Against Anarchism

[Xray]

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?

Peter's reply:

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.

These concrete examples offer some 'reality litmus testing' food for thought in the largely theoretical debate on anarchy here.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

These concrete examples offer some convincing 'reality litmus testing' in the largely theoretical debate on anarchy here.

Yeah, not much disagreeable there to me but Peter's getting confused about who he's quoting (I didn't say that, Michael did).

Shayne

[Xray]

These concrete examples offer some convincing 'reality litmus testing' in the largely theoretical debate on anarchy here.

Yeah, not much disagreeable there to me but Peter's getting confused about who he's quoting (I didn't say that, Michael did).

Shayne

Thanks for pointing out the mismatched quotes in P. Taylor's post. I have put it in correct quotes now and posted that part separately.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Xray

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

These concrete examples offer some 'reality litmus testing' food for thought in the largely theoretical debate on anarchy here.

end quote

Thank you, Angela!

Are you following Ghs’s description of his odyssey to anarchism? I am open to expanding my horizons. I am open to rationality because my personal *beliefs* are contextual. If new evidence comes out, I will evaluate and modify my Independent Objectivism.

I am still waiting for Mr. Smith’s zinger. What proof is required to turn an Objectivist into an anarchist? And my question is sincere. Go back and look at what George writes and it is logical, rational, and fits into the most rational system of thought devised – Objectivism. He is scientifically precise.

George is fearless and brave in so many ways. Changes in Objectivism will come from an “outsider” like George who is outside the thrall of The Ayn Rand Institute.

His criticism of Leonard Peikoff’s version of Rand’s *Contexualism* is brilliant . . . and true. The quote that George H. Smith disputes is below, about blood types.

From a chapter of Objectivist the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, titled "Reason" (page 173):

"This proposition, (that ‘A' bloods are compatible) represented real *knowledge* when it was first reached, and it still does so; in fact, like all properly formulated truths, this truth is immutable. Within the context initially specified, “A” bloods are, and always will be compatible."

end quote

George saw a problem with Peikoff’s formulation.

George H. Smith wrote:

A contextual theory of knowledge, in my judgment, must strike a delicate balance between relativism and absolutism. And this is precisely why we should retain the traditional view that knowledge is justified *and* true belief. Justification is relative, whereas truth is absolute. That is to say, what counts as adequate justification for a belief may be relative to the available evidence and ones context of knowledge, whereas the truth of a belief is absolute. A proposition either corresponds to a fact or it does not, and this matter has nothing to do with the relative justification for a belief . . . ."

page 77 of "WHY ATHEISM?"

end quote

Now these are my words. George's key words in the above paragraph are, ". . . however justified they may have been at one time," and this is what I wish to discuss. If you disregard what an Objectivist requires for proof, including the process of *reducing* an assertion to its underlying hierarchal, logical, and proven assertions, and ultimately to its underpinnings of sensory data, then you have not adequately described what an Objectivist means by contextual truth. Yet, if we consider all that was once considered as "The Gospel," George is certainly correct.

And contextualism requires a certain time frame. Contextualism requires the present, i.e., the sum total of all knowledge acquired up to the second you are reading this, and I am writing this.

Now back to the original quote that I changed contextually after reading George’s critique. I would revise what Peikoff said in the original ‘Type A' quote which was:

Peikoff wrote:

This proposition, (that ‘A' bloods are compatible) represented real *knowledge* when it was first reached, and it still does so; in fact, like all properly formulated truths, this truth is immutable. Within the context initially specified, ‘A’ bloods are, and always will be compatible.

end quote

I would risk redundancy, CHANGE SOME VERB TENSES and say, using caps for my changes:

Now this is me writing the following, Shayne and Adam:

"This proposition, (that ‘A' bloods are compatible) represented real *knowledge* when it was first reached, and it still does so; in fact, like all properly formulated truths, this truth WAS immutable (AND NOT CAPABLE OR SUSCEPTIBLE TO CHANGE), within the context initially specified. Within the context initially specified, ‘A' bloods are, and always will be compatible, and AT THAT TIME, we WERE correct to act on that objective fact to treat our patients."

Excellent work George.

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

It doesn't matter now except to the debaters. The correct premise is moving toward more and more freedom, not rebellion and the establishment of a new order. A long time from now there may be so much freedom and so little government such a debate might be truly apropos.

--Brant

Cease and desist with your obnoxiously putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I ever encourage "rebellion and the establishment of a new order." You've definitely got screws loose if you get that out of my writing.

Shayne

For the record: I did not mean to say or imply that this was something Shayne advocated. It would appear my shorthand was too short here. But considering Shayne's knee jerk reaction, I'm not apologizing. I no longer read or engage him and so far it's been quite salutary.

--Brant

net gain

[sjw]

It doesn't matter now except to the debaters. The correct premise is moving toward more and more freedom, not rebellion and the establishment of a new order. A long time from now there may be so much freedom and so little government such a debate might be truly apropos.

--Brant

Cease and desist with your obnoxiously putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I ever encourage "rebellion and the establishment of a new order." You've definitely got screws loose if you get that out of my writing.

Shayne

For the record: I did not mean to say or imply that this was something Shayne advocated. It would appear my shorthand was too short here. But considering Shayne's knee jerk reaction, I'm not apologizing. I no longer read or engage him and so far it's been quite salutary.

--Brant

net gain

Net gain indeed. So long as Brant refuses to take responsibility for his own writing, including the consequences that ensue from a persistent misrepresentation of someone's views (he misrepresented my view more than one time on the above point even after continued correction, ergo my anger), he's not fit to deal with grown up conversation.

This is the second time in a few weeks that he's done this: he says something stupid and insulting, and I call him on it, and then he acts like it's my fault and only begrudgingly takes a tiny bit of responsibility for his action later, heaping the majority of the blame upon me.

For shame Brant, for shame.

Shayne

[Xray]

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

Shayne,

But in the biology example, the cat's interfering with the mouse's life is a necessary part of the whole system "nature". Life feeds on other life.

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.

But rights are human creations. They don't exist naturally.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Xray

[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

Shayne,

But in the biology example, the cat's interfering with the mouse's life is a necessary part of the whole system "nature". Life feeds on other life.

Rights, on the other hand, are human creations. They don't exist naturally.

Rights naturally exist because human action naturally exists. A right is merely a perspective on this natural human action, the perspective: was this an interfering human action or not? If the action doesn't interfere, it's a "right"; if it does interfere, it's a "crime."

Quoting from my book:

"The system described herein is the idea that Men should respect the Life Principle in other Men with full consistency. Human action can either violate the Life Principle in other human beings, or not. These are mutually exclusive and exhaustive; there is no other alternative. I name these alternatives Natural Rights and Natural Crimes, and henceforth refer to them as simply: rights or crimes. Every human action is either a right or it is a crime. This distinction is scientific-biological, it is not moral, and it certainly is neither subjective nor arbitrary. Just as one can objectively ascertain whether one animal initiates interference with another, one can also objectively ascertain whether a human being initiates interference with another. Clearly, such a distinction is useful to those who prefer peace and prosperity over war and poverty: it is obvious that men who act with mutual cooperation, without interfering with one another, will achieve far greater prosperity and happiness than men whose actions conflict."

Shayne

[Selene]

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

Peter:

You sure that is a Groucho quote?

Adam

[Xray]

Every human action is either a right or it is a crime.

You would call an action like e. g. tying your shoelace, a "right"?

[sjw]

Every human action is either a right or it is a crime.

You would call an action like e. g. tying your shoelace, a "right"?

Certainly. I have a right to tie my shoelace.

Shayne

[Peter]

I wrote:

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

Adam wondered:

You sure that is a Groucho quote?

end quote

I wrote that. I was being silly. I did not think anyone would think Groucho wrote that. The style is a comedic "conceit" in literary terms. I don't think I have pulled a stunt where I wrote something and then ended it with your name. I don't think I will.

Now that you mention it though, it DOES sound like something Groucho would say. I think he was alive until the 1970's, well after the begining of the space race, and science fiction has been around since Jules Verne.

Anyway, the space I was alluding to was a woman's oomp pah - pleasure in = babies out.

Pewter Mug

[Selene]

Peter, paraphrasing what Senator Lloyd Benson said to Senator Dan Quayle, ...

I laughed at what Groucho Marx said, I knew Groucho Marx's comedy. Groucho Marx was a favorite comedian of mine.

Peter, you are no Groucho Marx!

Adam

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

Peter, you are no Groucho Marx!

end quote

That’s all I need: hecklers.

What do you think about the following Adam. I will bet a penny you think John Gotti should be played by a nice Irish boy.

From the net, Hollywood Reporter:

John Travolta is set to play John Gotti Sr., the mobster known as the Dapper Don, in the indie pic Gotti: Three Generations.

Nick Cassavetes will direct the screenplay by Leo Rossi, which focuses on the relationship between John Gotti Sr., the head of the Gambino crime family who died in prison in 2002, and his son John Gotti Jr., who took over the family business for his father, served time in prison, but then successfully escaped conviction in four subsequent racketeering trials.

Marc Fiore is producing for his Fiore Films. Marty Ingels, the former comic turned talent broker, has come on board the project as executive producer.

End quote

I wonder if Rothbard would be OK with the Gotti’s as he was with The Corleone’s as anarchist archetypes?

Murray Rothbard wrote the Mafia world of the Corleones:

One great scene in The Godfather embodies the difference between right and left anarchism. One errant, former member of the Corleone famiglia abases himself before The Godfather (Marlon Brando). A certain punk had raped and brutalized his daughter. He went to the police and the courts, and the punk was, at last, let go (presumably by crafty ACLU-type lawyers and a soft judicial system). This distraught father now comes to Don Corleone for justice.

Brando gently upbraids the father: "Why didn't you come to me? Why did you go to The State?" The inference is clear: the State isn't engaged in equity and justice; to obtain justice, you must come to the famiglia . . . .

End quote

In contrast he despised the Mafia depicted in “GoodFellas.”

Rothbard wrote about Martin Scorsese's movie:

And now, weighing in, in the Mafia sweepstakes, comes a much-acclaimed new entrant: Martin Scorsese's GoodFellas. This repellent and loathsome movie, much acclaimed by all of our left-liberal critics (including a rave review in the Marxist weekly In These Times), is as far removed from The Godfather, in style, content, writing, direction, and overall philosophy as it is possible to be.

Instead of good versus bad entrepreneurs, all working and planning coherently and on a grand scale, GoodFellas is peopled exclusively by psychotic punks, scarcely different from ordinary, unorganized street criminals. The violence is random, gratuitous, pointless, and psychotic; everyone, from the protagonist Henry Hill (Ray Liota) on down is a boring creep; there is no one in this horde of "wiseguys" or "goodfellas" that any member of the viewing audience can identify with. The critics all refer to the psycho gang member Tommy (Joe Pesci), but what they don't point out is that everyone else in the gang, including the leader Jimmy Conway (Robert DeNiro) is almost as fully deranged.

End quote

I have a feeling that with Scientologist Travolta on the payroll, the movie will depict the Gotti’s as misunderstood entrepreneurs. Yet with “The Godfather” trilogy and the superb “Sopranos” in mind as the standard of quality, Travolta may take home an Oscar winning movie. It won’t lack for excitement and I hope the violence is not Martin Scorsese gratuitous.

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Ahh Peter.

My people are from Northern Italy, Parma, Milan and Berceto. Therefore, I could care less who plays a member of the Sicilian crime families.

Actually, you do not need any hecklers, you do enough damage to yourself with your long convoluted posts without any help from my poor abilities.

So, I will just get out of the way and let you continue on your personal polemic.

Adam

always trying to help Peter stay erect on OL

[BaalChatzaf]

From a chapter of Objectivist the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, titled "Reason" (page 173):

"This proposition, (that 'A' bloods are compatible) represented real *knowledge* when it was first reached, and it still does so; in fact, like all properly formulated truths, this truth is immutable. Within the context initially specified, "A" bloods are, and always will be compatible."

end quote

Unless a genetic mutation arises that causes A type blood to curdle itself.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

Yawn. The Mentalist is not on until 10pm and I need some action.

Any discussion of our currently muddled Presidential political scene on this thread would be arguing FOR Anarchism, so, its OK? It is germane. Huh?

My dream team would still be President Paul Ryan and Vice President Rand Paul. Not going to happen. Plus I think the news casters would mix up their names for sure. Rand Ryan / Paul Rand. The Paul Rand ticket. The Paul Paul Ticket.

Gingrich? Forget about it.

Does Michelle Bachman, Congresswoman from Minnesota, have the chops, the gravitas, and the potential support to beat J’Obama? I like her at least as much as Sarah Palin.

Pawlenty? I will need to hear more about him. Something odd there. How can two ultra – conservatives, Pawlenty and Bachman, be from Minnesota, which is such a liberal state?

I think Sarah is overexposed with her family all over the TV. Still as a VP candidate once again she could counteract Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. Romney has some dough of his own which count counter J’Obama who will raise, at a conservative guess, one billion dollars for the 2012 campaign. Yup, Sarah would be a hard sell, unless she was on a ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate. Romney’s socialized medicine plan for Massachusetts would be to his detriment though he says he would repeal Obamacare.

Trump could spend some of his own money, and his plain spoken manner would be refreshing. Now here is a thought: a Trump / Christi ticket. Two hard asses? And Trump has the advantage of not being part of the Washington crowd and he is not a politician, and Christi is a different type of politician. I would definitely want Christi on my debating team.

Where are his ancestors from? Parma, Milan? Sicily? Unfortunately if they are from Sicily there will be conspiracy theories – started by Donald Trump.

Peter

[Selene]

Christie is of Irish and Sicilian descent.^[6][7]

[Xray]

Every human action is either a right or it is a crime.

You would call an action like e. g. tying your shoelace, a "right"?

Certainly. I have a right to tie my shoelace.

Shayne

But it is not the action itself which is "the right".

Every human action is either a right or it is a crime.

There exist many actions which are neither. For example, if someone violates the TOS of a forum by calling another poster names, while he/she does not have the right to do so, it still makes it no crime. For "crime" is far too strong a term for an infraction of this rule.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

But it is not the action itself which is "the right".

Yes, it is. This is the only sensible, empirical foundation possible for rights. This is central to my theory of rights (see my book).

Every human action is either a right or it is a crime.

There exist many actions which are neither. For example, if someone violates the TOS of a forum by calling another poster names, while he/she does not have the right to do so, it still makes it no crime. For "crime" is far too strong a term for an infraction of this rule.

You merely feel it is too strong because of the culture of unjust remedies for crimes we live in, but in fact, what you are referring to is a property rights violation.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

It doesn't matter now except to the debaters. The correct premise is moving toward more and more freedom, not rebellion and the establishment of a new order. A long time from now there may be so much freedom and so little government such a debate might be truly apropos.

--Brant

Cease and desist with your obnoxiously putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I ever encourage "rebellion and the establishment of a new order." You've definitely got screws loose if you get that out of my writing.

Shayne

For the record: I did not mean to say or imply that this was something Shayne advocated. It would appear my shorthand was too short here. But considering Shayne's knee jerk reaction, I'm not apologizing. I no longer read or engage him and so far it's been quite salutary.

--Brant

net gain

Net gain indeed. So long as Brant refuses to take responsibility for his own writing, including the consequences that ensue from a persistent misrepresentation of someone's views (he misrepresented my view more than one time on the above point even after continued correction, ergo my anger), he's not fit to deal with grown up conversation.

This is the second time in a few weeks that he's done this: he says something stupid and insulting, and I call him on it, and then he acts like it's my fault and only begrudgingly takes a tiny bit of responsibility for his action later, heaping the majority of the blame upon me.

For shame Brant, for shame.

Shayne

(I lost the use of my computers for 24 hours so this is a little late.)

Well Shayne, I decided to default on my guarantee and see your response. I have a thought or two for you. You do deserve some more explanation as to where I am coming from. First, I do not clearly remember the first time you refer to here, but if you provide a specific reference I will address it. Let's just stick with the second, at least for now. I made a post in which I meant to convey one meaning, but actually conveyed two. The one I didn't think about was the one you glommed on to, understandably since it involved your understanding of you. I then explained what I was about, but you still complained with absolutely no addressing my explanation, except it obviously didn't fit what you wanted from me at that point. I then posted an acknowledgement that the way I originally posted could have been read the way you read it, but that I wasn't going to apologize because of the nasty way you had come back at me.

When you read something that involves you and your beliefs you do not like you tend to default into what can be said is the morally superior now-bow-down-to-me position from which you condemn and contemn and ad hominem your way into the fray you have made. My default is talk it out, figure it out, correct it out. Your knee jerk, off the rack moralizing freezes all that and that's that and you've made yourself worthless to me and rational give and take. Since everybody reading these posts knows your objection and such and that I've acknowledged all of this all you've got to complain about now is an apology from me you will not get. I'm just giving up the facts. I've not going to let myself be twisted into your narrowly focused moralistic diorama, which, by the way, is cruder than your political opinions. You can figure out the morality of morality as a weapon when you realize that all it's being used as is control, control, control.

--Brant

for shame, Shayne, for shame: see the dead-end of all this now?

Edited April 2, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

Brant:

This isn't about "moral superiority", it's about me saying X, and you coming out and claiming I said not-X, where X is an important issue. It puts an obligation on me to straighten things out. The particular issue you misrepresented me on is one where I believe it is important not to be misunderstood on.

Only with your last post have I finally understood that you botched your grammar. Your position, evidently, is that since it was ambiguous, then mine was a "knee-jerk" response. If this is how you rationalize your blaming me in this exchange then let me just say that I disagree and that you should take responsibility for your errors. You seem to have this premise that no one is allowed to criticize you or blame you for anything, and that anyone who does this is acting like they are "morally superior." I think you know enough to analyze why that is wrong, so it comes down to actually acting on that analysis.

see the dead-end of all this now?

Irrationality is the dead end, and I think you know my opinion on who is being irrational here.

Shayne

[Xray]

There exist many actions which are neither. For example, if someone violates the TOS of a forum by calling another poster names, while he/she does not have the right to do so, it still makes it no crime. For "crime" is far too strong a term for an infraction of this rule.

You merely feel it is too strong because of the culture of unjust remedies for crimes we live in, but in fact, what you are referring to is a property rights violation.

Shayne

Why do you call it a property rights violation?

Rights, on the other hand, are human creations. They don't exist naturally.

Rights naturally exist because human action naturally exists.

I would leave out the term "natural" since it is used pleonastically here and could create confusion.

Leaving it out, one gets: "Rights exist because human action exists."

Which is another way of saying that where human action exists, rights exist because no human community can exist without rules.

It says nothing about what kind of rights they are, since rules and rights differ in the various societies.

A right is merely a perspective on this natural human action, the perspective: was this an interfering human action or not? If the action doesn't interfere, it's a "right"; if it does interfere, it's a "crime."

But the rules can differ widely in the various types of societies as to what is called an "interfering" action.

"The system described herein is the idea that Men should respect the Life Principle in other Men with full consistency.

Basing an ethical system of the life principle as the ultimate value raises a lot of problems. As Ghs has pointed out elsewhere:

George H. Smith: "Ayn Rand's derivation of man's inalienable right to his own life rests implicitly on a moral sanction of life as such, and, if she is to be consistent, Rand must apply her rights concept to all life forms. A sanction of all life, however, is inconsistent with man's survival. To live, man must kill other life - he cannot survive on inorganic matter."

Source: George H. Smith, Ayn Rand and the Right to Life: A Critical Evaluation, Invictus 17, p. 8 (quoted from L. A. Rollins, The Myth of Natural Rights, p. 16).

Not only must every living organism kill other life in order to exist - life killing other life is essential for our ecological system to preserve itself.

Every human action is either a right or it is a crime. This distinction is scientific-biological, it is not moral, and it certainly is neither subjective nor arbitrary.

Since "not moral" goes toward objective assessemt, a statement made on this issue must stand up to objective analysis. If it doesn't, you get a contradiction which your opponents will point out.

For example, the proposition "Every action by a human committed in a society with a legal system can either be regarded as legal or illegal" is true. It conforms to reality. If you put it like that, there would be no contradiction.

Just as one can objectively ascertain whether one animal initiates interference with another, one can also objectively ascertain whether a human being initiates interference with another. Clearly, such a distinction is useful to those who prefer peace and prosperity over war and poverty: it is obvious that men who act with mutual cooperation, without interfering with one another, will achieve far greater prosperity and happiness than men whose actions conflict."

Again, arguing with nature can land the argumentation in quicksand because the interference principle of life killing other life is necessary in nature.

it is obvious that men who act with mutual cooperation, without interfering with one another, will achieve far greater prosperity and happiness than men whose actions conflict."

As group beings, no doubt mutual cooperation is necessary for us to survive. But that our interests and actions can and will often conflict is also rooted in our existence as group beings.

In any discussion with anarchists, I would start with the basics.

So in case there are anarchists posting here who read this, the first question I'd like to ask them:

"Would you agree that no human society can exist without rules?"

Edited April 3, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

Rights, on the other hand, are human creations. They don't exist naturally.

Rights naturally exist because human action naturally exists.

I would leave out the term "natural" since it is used pleonastically here and could create confusion.

Leaving it out, one gets: "Rights exist because human action exists."

Which is another way of saying that where human action exists, rights exist because no human community can exist without rules.

It says nothing about what kind of rights they are, since rules and rights differ in the various societies.

You're changing subjects. Initially you were talking about whether rights exist. Now you're talking about why it's rational to divide human action into two categories: rights and crimes. Clearly, human action exists. Clearly, we can categorize it. Categorizing it doesn't make it any less real. That was the point I was actually addressing. Not whether the categorization made sense. Because that wasn't your original question.

Sorry Xray, I don't think you're really very honest. I think your equivocation is totally on purpose, and you're doing it to try to trip people up. And if that is not the case, then you are far too incompetent to deal with anyway. So unless you can explain yourself in some other terms that permit me to comprehend your bizarre illogic, I'm not responding to any more of your posts here.

Shayne

[Xray]

Xray wrote:

These concrete examples offer some 'reality litmus testing' food for thought in the largely theoretical debate on anarchy here.

end quote

Thank you, Angela!

Are you following Ghs’s description of his odyssey to anarchism?

I haven't read all of Ghs's recent posts dealing with the subject, but have the the impression that he is more a minarchist than an anarchist.

I am still waiting for Mr. Smith’s zinger. What proof is required to turn an Objectivist into an anarchist? And my question is sincere. Go back and look at what George writes and it is logical, rational, and fits into the most rational system of thought devised – Objectivism. He is scientifically precise.

I'm not sure whether all of Smith's premises fit into Objectivism (see for example his being aware of how problematic it is to declare 'life' as the ultimate value - quote in post # 298), but as for scientific preciseness, ITA with your assessment.

Also, Smith never falls into the pit of mixing his own moral values into objective analysis.

For this happens quite often and is responsible for many misunderstadings in these discussions: people letting their own moral ideals spill into a supposedly 'objective' analysis of an issue.

One could call this the "ought from ought" fallacy: "Men ought to do X, and therefore the laws ought to be such and such".

So instead of an examination of human nature, one gets a presentation of the poster's personal moral ideal of "man", which is another issue altogether.

Nothing wrong with presenting one's personal ideals in that field, but in order to avoid confusion, it is crucial to clearly call them one's personal moral ideals instead of presenting them as the result of 'objective discovery'.

Changes in Objectivism will come from an “outsider” like George who is outside the thrall of The Ayn Rand Institute.

But isn't the philosophical issue whether the idea of "changes in Objectivism" is implied in the concept of Objectivism at all?

Edited April 4, 2011 by Xray