Against Anarchism

[sjw]

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

I really don't see how you're getting all those things out of a relatively simple point. You are not just going beyond, but way beyond what I wrote.

When a cat eats a mouse, it is an objective biological fact that the cat interfered with the mouse, and that the mouse didn't interfere with the cat. I am saying that the same biological issue is involved if we say that one human action violated the rights of another human -- that in fact there was an interference. Which is to say that actual rights are real and objective, and that actual violations are also real and objective. This is all just the non-initiation of force principle viewed from a different perspective.

Shayne

[jriggenbach]

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

I really don't see how you're getting all those things out of a relatively simple point. You are not just going beyond, but way beyond what I wrote.

When a cat eats a mouse, it is an objective biological fact that the cat interfered with the mouse, and that the mouse didn't interfere with the cat. I am saying that the same biological issue is involved if we say that one human action violated the rights of another human -- that in fact there was an interference. Which is to say that actual rights are real and objective, and that actual violations are also real and objective. This is all just the non-initiation of force principle viewed from a different perspective.

Shayne

Shayne, I beg of you: cut Michael some slack. He needs to make this point in order to lay the groundwork for his forthcoming argument that [bullying, blah, blah, blah]. Surely you can see that he can't reasonably expect his readers to know what the [blah, blah, blah] part means if he hasn't first attended to the foundation.

Tsk, tsk, tsk,

JR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is all just the non-initiation of force principle viewed from a different perspective.

Shayne,

This is precisely my point.

Your model of human nature is identical to Rand's and the ancaps for grounding government.

I'm trying to see what happens when you look at another model of human nature--a more complete model than NIOF on feet.

I learned that concepts are supposed to be integrated from broader ones to narrower ones, even philosophical ones--that metaphysics and epistemology are more fundamental than ethics, which is more fundamental than politics. That if you do not do it that way, you are engaged in the stolen concept fallacy.

So I'm trying to figure out how you got to your version of government (i.e., politics) by shortchanging metaphysics and epistemology (i.e., human nature).

That is my point.

I seek a correct identification and correct concept formation right now.

Like I said, though, I'm happy to leave it right where it's at and let it stew for awhile.

The blah blah blah is already starting and that, we all know, will go nowhere fast. I even heard a tsk or other.

(No amount of mocking or ignoring the issue will convince me that the NIOF on feet version of human nature is complete enough to explain government. I need a more rational premise than that--ones based on correct concept formation.)

Michael

[sjw]

So I'm trying to figure out how you got to your version of government (i.e., politics) by shortchanging metaphysics and epistemology (i.e., human nature).

So Michael, when did you stop beating your wife?

That's OK, at least you aren't obnoxiously claiming that I'm advocating crude political action when clearly I'm advocating an ideal and education about that ideal.

Shayne

-Still pissed off as hell at Brant's incessant idiocy.

[Peter]

Shayne quoted this great man and others:

“. . . 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

and then Shayne wrote:

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

end quote

Thank you Shayne, those were excellent quotes. However I am a thinker and supporter in the tradition of The US Constitution, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, while you are god knows what – certainly not a patriot. Those Founding Father’s founded a nation. You can’t even found a family or an anarchy. They pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. You have no honor.

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

Shayne quoted this great man and others:

“. . . 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

and then Shayne wrote:

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

end quote

Thank you Shayne, those were excellent quotes. However I am a thinker and supporter in the tradition of The US Constitution, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, while you are god knows what – certainly not a patriot. Those Founding Father’s founded a nation. You can’t even found a family or an anarchy. They pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. You have no honor.

Peter Taylor

To steal a saying: I've served with patriots. I knew patriots. Patriots are friends of mine. You are no patriot.

(I of course mean this in the best and highest sense of the word "patriot", the one that is loyal to ideals, not the loyal SS-man type that Peter is).

Shayne

[sjw]

If it weren't for people like you Peter, there would probably not be any anarchists. You are near the root of the problem. When anarchists think of government, they are really thinking of the likes of you, and in that respect, I sympathize with them.

Shayne

[sjw]

Keep in mind when reading these quotes that what really got Peter upset with me is that I said that government should be based on consent:

“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...” --The Declaration of Independence, United States of America, 1776

“... that mind must be really depraved, which would not prefer the equality of political rights ...” --Thomas Jefferson quoting Alexander Hamilton

“Whensoever the General Government (Washington) assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”--Thomas Jefferson

“What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism.”--Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, 1854

“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 22, December 14, 1787

Is Peter Totalitarian Taylor a patriot, or is he a fraud?

Shayne

[Peter]

Shayne wrote:

I am saying that the same biological issue is involved if we say that one human action violated the rights of another human . . .

end quote

Michael Stuart Kelly wrote:

So I'm trying to figure out how you got to your version of government (i.e., politics) by shortchanging metaphysics and epistemology (i.e., human nature).

end quote

Michael is on to something. Is Shayne an Objectivist, or more correctly, a Libertarian? He is definitely not an *integrated Objectivist.*

Shayne, would it be fair to say, you don’t support your country?

Do you support or denounce Randian representative government? Do you think human nature is rational if it supports a limited government?

Do you think Rand’s essential list of what it takes to be an Objectivist is a good list, if it includes as one of the essentials, Capitalism requires a Constitutional government which delegates to itself through the consent of the original founders, the retaliatory use of force to protect its citizen’s liberties?

Now that is OK if you disagree with Rand, and it won’t get you shunned around here, but it is better to be viewed as you truly are.

I agree with the following from Mr. Branden

From: Nathaniel Branden

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: for the record

Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 09:28:01 -0800

For the record, I am not suggesting that anyone who challenges some premise of Objectivism should be off this list. If this list is understood to be a site where people who share some or all or few of the premises Objectivism wish to exchange ideas about Objectivism and its implications and its possible problems, there's nothing wrong with that.

What I said was that if one does not agree with one or some of the most fundamental premises of Objectivism, then it is misleading to call oneself an Objectivist.

I often call myself a "neo-Objectivist" and explain that I agree with the broad fundamentals but have significant points of disagreement, above all in the sphere of psychology and to some extent in ethics. Although more and more I dislike labeling myself at all, because there is always the need for a long explanation.

What I also claim is that I know a good deal about what Objectivism is and is not.

Nathaniel Branden

Shayne, is your Libertarianism, a Practical Anarchism, as George suggests? Is your poetic formulation that a cat may not eat a mouse – the same as a human may not initiate force against another human – is that a sort of Prime Directive? Is the Non Initiation of Force principle all that you need?

“Is that all there is? Is that all there is, my friend, then just keep dancing . . .”

Shayne, I am beginning to ponder the advisability of talking to you any further. You seem to lack any maturity. Your name calling is infantile. Answer a few if not all of my pertinent questions and I will continue to talk to you.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

Michael is on to something. Is Shayne an Objectivist, or more correctly, a Libertarian? He is definitely not an *integrated Objectivist.*

There is no such thing, you can't integrate a contradiction.

Shayne, would it be fair to say, you don’t support your country?

No, it would be fair to say that I support actions that favor liberty and don't support actions that don't favor liberty. So unlike you, I don't hand out moral blank checks, I actually look at the particular details and support what is good and don't support what is not.

Would it be fair to say, that like a good SS man, you will "support your country" no matter what it does? And if not, where do you draw the line? When do you say "this isn't right, I can't support this"? Being an actually integrated and rational person, I draw the line at natural rights, the only possible place to rationally draw the line. Being a disintegrated pseudo-Objectivist, where do you draw the line? One can never tell. Each Objectivist has his own answer, Objectivism being the contradictory hash that it is.

Shayne

[sjw]

Judge Napolitano (and Ron Paul) on patriotism:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/index.html#/v/4582229/the-true-definition-of-patriotism/?playlist_id=157991

Shayne

[Peter]

Shayne wrote:

So unlike you, I don't hand out moral blank checks,

end quote

Crap. I was wondering if I said. “Answer some of my questions or I won’t talk to you” would convince Shayne to cool it. No such luck.

I guess this is Shayne’s thread. Now Rational Anarchists George and JR are a lot more fun to tussle with than Shayne, who seems to be stuck on Nyah, nyah!

George once said that I am the most anti-intellectual human being he knows who purports to be an Objectivist. And, I seem to incorporate a lot of, maybe too many, Randian sayings into my letters. I won’t disagree with him.

I have made it a point to be an Independent Objectivist since around 1970, five years after I decided I was a fervent Objectivist. To be more precise I began thinking of myself as “a primitive or naïve objectivist” and strident, around 1965 at the age of 17, but did not became less *orthodox* until around 1970 when I got out of the Army.

Dadgummit. George says WE still can’t comment yet in George’s Corner. Who does he think he is? Not so Curious George? I will have to amuse myself.

Just an hour ago, I was sitting in the doctor’s office and through the thin walls, I overheard the following conversation.

“Look Doc. My nose is out of joint and all red. Do I need an antibiotic?”

“George, it’s irritated but not infected.”

“But my nose is red. My face is red. My blood pressure is through the roof because of what that effing piss ant is saying, and I need something for the pain.”

“It’s spelled pissant, George, and no need to curse. Nurse Ratchet here, who is helping us, is s devout follower of Ba’al.”

“No shit Doc?

“George? No more cursing. If you curse three times around Nurse Ratchet you are considered a candidate for human sacrifice. And sorry, no pills.”

“Eff Shayne and you too, Doc.”

“Thanks to Ba’al, that is three curses,“ shrieked Nurse Ratched.‘

[sjw]

Crap. I was wondering if I said. “Answer some of my questions or I won’t talk to you” would convince Shayne to cool it. No such luck.

I was fine with you until you initiated attacks, the worst part of which is that you attack me for a virtue: I support an ideal of government based on consent. Attacking someone for a virtue is evil. Also, you call me an "anarchist" when I clearly am opposed to anarchism, and this is a personal insult. So don't you lecture me about "cooling it."

Shayne

[Peter]

I wrote, “Shayne, is your Libertarianism, a Practical Anarchism, as George suggests?” Well, I think we are at least zeroing in on Shayne. It must have been Ted’s Monty Python video.

Shayne wrote, though not expressly replying to my above question:

. . . Objectivism being the contradictory hash that it is.

End quote

There you go. Shayne is not an anarchist, sort of. Well maybe he is. Maybe he isn’t.

But we can at least declare with some certainty that, “Shayne is not an Objectivist.”

Thank you for your patience Michael Stuart Kelly. (I like that cool name) I have been monopolizing the ether a bit too much, and now I will withdraw from jousting with windmills

.

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

There you go. Shayne is not an anarchist, sort of. Well maybe he is. Maybe he isn’t.

Just because you viciously advocate for the violation of your neighbor's rights does not make me an anarchist.

I know, it's very confusing for someone to say "the moral is the practical", and then identify certain moral principles and actually consistently apply them. I suppose I should be sympathetic to someone who has been steeped in hypocrisy since age 17.

Shayne

[Peter]

Still no sign of George. On the Glenn Beck thread, Michael inadvertently typed, "The Merchant of Venus.” Say, that gives me an idea.

Two Anarchist Gentlemen, George and Roy, of Verona,

subtitled: A three act play dealing with the themes of fleeting Anarchic codes of conduct, the conflict between Anarchistic love and justice, and the foolish behavior of people professing Anarchism.

The Characters:

George, The Mark, on vacation in London - an anarchist gentleman, able to rub more than two gold coins together, which he keeps in his ostrich skin purse.

Roy, his buddy back in Verona, struck by lightning at an early age and given to stuttering and flights of fancy.

Oliver Shyne, nicknamed The mule for his pungent body odor, an expendable, young street urchin and pickpocket who lifts a purse from the pocket of George, The Mark, and then drops it . . . .

. . . to be conveniently found by his master accomplice, Murray the Artful Dodger. The Dodger, an anarchist who claims to abide by the Non-Initiation of Force Principle, but is really a Prudent Predator.

Scene One: The curtain rises.

The streets of London are bustling with commerce.

George, The Mark is purposefully walking along the street when he is bumped into by little Oliver Shyne,

“S’cuse me governor,” says Oliver.

“No harm done” says George, and then, wrinkles his nose and says, “Whew! Take a bath young sir.”

Stinky Little Oliver Shyne walks past George the Mark, having lifted his purse, continues on to the motionless Murray The Artful Dodger where he drops the purse upon the ground.

Meanwhile, George prudently pats his pocket and discovers his change purse is missing, turns in time to see the Artful Dodger slipping it into his pocket.

“You there,” says George. “That is my purse!”

“Hardly,” says Murray, the Artful Dodger, “I found this purse upon the ground.”

“No, it is mine, “insists George.

“Hardly,” says The Artful Dodger. “It was yours, but I found it morally, without initiating force upon your person.”

The thunderstruck, George stands mutely as Murray the Artful Dodger adds, “One second it was yours, but when another anarchist acts a second later then it is his. What I find is mine!”

From his hiding perch around the corner stinky Oliver Shyne says solemnly to the audience, “Oh, the fleeting nature of rational anarchism which lacks the longevity of perfect constitutionalism. In anarchy, if value is to be found upon the ground, it is moral to snatch it and claim it as your own. For whatever the next anarchist who comes along says, it is the new law of Practical Anarchism.”

George finds his voice: “The moral finder of a purse, Prudent Predator? Nay! My might supersedes your might!”

“Will you argue with this brace of pistols says,” says the Dodger menacingly?

George backs down.

Later, back in their thieves’ lair, stinky Little Oliver Shyne pleads with Murray the Artful Dodger who is guarding the pot of porridge, "Please, sir, I want some more."

Scene Two: While wandering outside of London, George runs afoul of a competing defense agency or, as he calls them, a band of outlaws.

Scene Three is canceled because real anarchy is accidental, fleeting, and is always replaced with the something we call government.

The End

You know, writing phony plays is tough.

William Shakespeare

[Selene]

Still no sign of George. On the Glenn Beck thread, Michael inadvertently typed, "The Merchant of Venus." Say, that gives me an idea.

Two Anarchist Gentlemen, George and Roy, of Verona,

subtitled: A three act play dealing with the themes of fleeting Anarchic codes of conduct, the conflict between Anarchistic love and justice, and the foolish behavior of people professing Anarchism.

The Characters:

George, The Mark, on vacation in London - an anarchist gentleman, able to rub more than two gold coins together, which he keeps in his ostrich skin purse.

Roy, his buddy back in Verona, struck by lightning at an early age and given to stuttering and flights of fancy.

Oliver Shyne, nicknamed The mule for his pungent body odor, an expendable, young street urchin and pickpocket who lifts a purse from the pocket of George, The Mark, and then drops it . . . .

. . . to be conveniently found by his master accomplice, Murray the Artful Dodger. The Dodger, an anarchist who claims to abide by the Non-Initiation of Force Principle, but is really a Prudent Predator.

Scene One: The curtain rises.

The streets of London are bustling with commerce.

George, The Mark is purposefully walking along the street when he is bumped into by little Oliver Shyne,

"S'cuse me governor," says Oliver.

"No harm done" says George, and then, wrinkles his nose and says, "Whew! Take a bath young sir."

Stinky Little Oliver Shyne walks past George the Mark, having lifted his purse, continues on to the motionless Murray The Artful Dodger where he drops the purse upon the ground.

Meanwhile, George prudently pats his pocket and discovers his change purse is missing, turns in time to see the Artful Dodger slipping it into his pocket.

"You there," says George. "That is my purse!"

"Hardly," says Murray, the Artful Dodger, "I found this purse upon the ground."

"No, it is mine, "insists George.

"Hardly," says The Artful Dodger. "It was yours, but I found it morally, without initiating force upon your person."

The thunderstruck, George stands mutely as Murray the Artful Dodger adds, "One second it was yours, but when another anarchist acts a second later then it is his. What I find is mine!"

From his hiding perch around the corner stinky Oliver Shyne says solemnly to the audience, "Oh, the fleeting nature of rational anarchism which lacks the longevity of perfect constitutionalism. In anarchy, if value is to be found upon the ground, it is moral to snatch it and claim it as your own. For whatever the next anarchist who comes along says, it is the new law of Practical Anarchism."

George finds his voice: "The moral finder of a purse, Prudent Predator? Nay! My might supersedes your might!"

"Will you argue with this brace of pistols says," says the Dodger menacingly?

George backs down.

Later, back in their thieves' lair, stinky Little Oliver Shyne pleads with Murray the Artful Dodger who is guarding the pot of porridge, "Please, sir, I want some more."

Scene Two: While wandering outside of London, George runs afoul of a competing defense agency or, as he calls them, a band of outlaws.

Scene Three is canceled because real anarchy is accidental, fleeting, and is always replaced with the something we call government.

The End

You know, writing phony plays is tough.

William Shakespeare

Peter:

A simply brilliant analysis.

Clearly there would never be any conflict between the police forces of a Constitutional Republic which are protected by Federal and State Constitutions.,,,

uhh hmmm well maybe not so much:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YHExTBLOq0

"The fight began March 18 after a Colwyn Borough police officer was flagged down about a domestic dispute. The Colwyn officer arrested a man who allegedly punched a woman. The arrest evidently occurred about a block into Darby Borough.

After the Colwyn officer arrested the man, members of the Darby police force arrived on the scene and a melee began."

So maybe Michael's point is worth a lot of consideration in that it is within human nature that the problems exist.

Local Cop-on-Cop Dispute Hits YouTube

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On the Glenn Beck thread, Michael inadvertently typed, "The Merchant of Venus."...

Oh Lord...

This thing is even finding its way into other threads.

I'm never going to live it down.

Michael

[caroljane]

On the Glenn Beck thread, Michael inadvertently typed, "The Merchant of Venus."...

Oh Lord...

This thing is even finding its way into other threads.

I'm never going to live it down.

Michael

Look on the bright side Michael. If it goes viral you can tie it into your internet marketing and become the Merchant indeed.

[caroljane]

On the Glenn Beck thread, Michael inadvertently typed, "The Merchant of Venus."...

Oh Lord...

This thing is even finding its way into other threads.

I'm never going to live it down.

Michael

Look on the bright side Michael. If it goes viral you can tie it into your internet marketing and become the Merchant indeed.

Also, you could trademark it for your space exploration company, Rationally Integrated Solar Systems.

[Peter]

Daunce wrote:

Also, you could trademark it for your space exploration company, Rationally Integrated Solar Systems.

end quote

Also Michael, The Merchant of Venus could be a great title for the owner of a female escort service, or a professional lady could call her exposé book about celebrity dates, The Merchant of Venus.

Daunce? A main character in “the Merchant of Venice,” is named Launce.

OOps I am editing this Launce is a character in "Two Gentlemen from Verona."

Peter

Some men know that a light touch of the tongue, running from a woman's toes to her ears, lingering in the softest way possible in various places in between, given often enough and sincerely enough, would add immeasurably to world peace.

~ Marianne Williamson

Edited March 31, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[Peter]

I don’t want to start anther thread about something so inconsequential so I will stick this paraphrase from Wikipedia on this anarchist, or victims of government thread )

Scientologists gain converts from the ranks of Christians and a few Jews. No Muslims or other religions are recruiting grounds for Scientologists, as far as I can tell.

Scientologists prefer to recruit rich people like Tom Cruise, Katie Helmes, Kirsti Alley, Anne Archer, Karen Black, Sonny Bono, Chick Corea, Sky Dayton (founder of Earthlink), Jenna Elfman, Isaac Hayes, Priscilla Presley, Leah Remini, Greta Van Susteren, and Edgar Winter. Most of these rich people seem to be actors and musicians.

Some former Scientologists like William S. Burroughs, Diana Canova, Leonard Cohen, Al Jarreau, Nicole Kidman, Sharon Stone Patrick Swayze, and Demi Moore speak out against their former insanity.

Former Scientologist Jerry Seinfeld per Wikipedia “is an actor and comedian. . . He became an adherent of Scientology in 1977. Seinfeld self-identified as a Scientologist to his friends. He attempted to recruit those he knew to become active with the organization. He attempted to reach the Scientology level of "Clear". When interviewed by The Washington Post on his views of the Time magazine article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" that called Scientology a "ruthless global scam", Seinfeld said he felt it was "poor journalism". Listed by The Globe and Mail among "ex-members" of the Church of Scientology, in a 2009 article.

Church Lady?

Yeeessss?

What does ruthless, global scam mean to you?

It means false religions like anarchism and scientology.

What else does it mean to you?

Well. Hmmm? Could it be . . . . Saaataaaan!

Peter

[Peter]

Talk, talk, talk. Anarchist literature has NEVER LED TO A PLANNED ANARCHY, just as no religion has ever lead to the return of a messiah. A second coming? Heck, theoretical anarchists will take The First Coming!

So where is actual, planned anarchy being practiced. Some Anarchists are motivated by the *Primacy of Will* and the profit motive. The mafia and motor cycle gangs are prime examples of this Practical Anarchism in action.

Prominent Anarchist theorist, Murray Rothbard wrote:

The more recent innovative Hollywood genre, ranking with the Western, is the Mafia movie: the clash of heroes and villains against a mythic but reality-grounded world, updated to twentieth-century America . . . . The key to The Godfathers and to success in the Mafia genre is the realization and dramatic portrayal of the fact that the Mafia, although leading a life outside the law, is, at its best, simply entrepreneurs and businessmen supplying the consumers with goods and services of which they have been unaccountably deprived by a Puritan WASP culture . . . . Just as governments in the Lockean paradigm are supposed to be enforcers of commonly-agreed-on rules and property rights, so "organized crime," when working properly, does the same.

end quote

That last sentence is very telling about Rothbard’s psychology and his philosophical anarchism. If organized crime, when working properly, enforces commonly agreed on rules and property rights, then his philosophical, and planned Rational Anarchism is being practically described. And the fact that there are clashes of will, excessive punishments, murders and violations of objectively defined rights in Practical Anarchy does not bother a Rational Anarchist one bit.

Rothbard, has at least gone beyond the will-o-the-wisp Rational Anarchism of one studious fan of Ayn Rand, George H. Smith. I would call George an Independent Objectivist and an Impractical Anarchist. A logical chain of argument can be established to declare his Anarchism *rational* but if its basic premise does not include the nature of man, and it has never been tried, then it is false. "Check your premises!"

The studious, impractical, intellectual anarchists and the “its only talk” firebrand Anarchists are drawn into a fantasy world with *no referent in reality* after reading limited government proponents or living in a semi-free country. Some identify themselves as former or full fledged Objectivists, and usually, some angry catalyst set them off, onto the path of Philosophical Anarchism, and that catalyst is their arrest for a crime.

Should *IT* be a crime? What is *IT*? Fraud – or any violation, of another’s rights, including coercion, should be a crime. Mafia style, criminal conspiracy should be a crime. Driving impaired should be a crime. Just being falling down drunk or impaired, in public, should be a crime.

Victimless crimes should NOT be a crime even though many of them do have costs to others. The studious, impractical, intellectual anarchist opposes drug testing, and surveillance technologies which pose a threat to privacy, and provides proof of their victimless crimes.

So the sequence for a studious anarchist is:

The study of limited government.

The Arrest for a victimless crime or just knowing about an arrest for a victimless crime that the perpetrator and future anarchist is performing.

And that leads to a horrible disconnection in their thinking processes.

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

“Those oldies but goodies, remind me of you.”

Sympathy for the Devil: Rock Star Anarchists

Philosophical Anarchists covet the life of a rock star, like The Rolling Stone’s Mick Jagger. Mick does as he pleases. Mick answers to no one. He may even break the law, but there is always someone else to take the rap, to buy his dope, hire his girls, and cover up his indiscretions. The blessed ass of Mick is always covered. Superstardom and millions of dollars, pesos, euros, and yen insulate him from bothersome Government.

The Philosophical Anarchists will do as they please until another anarchist persuades them or the cops force him to stop. But does he really think that he will should be compelled to stop? Hell no. In his deluded, adolescent mind, he is Nietzsche’s Superman, big enough and strong enough to prevail over other, lesser men. “The Struggle” and “The Inevitable Triumph” is what he lives for.

Reality does not intrude on the Rock Star Anarchist’s delusions. All he needs is the collapse of civilization. Or barring that, all he needs is a bankroll to found his Anarchist Territory . . . inside the insidious United States!

The “Blessed Ass of Mick,” or BAM is power. It is protection from government. It is the primacy of will. What’s the solution, becoming a rock star? What are the odds of that? Very small. No Anarchists – you must just be filthy rich.

All the anarchist wants . . . is to be just like Mick. Is that asking too much?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Daunce you are a naughty girl!

Daunce wrote about the working title, "The Merchant of Venus":

Also, you could trademark it for your space exploration company, Rationally Integrated Solar Systems.

end quote

I know what space I would like to explore! ~Groucho