Bosco
-
Posts
39 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Bosco
-
-
I think Kevin Carson has stated that interest and rent enjoy a disproportionate share of the returns of productive activity because of the distortions produced by the mixed economy, and that interest and rent, while not inherently objectionable, would be minimal in a true free market without the influence of the state to tip the balance.
-
I think the recurring reports on American television about the Royal Baby Watch tell us everything about American culture that anyone needs to know. 8-)GhsI think we all like Carol very much, but she knows less about American culture--especially as it relates to dastardly "guns!"-- than she thinks.
The media seems poised to retry the Zimmerman case either by means of a civil rights suit, or promoting a repeal of "stand your ground" laws. And with those endless CNN close ups of Obama, head down, pursing his lips together, I think it's as good as done. But once the royal baby is born, every hiccup and diaper change will make headlines for weeks. Lets enjoy the break.
-
As for deciding on laws, I think procedures like rolling dice or playing rock, paper, and sissors would be used. After all, how could rational people possibly decide and agree on such matters without a government to dictate to them? I am lost and utterly confused about matters of justice and injustice until government sages tell me what to think.
All very well, but is it really rational to assume that only rational people would want to live in an anarchistic society?
In other words: how would 'Anarchia' deal with its irrational members when it comes to making decisions?
Is it really rational to assume that only rational people would be interested in controlling a limited government oringinally modeled on objective law? If we can count on a vigilant public to prevent a limited government from overstepping its bounds, why wouldn't this same vigilant public keep it's market institutions from doing the same thing?
-
George, in an anarchist society, what is to stop the protection agencies from colluding like what people suspect proponents of a NWO are doing within different governments around the world?
It seems like a weed... You can rip the top off, break the stem or pull it out from the roots... it's still not really gone. Is information and education what will keep a society free once the miracle of a revolution has happened?
Aren't cartels and monopoliies pretty unstable economic arrangements when the state is not around to enforce them?
-
Michael,
Here is a key passage from Rand's essay "Collectivized 'Rights'":
Any group or "collective," large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. In a free society, the "rights" of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement, and are merely the application of these individual rights to a specific undertaking. Every legitimate group undertaking is based on the participants' right of free association and free trade. (By "legitimate," I mean: noncriminal and freely formed, that is, a group which no one was forced to join.)
...A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.
Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob.
Given these and similar statements by Rand, is it any wonder that Randian anarchists have been led to ask: So how can a monopolistic government that one is "forced to join," an association of men that is not based on "voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement," be regarded as anything other than "a gang or mob"?
O'ists have twisted themselves into philosophical pretzels in their efforts to deal with this problem. If Rand had not dismissed anarchism so bluntly and vehemently -- this probably had a lot to do with her personal dislike of Rothbard -- I doubt if this would have been such a hot-button controversy.
Ghs
How is one "forced to join" a Randian government?
--Brant
By being compelled to pay a "membership fee" (tax)?
Tim Hopkins
-
Ayn Rand opposed anarchism, and despite the fact she she was almost always precise in her arguments, she didn't leave minarchists with much to go on except some passing thoughts in VOS. So I don't think she considered the position to be credible or worthy of any real serious consideration beyond regarding it as a lunatic fringe of a deluded libertarian movement. I have a feeling that had she examined it more closely, what she might have left behind would have made debates between O'ist minarchists and "anarcho-objectivists" more interesting and informative for both sides.
Do there exist any "anarcho-objectivists"? I have the impression that those who were affiliated with the Objectivist movement but finally rejected minarchism in favor of anarchism no longer call/called themselves Objectivists.
By "anarcho-objectivists", I'm obviously referring to those who largely agree with Ayn Rands epistemology, ethics and fundamental political principles, but reject minarchism as inconsistent with these principles. I agree that anarchists should not consider themselves Objectivists, although I have heard some try to slip past this issue by referring to themselves as "open source" Objectivists
-
Tim,
This is a 1997 lecture by Randy Barnett on "polycentric legal orders" -- Randy's respectable label for anarchism.
Ghs
Thank you for linking to this. I think his comments about the anarchistic implications of the "power of exit" (emigration) were particularly interesting. He does seem to have distanced himself from anarchism now, although there is no evidence I am aware of that he's repudiated it.
Tim Hopkins
-
I agree, and that's why I am an anarchist. People should be able to delegate their right of self-preservation to an agency of their own choosing, so long as that agency respects objective law and is truly an agency devoted to the defense of its customers. To prevent them from doing so by force, as you wish to do, and to compel them to deal exclusively with an agency that you happen to prefer, does not qualify as living "together in harmony." Rather, it is called: Do as I command you to do, even you don't violate anyone's rights, or I will initiate force against you.
Where does this "objective law" reside? What if the "agency" doesn't respect it? Now we have law, police, courts (and prisons) basically under one roof. When your agency comes knocking on my door investigating a crime wanting to search my abode and meets my agency where is its warrant? Who issued it? No warrant, then no law, then my agency opens fire when your agency tries to force its way in. Since I have the right to defend myself I might also be one of the shooters. The need for law and a uniform set of rules is why government has its monoploy but that monooly is the law not its derivative functions and aspects. There can private security and prisons and courts even police all competing. Competing regarding law, though, is for political philosophers competing for codification by legislation. The anarchist must be reduced to everyone, if not his tribal group, with his own competing idea of what is "objective law" and that competition would be with various weapons making and maintaining space for his or its existence.
--Brant
problems, problems--everywhere, problems--everybody has them and some are optional
George mentioned Randy Barnett as one theorist who took significant steps towards addressing these issues. You might be interested in an article that was published in the Libertarian Forum in 1976, where he makes the case that, from a rational, "horizontal" (as opped to verticle, or unidirectional) conception of law, the state is not really a method of administering law at all, since it fails to establish the minimum requirements of a legal code. The piece is on page 5.
http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1976/1976_02.pdf
Tim Hopkins
-
But since Ghs's question addresses a crucial issue (crime in an anarchistically structured group), venturing off the pages of the novel would lead me to ask him back how he thinks crimes are to be dealt with in an anarchist society.
Angela:
Good. I will take that as positive movement towards answering a key issue in terms of how an anarchistic society/mineanarchistic society could resolve the murder of one citizen by another citizen.
Adam
This concerns the debate over punishment vs restitution, which is not directly relevant to the issue of anarchism vs minarchism. How should an ideal Randian gvt deal with murder?
-
Ayn Rand opposed anarchism, and despite the fact she she was almost always precise in her arguments, she didn't leave minarchists with much to go on except some passing thoughts in VOS. So I don't think she considered the position to be credible or worthy of any real serious consideration beyond regarding it as a lunatic fringe of a deluded libertarian movement. I have a feeling that had she examined it more closely, what she might have left behind would have made debates between O'ist minarchists and "anarcho-objectivists" more interesting and informative for both sides.
-
On the contrary, Peter seems to understand the position of the anarchist very well. Central planning is exactly what is needed where the use of force is concerned--a clear, well-defined plan (i.e., the administration of objective law) which, to the maximum extent possible, eliminates force from the marketplace and human relationships. The anarchist, by definition, can have no such plan, since any entrepreneurial thug can enter the game at any time and start selling his own personal brand of "retaliatory force." It is a "system" tailor-made for the Mafia. The Cosa Nostra is the original "private defense agency."
The mafia is better characterized as a byproduct of government. With a similar hierachy and power structure, the mafia competes with the government over control of prohibited activities, like drugs, prostitution and gambling. That has little to do with defense agencies.
Tim
-
Few of us desire, or have the ability, to manufacture our own shoes. Does this mean there must be one (and only one) producer of shoes, to ensure people don't go barefoot? It's curious that libertarians and Objectivists are so keen on specialization and division of labour as part of the unintended benefits of a free market, but when the subject of protection, defense and adjudication come up, these insights are lost and the worst prejudices about free markets return. TimGetting to basics, and looking from the point of view of Rand's intent - So, we tacitly hand over to our (hopefully minimal) government the responsibility to protect our person and property from those who would initiate force against us. Why? because few of us desire, or have the ability, to constantly protect ourselves. Second, because it is logical to have one, central Agent, equably protect us with objective laws. With the responsibility - and the duty - justly comes the right of that Agent to be the only one to wield that power.
Few of us desire, or have the ability, to manufacture our own shoes. Does this mean there must be one (and only one) producer of shoes, to ensure people don't go barefoot? It's curious that libertarians and Objectivists are so keen on specialization and division of labour as part of the unintended benefits of a free market, but when the subject of protection, defense and adjudication come up, these insights are lost and the worst prejudices about free markets return. TimGetting to basics, and looking from the point of view of Rand's intent - So, we tacitly hand over to our (hopefully minimal) government the responsibility to protect our person and property from those who would initiate force against us. Why? because few of us desire, or have the ability, to constantly protect ourselves. Second, because it is logical to have one, central Agent, equably protect us with objective laws. With the responsibility - and the duty - justly comes the right of that Agent to be the only one to wield that power.Tim,
I also find it curious that instead of a single, restricted agency operating completely
by permission of the populace, anarchists prefer a mutable number of small agencies
operating by market forces. (And I've got as much distrust for government - and its potential for runaway power - as the average anarchist, I think.)
But, practically, I'd rather have one big camel inside the tent - where I can keep
a careful eye on it, and smack it if necessary - than dozens or hundreds of small ones
running loose outside.
Your private enterprise application is a well taken. However, what I know about business and industry is that there are many slips between cup and lip. Glitches and hiccups of supply, production, work-force and delivery. The shoe manufacturer has to dial in all these short-term factors, occasionally take the odd risk
- and all the while be looking over his shoulder at the competition, and finding ways to expand his territory. A lot of energy is used up in being creative.
When those hiccups result in interrupted production or sales, less shoes are made and sold, and his figures suffer, temporarily.
When private protection agencies suffer glitches, or temporary breakdowns, their clients' property can be damaged, and lives can be lost in the interim.
Individuals and their rights are not a 'product' - and a government (of any form) is not in the business of getting 'creative', or expanding their influence.
Free enterprise in governance, as I understand it.
(But my knowledge about anarchism is limited, I freely admit.)
Why expend so much energy trying to restrain the size of a single agency, when firms in the market can act as a counterbalance and check against one another? And remember, it's not merely "force" that is being sold in a free market, but (in a libertarian society) the legitimate use of force, which is defined by moral principles and argument, and not who wins an election. This is what would generate the need for courts in the first place. Anyone can potentially use force in a free society, so, considered in isolation, it's value as a professional service would be extremely limited, as opposed to the ability to justify and persuade others. The same facts and social needs that give rise to competing defense agencies also explain why they would tend to respect rights rather than violate them.
You wrote:
"When private protection agencies suffer glitches, or temporary breakdowns, their clients' property can be damaged, and lives can be lost in the interim.Individuals and their rights are not a 'product' - and a government (of any form) is not in the business of getting 'creative', or expanding their influence."
When private protection agencies suffer glitches, or temporary breakdowns, clients can also take their business elsewhere. When the same happens with government, you pretty much have to suck it up and keep the "payments" rolling in. Individials and their rights may not be a product, but the protection of these individuals and their rights is most definitely a service with perceptible levels of quality. And what existing government is not in the business of getting creative or expanding it's influence at the expense of freedom?
-
Getting to basics, and looking from the point of view of Rand's intent -
So, we tacitly hand over to our (hopefully minimal) government the responsibility to protect our person
and property from those who would initiate force against us. Why? because few of us desire, or have
the ability, to constantly protect ourselves. Second, because it is logical to have one, central Agent, equably protect
us with objective laws.
With the responsibility - and the duty - justly comes the right of that Agent to be the only one to wield that power.
Few of us desire, or have the ability, to manufacture our own shoes. Does this mean there must be one (and only one) producer of shoes, to ensure people don't go barefoot?
It's curious that libertarians and Objectivists are so keen on specialization and division of labour as part of the unintended benefits of a free market, but when the subject of protection, defense and adjudication come up, these insights are lost and the worst prejudices about free markets return.
Tim
-
Can you predict that your Rational Anachism would not resemble the Confederacy, The Mafia, Boss Tweed, The Bowery Boys or The Pug Ugly New York gangs? No one can predict what will happen because you have no signatories to a plan, or a consensus for a plan among a large group of people. You lack a plan.
Doesn't this imply a central planning perspective? How do libertarians and Objectivists respond when asked for a blueprint explaining how health care or education would work? In short, they can make broad, general predictions based on the spontaneous order of the market, But a "plan" is something mapped out in advance by someone independant of the system in question, which misunderstands the position of the anarchist.
Tim
-
George, what is your overall assessment of Kevin Carsons perspective? I understand your rejection of the LTV and your skepticism about his free market "anti-capitalism", but his fundamental position is that the role of the state is to subsidize the operating costs of the political class through the big monopolies (credit, banking, land control and "intellectual property") and seems to turn Marxian class analysis on it's head. He also supports wildcat labour action, which seems to have many libertarians worried about his credentials as an advocate of free markets. Have you ever engaged him outside of LL2?
-
I notice it was removed by YouTube. Is it posted anywhere else?
Tim
As Rich stated - congratulations!
Living free and asserting your rights especially when it comes to the Second Amendment is fraught with real consequences.
Great job.
Thank you.
Adam
Well, at least you got off your filthy sex habits enough to write something cogent, Adam. ;)
rde
Running
Rich:
Lol...
remember, you can get more sex with a kind word and a gun, than just a kind word!
I truly enjoy your writing.
Adam
-
A little trick, is to click on "cache" below the main search result. This will display the text of the site in a format that can be copied. Some sites allow their content to be cached, some don't. Google books don't, for obvious reasons.
That sounds like a lot of work. The snippet with only my remarks can be copied here:
http://www.google.co...n&tbm=bks&tbo=1
Ghs
Yes, I noticed that after the fact. Now you know how proficient I am in my job (what attention to detail!)
Tim
Yeah, but my method only works with very short passages, or I think it does. You could not get the entire paragraph without using your method.
Ghs
-
I googled the exact text string (including quotation marks):
"george h smith" simpsons
It's the first hit on page 2.
Okay, it wasn't so convoluted. But the copying of text was (I have to do it all the time at work, so it's fairly routine to me),
1. alt-print screen to capture the page.
2. Paste into Paint
3. Save as a pdf file.
4. Open saved file using adobe PDF reader.
5. Click "tools" in upper right hand corner
6. Expand "recognize text ' - Select "in this file"
7. When finished, select and copy desired text.
8. Paste to Word, correct a few OCR (Optical character recognition) errors.
9. Deliberate on whether to just buy the book next time instead.
Tim Hopkins
That sounds like a lot of work. The snippet with only my remarks can be copied here:
http://www.google.co...n&tbm=bks&tbo=1
Ghs
Yes, I noticed that after the fact. Now you know how proficient I am in my job (what attention to detail!)
Tim
-
I googled the exact text string (including quotation marks):
"george h smith" simpsons
It's the first hit on page 2.
Okay, it wasn't so convoluted. But the copying of text was (I have to do it all the time at work, so it's fairly routine to me),
1. alt-print screen to capture the page.
2. Paste into Paint
3. Save as a pdf file.
4. Open saved file using adobe PDF reader.
5. Click "tools" in upper right hand corner
6. Expand "recognize text ' - Select "in this file"
7. When finished, select and copy desired text.
8. Paste to Word, correct a few OCR (Optical character recognition) errors.
9. Deliberate on whether to just buy the book next time instead.
Tim Hopkins
-
just wonderful, I have not seen many Simpson episodes. "Clogging our courts since 1976" alone is worth the price of admission, thanks for sharing!
Here is a pop quiz: In what book on the Simpsons am I am quoted?
100 points (worth absolutely nothing) for the first correct answer. You can even google for the answer, but I doubt if you will find anything.
Ghs
"Some atheists think The Simpsons is so proreligion that it's more
like a Sunday school lesson than a sitcom. In a 1995 atheists Internet
discussion group, one member wrote, "The central message
of the show, I've noticed, is that only the good people are religious
and that those who are not are immoral. Some episodes really
hammer the point home. And the true religious fanatics in the
show are portrayed as the most moral, ethical people around. I
stopped watching in disgust a long time ago." Like the Christians,
even the atheists are split on the series. "It's a great show," said
George H. Smith, author of Why Atheism? and Atheism: The Case
against God. "I think there's a good balance" on religion, he said.
"It's a remarkably well-done show."
Do I get another 100 points for sharing the convoluted means by which one would google such a result and then copy text from a site that has copy and paste disabled?
Now googling George's take on "Family Guy"....damn, nothing.
Tim Hopkins
-
I agree with Sharon 100%. Jim may think that his settlement with George will still leave unintended traces of his identity online (and he may be right), but unsupported allegations of physical abuse are not easy to shake off either. Paraphrasing Ayn Rand from a Ford Hall Forum Q&A, the person who repeats an accusation is the person who accuses you.
-
I have been following this dispute since 1998, when the first email exchanges were made public between George and Wendy. Frankly, I'm not the slightest bit surprised that Wendy has not made an appearance; she obviously doesn't have a leg to stand on, and I can't remember an accusation that was so well argued and documented. The earlier material and the information contained in this very lengthy (and fascinating) thread, doesn't leave much doubt that George was a victim of plagiarism. And as a longtime admirer of Wendy and her work, this is really disappointing.
BTW, I seem to remember a few years ago another user on this forum was flagged for having copied much of George's work, passing it off as his own. I remember the person in question made a public admission, and that was the end of it. I have a feeling this too could have passed if there wasn't such a desperate attempt to dodge the truth.
Even discounting the very detailed evidence George has provided, there is the issue of evasion on Wendy's part; where the hell is she to confront these charges in person? If her defense is so solid, what did she have to lose? And there is the issue of credibility, which hasn't received much emphasis here at all. Given that a lawsuit has been ruled out on principle, the most likely restitution George can receive is a public apology, and we all know the probability of that is close to zero.
So we are left with two possibilities; either George hallucinated the whole thing, or has run out of ideas and must freeload off an ex-girlfriend, OR he has actually seen several years of his work go into the toilet and is both angry and right. I'm betting on the latter.
-
PERHAPS Rand's choice of words was imprecise and a correct formulation could objectively and contextually change those words. It is odd to think that Rand called for monopolistic government control of the retaliatory us of force when there were already other institutions or agencies at the time she wrote that phrase that do use retaliatory force AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT CONTRADICT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
A quick listing of the individual institutions or agencies that do use the retaliatory use of force other than the Federal Government are:
States.
Other municipalities.
Private Security Firms.
And state courts can be used before federal courts. Private arbitration can replace the civil courts. Even private arbitration using Sharia Law is OK – as long as the Federal Constitution is abided by – and there is no cutting off of hands.
Peter Taylor
And I think this is why George has focused on the concept of sovereignty, and the debate often centers around the issue of a final arbiter. Yes, a government permits a number of non-governmental institutions to employ violence, The defining characteristic, however, is that this decision making and the chain of appeals ends with the state itself. And assuming this is a more precise characteristic, the moral dilemma remains.; if a government is delegated the task to rule correctly on the proper use of force, and in parallel fashion, a private agency is also retained to do the same by another individual, and both discharge their contractual duties in accordance with the principles of justice, both the government and the private company have no valid claims for interfering with one another.
Tim
-
The argument--my argument--for monopoly in law which is monopoly in government is out of the right philosophy you can make right law and that shouldn't be changed arbitrarily or at whim or easily. You should be able to do all sorts of things under the law such as guard agencies, security patrols, arbitration of contracts, etc. Since I first take things as they are, I am not concerned with the ultimate legitimacy of minarchy only how do we improve the overall situation enough to get to the point where that might be a practical problem? Then our descendants will discover that that really isn't the problem. Their problem will be dealing with take-it-for-granted complacency because things are so good that the matter seems petty and arcane. Things going bad, slowly at first--that will be their problem.
What is law, but philosophy with a gun? No matter how much plurality of laws you have all will have guns. One law, one gun. Monopoly in law chokes down the amount of extant physical force respecting rights bouncing around society and ricocheting off its walls hitting the guilty and innocent--the good and the bad--alike.
If the ideal government has as a scientific analogue the achievement of absolute zero, be assured that "You can't there from here."
--Brant
What about the "plurality" of nations ("competing governments"), and even various, conflicting levels of judicial authorities within the same geographic region that often contradict and overturn one anthers decisions? In order to truly have legitimate force concentrated in one central power, one would need one world government, with a single supreme court, no appeals and no intermediate levels. Now there's a fantasy
Tim
Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’
in Nathaniel Branden Corner
Posted
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say "Justice Entrepreneurship" was a significant breakthrough in sketching how the facts that give rise to the need for judicial services (the prospect of third party intervention) are the same facts that should be considered when assesing the likelihood that they will tend to be fair and impartial. Most people, in my experience, take the existence of protection and judicial services in a stateless society as a given and fail to deal with the more fundamental question of whether and why such agencies would exist in the first place, their objective and the likely means to accomplish that objective. This is a fault shared by anarchists and minarchists alike.