Bosco

Randy Barnett had an interesting take on what happens to "law" in an anarchist society, in "Fuller, Law and Anarchism". He argues that law is not something that is manufactured but something that emerges from social norms and mutual expectations. He winds up making the point that a government, by its nature, must violate it's own rules and therefore subverts the whole purpose and character of law, properly understood. Where does that leave us? The implication is that it is only in a stateless society that law is possible. It's not a matter of whether law would fare better under minarchism vs anarchism. Tim

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.

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

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

I just added this to the Amazon.com review: http://www.amazon.com/review/R23OEN6VENRS3D/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=8&cdPage=1&asin=1573922080&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx3UIRM0DAZ3WEK#Mx3UIRM0DAZ3WEK

He appears to have a website up as well. http://murphy444.org/ Tim

From George's link on Robert Murphy: Reason for running: The candidate has not answered this question What three areas of state government would be your funding priorities? The candidate has not answered this question What would you do to reform the state's worker compensation system? The candidate has not answered this question How do you view the relationship between state and federal government? The candidate has not answered this question Gee George, I can't understand why you didn't respect him intellectually. Tim

George, this account is fascinating and horrifying at the same time. I'm literally stunned. You've already been to hell and back. Tim I am referring to the LF debate. I just happen to have written out my initial part of that debate. I have no interest in summarizing or transcribing my rebuttals or including your presentation. (I winged the AS debate, since it was so sudden.) With these Cds, what I have is what people will get. I am not going to starting monkeying around with things. Some kind of presentation of the entire debate would be an entirely different project, one that doesn't interest me now. You are of course free to present your side in any manner you wish. For that matter, if you want to transcribe my part as part of a package, that's fine with me, but I should be included in any profits. Ghs

I'm sure any decent parent would be worried about the physical risks associated with the sex trade, given the fact that it's illegal. One can be arrested, imprisoned by police, or beaten and raped without legal recourse. The same would be true of being Jewish and resisting the resettlement laws of 1930's Germany. So I guess by this standard, the Jews who refused to wear the Star of David on their sleeves were naive to think that their crimes were "victimless and morally neutral". Why don't we define "victimless crime" here? The popular expression doesn't imply that ones actions don't negatively impact others, only that the action by itself does not violate the rights of other individuals (does not constitute the initiation of force). Let's say a law was passed prohibiting bungee jumping. Certainly there may be victims, if a person goes bungee jumping anyway and endangers his life by not taking reasonable precautions; namely, his family and friends who would have to carry on without him. And I suppose there would then be debate over whether bungee jumping is a "victimless crime", but clearly (among libertarians at least), this is understood in relation to the use of physical force, not whether a person is "harmed". Tim

I think he has said that an association of individuals based on voluntary consent certainly may call itself a government, but properly understood, it would not be a government if it lacked a claim on coercive territorial sovereignty. I don't know how that would be a "pro-government" position. Tim

A pretty common sentiment among market anarchists is that a strictly (constitutionally) limited government would be a immense improvement, however unfeasible it might be.

Thanks Adam. I'm from Brantford, Ontario (yes, brrrr.). I work for a collection agency. Hopefully they will never put me on collections for government debts. In the 90's, I spent two years in college and 4 in university .Tim

Hi galtgulch, I'm not sure which you are referring to (facetiously, of course) as being a big success, market anarchism or constitutionally limited government? At this point, neither, but my money would be on the former in the long run.

Hi everyone. My name is Tim Hopkins. I will confess to having watched these forums for years, and at this point I generally learn more by observing what goes on. I am not well read in philosophy; I took philosophy and political science courses in the mid 90's, and forgot most of it, but was inspired by reading Ayn Rand, from whom I learned the importance of ideas and the value of liberty. My major departure from Ayn Rand's own views has to do with the legitimacy of the state, which is more common on this forum than I expected. I will say more later, but I wanted to introduce myself and wish everyone a happy holiday.