights, property, justice, reason, consent and physical force?

Well, so much for the introspection thing. I guess I'll just have to keep doing it the hard way.

Deny all you want, it's certain that at least confusion is playing a role in your anarchy. Also there's at least some dishonesty given how you reacted to my point about envy. And also some dishonesty given that you're pretending I didn't address technical problems with anarchy. So while I'm still quite vague on why you are an anarchist, a view of your motives is shaping up. By all means, continue ignoring my technical arguments, insulting me instead of addressing them, etc., it just makes it all the more clear.

Shayne

Technical arguments?

As for your comments about "envy," since when does this kind of juvenile psychobabble deserve a serious reply?

Personally, I think that you suffer from a massive inferiority complex. I would demand that you refute my allegation, but you have earned your inferiority complex, and I don't expect you to disown one of your greatest achievements.

Ghs

[sjw]

The real case against anarchy, whatever that ever turns out to be: To get there you have to go through minarchy, whatever that ever turns out to be, first, absent the violence and chaos of revolution or other absolute societal breakdown.

Incidentally, that is approximately Marx's plan for Communism. The goal was anarchism, the means was dictatorship.

But I am not quite sure you have the same magical concept of "anarchism" in mind that GHS does, the chameleon one that looks like government even though he fervently claims it's not. Oh wait, we have that State distinction anarchists like to bring in at this point, "we're not against government, we're against the State..." Yeah. A pro-government "anarchist." This tack makes me think that modern anarchists are just trying to save face from all their attacks on Ayn Rand. They slowly recognized their error, and rather than fix it, they invented a new magic distinction, "State vs. government" to cover their ignorant ass.

more freedom, not more arguments: who here is arguing for less freedom?

Would be nice, but do people who are dishonest about liberty deserve it? It would seem that libertarians (in the loose inclusive sense) are destined to argue forever in a kind of hell, never realizing their goals, while the anti-liberty elements run amok.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Seriously, Shayne, do you realize how much of a fool you have been making of yourself on this thread?

Arguing with you is really not much different from arguing with an ARI Objectivist, so I'm already quite familiar with your general type. The only real difference is that instead of flouncing off like an ARI Objectivist would do, you foam and insult and regurgitate what your particular objects of worship have said over and over.

I realize that you are too frozen in your age-old stances, and since, evidently, those stances were not arrived at fully honestly, you have no capacity for actually squaring off with me in debate. So you foam and insult and posture.

If I walked into a religious cult and started trying to set them straight, yes, I'd understand that from their warped point of view, my views looked rather foolish. So yes, I understand what you think you see, and I care less and less for your predictable point of view the more you spew it. I expected a lot more from you GHS.

Shayne

Thanks for yet another informative post about anarchism.

If my point of view is predictable, this is because I have explained my point of view in considerable detail over the years. Your point of view, in contrast, is totally unpredictable, because no one understands it. Time and again you have complained that people have failed to understand your ideas. Perhaps this is because your ideas are so profound that they surpass the understanding of mere mortals. Or perhaps this is because you are a quack with a few ill-formed notions that cannot be intelligibly expressed.

Take your pick.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

But I am not quite sure you have the same magical concept of "anarchism" in mind that GHS does, the chameleon one that looks like government even though he fervently claims it's not. Oh wait, we have that State distinction anarchists like to bring in at this point, "we're not against government, we're against the State..." Yeah. A pro-government "anarchist." This tack makes me think that modern anarchists are just trying to save face from all their attacks on Ayn Rand. They slowly recognized their error, and rather than fix it, they invented a new magic distinction, "State vs. government" to cover their ignorant ass.

Of course, I never said this, or anything like this. I don't make the same distinction between "government" and "state" that A.J. Nock and others have. Nor does any Rothbardian anarchist that I know of.

Maybe you should steer clear of reading, after all. It only confuses you even more.

Ghs

[sjw]

Technical arguments?

Any honest reader of this thread will notice that I have given substantive arguments earlier in this thread which you replied to not with an honest counter-argument, but with insults. It is as if you know you can't change my position through rational argument, and therefore as a last resort you're trying to shame me out of my position. That won't work either because I perceive this dishonest tactic and find your approach to be the shameful one.

My main curiosity about you is why you engage in this manner. You seem very fervently to wish to dissuade me and perhaps others from holding my view. Bizarrely, it seems to be of extreme personal importance to you to dissuade me. But you are perhaps too dishonest and intelligent for me to ever ascertain your true motives, and I'm certain that you'll never reveal them. There are only two general categories of possibility.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

The real case against anarchy, whatever that ever turns out to be: To get there you have to go through minarchy, whatever that ever turns out to be, first, absent the violence and chaos of revolution or other absolute societal breakdown.

Incidentally, that is approximately Marx's plan for Communism. The goal was anarchism, the means was dictatorship.

Great point, Shayne!

Let's see....Hitler defended the State, and you defend the State...so you are like Hitler!...Yeah, that's the ticket.

Mein Führer! I can walk!

Ghs

[sjw]

Time and again you have complained that people have failed to understand your ideas.

Actually I have only complained that *you* have failed, and that was when I thought you had the capacity to understand.

There are plenty of people who understand my ideas, and even some who agree. The ones who don't typically disagree with me for similar reasons to why they disagree with you, or with Objectivists.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Technical arguments?

Any honest reader of this thread will notice that I have given substantive arguments earlier in this thread which you replied to not with an honest counter-argument, but with insults. It is as if you know you can't change my position through rational argument, and therefore as a last resort you're trying to shame me out of my position. That won't work either because I perceive this dishonest tactic and find your approach to be the shameful one.

My main curiosity about you is why you engage in this manner. You seem very fervently to wish to dissuade me and perhaps others from holding my view. Bizarrely, it seems to be of extreme personal importance to you to dissuade me. But you are perhaps too dishonest and intelligent for me to ever ascertain your true motives, and I'm certain that you'll never reveal them. There are only two general categories of possibility.

Shayne

Perhaps you would be so kind as to repost some of your "substantive arguments." And by this I don't mean posting a link to one of your rambling posts. I mean quoting your "substantive arguments" against anarchism.

Btw, who are the "others" who might agree with your position? I and other anarchists would agree with your demand for universal and explicit consent in order for a government to be legitimate. Are these the "others" you have in mind? They must be, for no minarchist would accept your conditions.

If your "government" requires universal consent, this means that anarchists will also consent to be governed by it, and there will be no problem. That's a real nifty argument against anarchism.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

To get to a minimal government as peacefully as possible requires critical thinking at least amongst the intellectual class generally. That class, I'm afraid, is hopelessly corrupt, but if a minimalist government is obtained it can only be maintained by citizens who want that--who want their rights protected, PERIOD!

Psychologically it is very hard for me to be an anarchist for I experience myself deeply embedded into society which, unfortunately, has much too much to do today with an almost totally corrupt state and media-governing and out-right governing class. I constantly experience myself as an American, not an earthling. I am no "International Man." I was once willing to bear arms and kill communists, but I wasn't stupid. I found out in Vietnam it was a no-win war by policy and left the service in 1967. I knew almost exactly how that war would end militarily and that's what happened 3-4 years after I wrote it down. I spent over seven years watching that conflict grind hundreds of thousands of people to bits. I didn't anticipate the multi-million Cambodian genocide, but that too had a great deal to do with the U.S. involvement in SE Asia and a much too long lasting war. It wasn't just the influence of French Marxist leftist intellectuals on the likes of Pol Pot.

Now we have had and have oil wars and completely stupid doings in Afghanistan. I can't stand it. To be proud to be an American is to be proud of gigantism and stupidity on the macro level. Brilliant scientists-inventors give stupid, ignorant, power-hungry, power-mongering lawyers and their toadies terrible weapons and they do horrible, expensive things with everything they can get their hands on. This country is slowly being brought to its heels by its own excesses. Let's hope it doesn't morph into out and out fascism, but rather breaks up into quite a few different parts.

--Brant

Edited February 3, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

You seem very fervently to wish to dissuade me and perhaps others from holding my view.

Actually, it must certainly be about the others because you have to know by now that you won't dissuade me with your shaming tactics.

So it would appear that you fervently want the readers of this thread to dismiss my ideas out of hand, without actually looking into them for themselves.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

You seem very fervently to wish to dissuade me and perhaps others from holding my view.

Actually, it must certainly be about the others because you have to know by now that you won't dissuade me with your shaming tactics.

So it would appear that you fervently want the readers of this thread to dismiss my ideas out of hand, without actually looking into them for themselves.

Shayne

Why would I want to change your mind on this issue? I prefer that you never call yourself an "anarchist." You do much more for the anarchist cause by defending minarchism. There can never be enough goofballs on the opposing side.

In case you haven't noticed, Shayne, I have been ridiculing you, not arguing with you. Should you ever come up with some "technical" or "substantive" arguments" against anarchism, then I might argue with you, but not much can be said against your key "argument" that anarchists are overgrown teenagers. Well, maybe we are, but maybe we are overgrown teenagers with the correct position.

Ghs

[sjw]

To get to a minimal government as peacefully as possible requires critical thinking at least amongst the intellectual class generally. That class, I'm afraid, is hopelessly corrupt,

And among the libertarian intellectuals as well...

but if a minimalist government is obtained it can only be maintained by citizens who want that--who want their rights protected, PERIOD!

People who do not have a common understanding of "rights" can't join together in common cause. Imagine that instead of dozens of libertarian organizations all with vague and contradictory definitions of "rights" there was a prevailing one with a specific and correct definition of them. That would constitute a far more powerful cultural force than what we have now.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

To get to a minimal government as peacefully as possible requires critical thinking at least amongst the intellectual class generally. That class, I'm afraid, is hopelessly corrupt,

And among the libertarian intellectuals as well...

but if a minimalist government is obtained it can only be maintained by citizens who want that--who want their rights protected, PERIOD!

People who do not have a common understanding of "rights" can't join together in common cause. Imagine that instead of dozens of libertarian organizations all with vague and contradictory definitions of "rights" there was a prevailing one with a specific and correct definition of them. That would constitute a far more powerful cultural force than what we have now.

Shayne

Too bad that Ayn Rand didn't have a theory of rights. If she had, a movement might have coalesced around her.

Btw, what are some of the dozens of libertarian organizations that operate with vague and contradictory definitions of "rights"? I must have missed that important memo.

Ghs

[sjw]

Should you ever come up with some "technical" or "substantive" arguments" against anarchism, then I might argue with you, but not much can be said against your key "argument" that anarchists are overgrown teenagers.

There's only one thing I want to learn from you George. I just want you to satisfy my curiosity. The rest of what you have to say is completely irrelevant. Besides, if I give you a substantive argument, you'll just resort to shaming instead of argument, as you have done many many times before.

So I'm revoking my above statement where I said I'd respond to your "arguments" -- you clearly have none. All I care about from you is your telling us about your psychopathic motivations here. And this is just morbid curiosity on my part, it's not really that important. So if you want to discuss you, fine, but just for the record I'm ignoring your other posts and remarks as I have no interest in them anymore.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

To get to a minimal government as peacefully as possible requires critical thinking at least amongst the intellectual class generally. That class, I'm afraid, is hopelessly corrupt,

And among the libertarian intellectuals as well...

but if a minimalist government is obtained it can only be maintained by citizens who want that--who want their rights protected, PERIOD!

People who do not have a common understanding of "rights" can't join together in common cause. Imagine that instead of dozens of libertarian organizations all with vague and contradictory definitions of "rights" there was a prevailing one with a specific and correct definition of them. That would constitute a far more powerful cultural force than what we have now.

Shayne

Rights are not arbitrary constructs. Honest, critical thinking and a knowledge of political philosophy out of the Lockean tradition should have basically the same result for all and sundry. I'd be willing to die right now if I was first privileged to see the future in hundred year tranches for the next 1,000 years.

--Brant

[sjw]

Rights are not arbitrary constructs. Honest, critical thinking and a knowledge of political philosophy out of the Lockean tradition should have basically the same result for all and sundry.

Sure. And mathematics should have the same result. Doesn't mean it's not worth writing it down. I mean what's your point here?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Should you ever come up with some "technical" or "substantive" arguments" against anarchism, then I might argue with you, but not much can be said against your key "argument" that anarchists are overgrown teenagers.

There's only one thing I want to learn from you George. I just want you to satisfy my curiosity. The rest of what you have to say is completely irrelevant. Besides, if I give you a substantive argument, you'll just resort to shaming instead of argument, as you have done many many times before.

So I'm revoking my above statement where I said I'd respond to your "arguments" -- you clearly have none. All I care about from you is your telling us about your psychopathic motivations here. And this is just morbid curiosity on my part, it's not really that important. So if you want to discuss you, fine, but just for the record I'm ignoring your other posts and remarks as I have no interest in them anymore.

Shayne

My psychopathic motives? Well, there is my Toohey-like envy of your Roark-like abilities -- that much goes without saying.

Aside from this generic motive, the only thing that occurs to me relates to a memory from my early childhood. My parents gave me one of those large inflatable clowns that was weighted at the bottom, so it would pop back up no matter how hard it was punched.

For some reason, I could not resist punching this clown again and again and again; and I would laugh each time it popped back up with that stupid grin on its face, as if begging to be punched again. I knew, of course, that none of my fun would be possible if the clown was not full of air (hot air was not specifically required), but the clown never lost a bit of air, no matter how many times I punched it. That was one tough clown.

I don't know why this memory occurred to me now, but it might have some connection to the psychopathic motives that you so keenly detected in my replies to you.

Ghs