Against Anarchism

[sjw]

I have read this paragraph three times and I don't understand it. I don't mean in context, I know the context, but are you saying, "I have an original idea/theory, and as far as I know nobody else ever had it in the way I have it?"

Just asking,

Carol

No, I was mainly saying that I hadn't seen the whole idea presented as I would like to see it. I think if we pore through enough literature, we can find this or that thing said by this or that person and probably piece together most if not all of what I have ever thought, but then we'd have probably thousands of pages and most of them would be filled with things I disagree with.

Are there original and valuable thoughts there? I would estimate that as: probably. Most of the thoughts originated in me, but I fully expect that they've also originated in other people because, let's face it, this isn't rocket science, most of this stuff people should know intuitively. So the primary value, in my personal opinion, is in the selection of ideas and their integration into the whole.

Now, George is a better writer, and could probably have pulled off what I was trying for better than I could, such that perhaps I would prefer his exposition to mine, but only if he stuck to my overall plan.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's analogous to the concept of optionality in morality. Some choices are morally neutral, such as what particular job you get. Some are not, such as that you don't cheat on your spouse.

In the realm of government, some things are optional and some are not.

Shayne,

That sounds OK as an arbitrary decree, but I believe grounding the concept of government deserves more than just an opinion.

So where does this optionality come from--if not human nature?

What is your standard--and your wider abstraction?

Michael

[Selene]

"...most of this stuff people should know intuitively."

Shayne:

Most of which stuff should people know intuitively?

And, if it is what I think you mean, are you arguing that this "stuff" is a priori in each individual?

Adam

[sjw]

"...most of this stuff people should know intuitively."

Shayne:

Most of which stuff should people know intuitively?

And, if it is what I think you mean, are you arguing that this "stuff" is a priori in each individual?

Adam

I just mean it's easy to infer, I don't mean it's innate.

Shayne

[sjw]

It's analogous to the concept of optionality in morality. Some choices are morally neutral, such as what particular job you get. Some are not, such as that you don't cheat on your spouse.

In the realm of government, some things are optional and some are not.

Shayne,

That sounds OK as an arbitrary decree, but I believe grounding the concept of government deserves more than just an opinion.

So where does this optionality come from--if not human nature?

What is your standard--and your wider abstraction?

Michael

The thing is, some people say human nature is this, and some that, and they'll fight forever. Maybe they're both right because they're just referring to this person's psychology vs. that one. So yes, the optionality refers to these differences of opinion. People should be free to experiment with the government that best suits their individuality.

The wider abstractions are founded upon the concept of what it means, biologically, to initiate interference, i.e., to violate rights.

Shayne

[sjw]

"...most of this stuff people should know intuitively."

Shayne:

Most of which stuff should people know intuitively?

And, if it is what I think you mean, are you arguing that this "stuff" is a priori in each individual?

Adam

I just mean it's easy to infer, I don't mean it's innate.

Shayne

It's possible I'm underestimating the difficulty. ;)

I have always had a hard time comprehending why it's so hard to know how to keep your hands to yourself. It does not seem to be that hard. Now, analyzing the roots of the ideas, explicating precisely why this or that is so, writing, those things can be quite difficult. But knowing how not to violate someone's rights? I think most people really know this deep down for most things, even if they don't want to admit it.

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne:

For most acts, yes, I believe their is a common sense understanding of what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine.

Disputes arise when we both lay claims to the same:

1) space;

2) land;

3) toy;

4) person;

5) patent;

6) idea; etc.

that disputes arise and both parties believe that their rights have been violated.

How does a civil society resolve those without a coercive government?

That is the question that tries men's souls.

Adam

[jriggenbach]

Shayne:

For most acts, yes, I believe their is a common sense understanding of what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine.

Disputes arise when we both lay claims to the same:

1) space;

2) land;

3) toy;

4) person;

5) patent;

6) idea; etc.

that disputes arise and both parties believe that their rights have been violated.

How does a civil society resolve those without a coercive government?

That is the question that tries men's souls.

Adam

Not mine.

JR

[Selene]

Shayne:

For most acts, yes, I believe their is a common sense understanding of what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine.

Disputes arise when we both lay claims to the same:

1) space;

2) land;

3) toy;

4) person;

5) patent;

6) idea; etc.

that disputes arise and both parties believe that their rights have been violated.

How does a civil society resolve those without a coercive government?

That is the question that tries men's souls.

Adam

Not mine.

JR

You are one amusing man Jeff! I do enjoy your semantic sword even when I am sliced by it.

[Peter]

Adam asked:

How does a civil society resolve those without a coercive government?

end quote

Both sides of the disageement choose Solomon as their arbitrator?

I know Rand always insisted there was one right answer philosophically, yet she also insisted men and women can have valid disagreements.

One sort of fight that I always disbelieved was the battle for the heart and mind of Dagny. Would real suitors of a lady's hand, after losing, say the best man had won or would they mope . . . or do worse? I kind of like the phone commercial where two guys are on a ski lift and one asks the other would he mind if he dated the other guys ex and the other guy says, nah I don't mind . . .

If you have truly observed people, Adam, you know that the answer is, in anarchy, an anarchist will do as he pleases until another anarchist convinces or forces him to stop doing as he pleases.

And so to bed.

Peter Taylor

[kiaer.ts]

Shayne:

For most acts, yes, I believe their is a common sense understanding of what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine.

Disputes arise when we both lay claims to the same:

1) space;

2) land;

3) toy;

4) person;

5) patent;

6) idea; etc.

that disputes arise and both parties believe that their rights have been violated.

How does a civil society resolve those without a coercive government?

That is the question that tries men's souls.

Adam

Duels, as shown in this most commendable, funny, beautiful movie.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Ted Keer

[Selene]

Shayne:

For most acts, yes, I believe their is a common sense understanding of what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine.

Disputes arise when we both lay claims to the same:

1) space;

2) land;

3) toy;

4) person;

5) patent;

6) idea; etc.

that disputes arise and both parties believe that their rights have been violated.

How does a civil society resolve those without a coercive government?

That is the question that tries men's souls.

Adam

Duels, as shown in this most commendable, funny, beautiful movie.

Lol

I suggested to a panel of Judges at a seminar that we should bring back dueling for divorces since it would do less damage to the marital financial estate and even less damage to the children.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The wider abstractions are founded upon the concept of what it means, biologically, to initiate interference, i.e., to violate rights.

Shayne,

Non-initiation of interference? Not NIOF, but NIOI?

That's your notion of human nature biology?

At least, you mean this between adults, correct?

So, for the purpose of grounding your concept of government, when you refer to human nature, you are referring only to one part of adult human nature. Is that correct?

Thus, government for you is of the adults, by the adults and for the adults. "Adults" in this case not meaning whole adult human beings, but merely a portion of human nature during the adult stage that does not initiate interference in others. Is that fair to say?

If not, what else is included?

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Shayne:

For most acts, yes, I believe their is a common sense understanding of what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine.

Disputes arise when we both lay claims to the same:

1) space;

2) land;

3) toy;

4) person;

5) patent;

6) idea; etc.

that disputes arise and both parties believe that their rights have been violated.

How does a civil society resolve those without a coercive government?

That is the question that tries men's souls.

Adam

Duels, as shown in this most commendable, funny, beautiful movie.

Lol

I suggested to a panel of Judges at a seminar that we should bring back dueling for divorces since it would do less damage to the marital financial estate and even less damage to the children.

I engaged in a duel once. It didn't secure for me the object of my love. But it did scare off my rival.

If you are willing to do the time, commit the crime.

[sjw]

The wider abstractions are founded upon the concept of what it means, biologically, to initiate interference, i.e., to violate rights.

Shayne,

Non-initiation of interference? Not NIOF, but NIOI?

That's your notion of human nature biology?

At least, you mean this between adults, correct?

So, for the purpose of grounding your concept of government, when you refer to human nature, you are referring only to one part of adult human nature. Is that correct?

Thus, government for you is of the adults, by the adults and for the adults. "Adults" in this case not meaning whole adult human beings, but merely a portion of human nature during the adult stage that does not initiate interference in others. Is that fair to say?

If not, what else is included?

Michael

Biologically, for any organism, initiation of interference (i.e., I'm excluding retaliation -- which is a type of interference) is an objective, scientific fact, not a matter of opinion about "human nature."

Rights are rights, and nothing you learn about children's rights fundamentally alters the nature of adult government. This is a bald assertion, because I don't want to get into the explanation at this time, not because I don't think that children's rights can be squared with adults' rights nor that I think it's trivial to do so. So no, this is not "by the adults and for the adults" in the sense that it does not have respect for the rights of children.

When I talk about fundamentals of government, I'm only talking about areas where it must respect rights, but it may do many other things depending on what constituents want, if they consent.

Rights are rights, and a given policy or action of government either violates them or not, and if it does, then it ought to be changed.

Shayne

[sjw]

Shayne:

For most acts, yes, I believe their is a common sense understanding of what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine.

Disputes arise when we both lay claims to the same:

1) space;

2) land;

3) toy;

4) person;

5) patent;

6) idea; etc.

that disputes arise and both parties believe that their rights have been violated.

How does a civil society resolve those without a coercive government?

That is the question that tries men's souls.

Adam

Well, to pick one of these: it is obvious that just because I thought of something and filed paperwork with a bureaucrat, that does not mean that you don't have a natural right to think with your brain and act to create and sell your idea, even if it happened to be similar to my idea. So patents are an obviously absurd notion, and also, are the best proof that Ayn Rand didn't really understand how to apply individual rights to various important issues.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Your biology is off a bit.

Biology in nature is not governed by non-initiation of interference. On the contrary, living things kill and eat each other. That's just what they do.

That's biology.

This is not what I was discussing, though.

And repeating "rights are rights" and throwing around words like "must" do not address the issue I raised.

On the contrary, it sounds like rights are a special kind of entity when you do that and you are trying to make a decree that they exercise some kind of power over human beings.

I am speaking in cognitive terms (trying to make a correct identification before evaluating or even developing a logic chain), and you keep responding in normative terms of what must or must not be without addressing the cognitive points I am talking about (i.e., what "is").

But I'm OK if you want to leave it right there for now.

Michael

[sjw]

Shayne,

Your biology is off a bit.

Biology in nature is not governed by non-initiation of interference. On the contrary, living things kill and eat each other. That's just what they do.

That's biology.

You've entirely missed my point: when a cat eats a mouse, then the cat interfered with the mouse's biological processes and not the other way around. This is an objective fact. This same objective biological fact applies to human beings and their rights.

Shayne

[Peter]

Shayne wrote to Michael:

Thus, government for you is of the adults, by the adults and for the adults. "Adults" in this case not meaning whole adult human beings, but merely a portion of human nature during the adult stage. Is that fair to say?

end quote

An anarchic expedition.

1000 people agree to found an anarchic community, in a place claimed by no country. With sperm banks and frozen eggs the continued genetic diversity and viability of the colony should be guaranteed. Their dilemma is how do they agree to no government, yet continue to guarantee all 1000 people will respect individual rights and NOT resort to the initiation of force, over time, residing in the same geographical location?

Their solution is that all 1000 sign a contract before relocating. They consent but there is no *consent of the governed* because a contract is not a government. They all just consent to abide by the contract. This is a consent to be free. They agree on arbitration if disputes arise. For the general tranquility, they count on the continued rationality and benevolence of a majority of the 1000 people to “obey” the contract they signed.

What if a majority decides that a minority of one or more, is misbehaving, and must stop their misbehaving behavior, and the misbehaver refuses to stop?

What if two individuals have a disagreement? And neither likes the arbitrated result?

What if they have kids, and the kids refuse to sign the contract? What if the kids misbehave? Will families abide by the contract, when their kids won’t sign or misbehave, or will they fight to save their kids from exile or imprisonment? What if the kids form secret societies upon reaching their teenage years, as all kids do, and they think their parents are fools?

What if two splinter groups form? What if there is war? Does the original contract still pertain? Will Rationality prevail?

NO it won’t!

So how else can we guarantee all will abide by “The Contract?” Make a religion of it? Implant chips in the 1000 existing settlers, or new kids just after their birth? Inflict pain if the minority does not respect the rights of the others? How do they do that? 51, 60, or 75 percent votes for censure and the misbehavers are jolted by electricity?

Stop, stop, I’m out of breath.

Have I gotten through to at least one person? Limited government is a heck of a lot better. We just need to stop the incremental increases in governmental power.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Adam quite seriously wrote something and I hope everyone will notice that whether it is Adam, Ghs, or any other Rational Anarchist, they are always counting on themselves prevailing – or their defense agency prevailing, and my observation is not psychologizing, for it is right before your eyes. Anarchy is a continuous thought experiment never verified by experience or science.

Adam wrote:

I suggested to a panel of Judges at a seminar that we should bring back dueling for divorces since it would do less damage to the marital financial estate and even less damage to the children.

end quote

Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good and Evil:

Not one of these clumsy, conscience-stricken herd animals (who set out to treat egoism as a matter of general welfare) wants to know . . . that what is right for someone absolutely cannot be right for someone else; that the requirement that there be a single morality for everyone is harmful precisely to the higher men; in short, that there is an order of rank between people, and between moralities as well. (§228)

end quote

Now I ask again, in the case of the two competing defense agencies, which in Adam’s case, two dualists both who claim they are objectively right, who would win the dispute? It would be as Nietzsche says, “The Higher Men” - The better fighters - The Supermen. Might makes right, because the mighty are proven right, by prevailing over the lesser “herd animals.”

A kind of naturally selective Nietzscheism is the essence of Rational Anarchism. Not the Anti-Federalist Founding Fathers. Not Ayn Rand -. Friedrich Nietzsche.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Carol wrote to Shayne:

I have read this paragraph three times and I don't understand it.

End quote

Let’s dive even deeper into the murk: Anarchic Justice administered as an insurance policy

Was it just last year that Brant wrote to David about whether Galt’s Gulch was a utopia, anarchy, a government or just private property?

Brant cryptically wrote:

She did in AS. It was called Galt's Gulch with the rest implied.

end quote

David responded:

Galt's gulch or simply the gulch was not a utopia, it was a haven for the heroes from the havoc wreaking collectivists that were out to victimize those who still kept the flame of man burning. Sure, it was great but then, why did the heroes did come out of there in the end of the story? It is because a mere isolated place would not suffice for man. They sought to create a state where reason is the standard. Not purely good but rather a place where man is free to do anything within the bounds of his rights. Furthermore in detail, they even have Judge Naragansett on call to settle disputes - which because of rational standards has not yet happened.

End quote

From Atlas Shrugged:

"We're not a state here, not a society of any kind--we're just a voluntary association of men held together by nothing but every man's self-interest." --Atlas Shrugged, p. 690 (35th Anniverery paperback edition).

Paraphrasing PT Galt’s correspondence to the old Atlantis site:

What systems did Galt’s Gulch possess?

Private arbitration (Judge Narraganset),

Private coining of currency (Midas Mulligan),

Foreign policy and defense (John Galt)

And it had a Laissez Faire style of a free economy.

end quote

That will cost you a gold nickel.

PT Galt also wrote in the same letter:

Of course Galt’s Gulch wasn't exactly realistic, in that such complete harmony among people, even those with above-average rationality and explicit commitment thereto, is pretty close to impossible. The Objectivist movement itself has demonstrated this empirically. Nonetheless, it represents Rand's ideal environment in which humans live together and engage in production and trade--and it was anarcho-capitalist in all but name.

end quote

Now that last sentence I do not agree with, since there has never been an anarcho-capitalist society, and never will be. Okay, okay you can at least argue that it was fictional anarcho-capitalism – but Ayn Rand vehemently denied this.

In my opinion, even a primitive, interim Anarchist society would not harbor Laissez Faire Capitalism, simply because Anarchy has no way to create a *civilization* because there is not way to insure multi-generational contracts. I don’t even combine the two word concepts, anarchy and capitalism in my thinking.

Bryan Caplan, Department of Economics at Princeton University wrote to the old Atlantis site, OWL, about competing defense agencies being akin to an insurance policy:

“First, a defense firm is really selling an insurance policy, a policy to defend the rights of their clients IF they are wronged. If word gets out that the firm abandons its clients when they come to demand the help they are entitled to, their insurance policy will be basically worthless. In essence, firms would want to protect clients even though the expected value of their case is negative, because otherwise their name brand would be seriously hurt. The second reason why the rich would have trouble securing unequal justice comes from the incentives of the rich person's firm.

In insurance economics, there is a concept known as "adverse selection." This means that unless an insurer properly screens its customers, the most likely people to buy insurance are those who are most likely to demand benefits. For example, chronically sick people are most likely to buy health insurance, high-risk drivers are most likely (other things held constant) to buy auto insurance, and so on. But if most people buying insurance come from high-risk groups, then their premiums would have to be extremely high. Now what would happen if a defense firm acquired a reputation for defending wealthy clients to the death? It would face an adverse selection problem of the worst sort.

Every criminally inclined wealthy person would want to sign up. The firm would have to pay out huge payoffs, either in the form of settlements to other firms, or to pay the cost of fighting wars with every honest firm. The cost of the policy would have to rise almost to the level of the cost of the crimes. However wealthy a client might be, there is a huge deterrent against accepting him as a customer regardless of his criminal behavior.

In contrast, honest firms could sell very cheap policies, because the large majority of their clients would never require the services. This is just a standard application of insurance economics, which tells us that the firms that adequately monitor their clients can offer cheap premiums, even if benefits are high, since the probability of payout is low. Firms that indiscriminately defended wealthy criminals, in contrast, would have to charge very high premiums, since the probability of payout is high.

Finally, since the number of honest people of ordinary means far exceeds the number of wealth criminals, the total number of trained police on the side of justice would vastly outnumber the number on the side of criminals.

End quote

To be fair I should mention that Professor Caplan went on to say, bizarrely enough, and I paraphrase:

“One) An incentive system of free-market anarchism would be better able to control the problem of wealthy criminals than government.

Two) Political Philosophers need not assume everyone under anarchism is good. For any level of goodness, the incentives of anarchism are better than for Constitutional Government.”

end quote

The reason I use the word “bizarrely” is because there is no anarchism. It is just something in someone’s noggin. And if it did exist he would still be wrong.

I have heard of pet insurance. Ayn Rand could be Objectivity Insurance. And for the bonus round, is there such a thing as psychological insurance?

Regarding Professor Caplan’s quote I forgot to mention my explicit reason for the quote:

Two) Political Philosophers need not assume everyone under anarchism is good. For any level of goodness, the incentives of anarchism are better than for Constitutional Government.

end quote

I wanted to show one of the best defenses of Anarchistic competing defense agencies that I have found, to see how an Objectivist and psychologist would handle that argument. His idea of defense insurance was quite ingenious, and purports to prove that the evil rich would prosper more under government than under Anarchism.

Innumerable counter examples could be shown, such as Columbia, and Somalia. Philosophical Anarchism does exist, of course, but notice the level of intellectual argument presented to defend and bring *no referent in reality* into the real world. Bizarre!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

Shayne wrote to Michael:

Thus, government for you is of the adults, by the adults and for the adults. "Adults" in this case not meaning whole adult human beings, but merely a portion of human nature during the adult stage. Is that fair to say?

end quote

No, I didn't. How about you stop anarchically avoiding the quote function, you make a very poor anarchist, you're better at following conventions and orders.

Shayne

[Peter]

Shayne wrote:

No, I didn't. How about you stop anarchically avoiding the quote function, you make a very poor anarchist, you're better at following conventions and orders.

end quote

Sorry about that. Let me work on my quote method. Ya know, it's more fun talking to George even when he rarely answers. First Shayne said I was a Nazi SS. Now I am an Anarchist. Oh well.

Headline: "Message in a bottle, tossed by Peter, found and thrown away by Shayne, found twenty-five years later by George, causing a light bulb to appear over his head." Here is the message:

I once wrote, why do Objectivists go ballistic when confronted by someone espousing anarchism or determinism?

Someone replied:

‘For the same reason religious people go ballistic about atheists.’

George H. Smith opined:

The reaction of many religious people to atheism is typically motivated by concerns that are quite different from the emotions that are sometimes aroused by philosophical disputes.

End of quote

Do Objectivists go ballistic when confronted by someone espousing Determinism, or Anarchism? George says I do. Does our teakettle boil over because ideas that contradict our ‘belief’ cuts into the infallibility of Objectivism?

George has said there is a religious aspect to an Objectivist clinging to volitionally consensual government, that goes beyond reasonable proof. I don’t think there is a religious aspect to my denial of the anarchistic doctrines.

I will have not have an epiphany about anarchism like George says he did. George wrote about how the light-bulb of anarchism brightened over his head on another thread. He asked us to not yet reply.

George wrote about his “eureka moment” experienced in the privacy of his own bedroom:

My conversion experience didn’t take more than a few hours.

end quote

I will have not have an epiphany about Anarchy, not even if I “toke up” or (Jim) Beam up, in any inner sanctum. Anarchy is not a political system; it is a psychological feeling of self-sovereignty, extending from the individual towards others. Anarchism pushed into the political realm is the overextended aspiration that the individual should always determine what is right for the individual.

I want to apply one of George’s critiques of Determinism to Rational Anarchy. I know Rational Anarchy does not claim scientific status, like Determinism, but it does claim a rational, logical necessity as we evolve past failed, limited government.

George wrote about why he dismisses determinism:

The primary source of my irritation is the presumption of many determinists (especially hard determinists) that their theory is an exercise in rigorous scientific reasoning, whereas it is nothing of the sort. Part of the problem here is what qualifies as an adequate ‘explanation’ of a phenomenon. Hard determinists in particular often embrace a ‘covering law’ model of explanation, according to which a phenomenon is explained after it has been subsumed under a general ‘law,’ or abstract formulation of regular occurrences.’

But this conception of ‘explanation,’ though it may serve in some branches of science, is not adequate as a generic account of the various kinds of explanation that are needed to account for different kinds of phenomena, especially in the realm of purposeful human action. Explanations in the latter realm are sometimes called ‘understanding’ (from the German *verstehen,* which has a technical meaning when used in the human sciences).

end quote

NOW, I Czar Peter, going back to anarchism, will state that the primary source of my denial of anarchy’s validity is the presumption of many anarchists that their theory is an exercise in rigorous, logical, almost scientific reasoning, whereas it is nothing of the sort. I am always told to read this author or that person, as if the magic formula can be found by reading and then mumbling the words, Alohomora Cave Inimicum. (Open the strengthened door. Thank you, Harry Potter.)

The basic problem with anarchism as a valid political or scientific theory is that it has not fulfilled the requirement that you can point to it. You can’t even point to a successful experimental model like a commune that I know of. (Ye Olde Iceland notwithstanding, though it existed, was not a civilization.)

Rational Anarchism lies as much within the domain of speculative philosophy as any theory of determinism. It typically presupposes the failure of all pretentious governments that claim they protect individual rights. Anarchism posits an inevitable decline from minimal government to totalitarian statism. They point at the decline of America, the best example of Constitutional Government, as the proof. Still an anarchist can only speculate, “why can’t we all just get along?”

Another problem with Anarchy as a political theory or science is that it has not formulated any ‘laws’ that are specific enough to be tested by empirical means. By its lack of any universal enforcer of justice, and the fact that anyone is free to do whatever they want to do in an anarchy, until and unless, another anarchist persuades or forces them to stop doing it. Or an empire forces the Natives (anarchists) to behave. That shows that anarchy reverts to chaos. Anarchists like to use the old American West as an example of Rational Anarchy, but this was migration not planned anarchy, and it resulted in every American territory petitioning to be a part of the Union.

Anarchists can no more predict human behavior in detail than can a constitutionalist. But, Constitutionalism has the saving graces of longevity and the ability to go back and right a wrong. Until anarchists exhibit a superior predictive ability, one that derives from anarchistic laws of human behavior, then they are merely philosophers arguing with other philosophers. Anarchism in the realm of human action is philosophy, not science, or demonstrable fact.

Constitutionalism is a fact, and for all children’s sakes, let’s fix it.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

I will have not have an epiphany about Anarchy, not even if I “toke up” or (Jim) Beam up, in any inner sanctum. Anarchy is not a political system; it is a psychological feeling of self-sovereignty, extending from the individual towards others. Anarchism pushed into the political realm is the overextended aspiration that the individual should always determine what is right for the individual.

The underlined part is semi-true. However, radical SS man that you are, you don't really understand what the problem is here. For almost the entirety of human history, up until around 1900, there has been a frontier, and that frontier has been integral to man escaping from man in order to secure his freedom. That frontier was unjustifiably closed on the grounds of mythologies about "manifest destiny" etc. Since this has happened so recently, we do not know precisely what the consequence will be, but note well the massive mayhem inflicted by governments upon individuals since then (Peter is probably channeling Dr. Strangelove right now...)

As I quoted in a different thread:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

"As, therefore, it is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man, it consequently follows, that rights appertain to man in right of his existence only, and must therefore be equal to every man."--Thomas Paine

"All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another."

"When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact."

"Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains."

"It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."--Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists

"The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist."--Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

The best government ever was created by men like this, not totalitarians like Peter Taylor.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You've entirely missed my point: when a cat eats a mouse, then the cat interfered with the mouse's biological processes and not the other way around. This is an objective fact. This same objective biological fact applies to human beings and their rights.

Shayne,

I still don't understand.

You are advocating--in your biological part of your argument--government for different species of human beings? Cats and mice are different species. The last I looked, humans all belonged to the same species.

As far as human biology is concerned, raids by groups of adult males on other groups of humans are recorded as part of human history as far back as we have archeological finds, including bones smashed by weapons. These raids have continued throughout all of recorded history. That's part of human biology in terms of species.

Michael