Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

Of course I accept NIOF as a binding limitation on government. But it's not the only one. And as with all limitations, there are exceptions based on principles that are more fundamental than they are (like reason).

I gave you a reason-based intervention already. Ignore it if you like.

As far as "they" deciding, that's what we have a constitutionally elected republic for. Can you imagine 300 million people trying to agree on an emergency by vote? But "we" get to decide who "they" are by vote and what "they" put into law. Ultimately, "we" decide, albeit slowly and at a distance.

It ain't perfect and it doesn't always work out correctly, but that's the way our government is made. I haven't seen anything except maybe a benevolent dictatorship run by a really good dude work any better for keeping the power mongers in line. And a humongous problem with that, obviously, is the group of power mongers who inherit the throne.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

R U Kidding Me?

Brant,

Nope. It would probably fall under marshall law.

Millions of civilians with guns would mow the bastards down.

I have no doubt about that. But if a big army was needed quick due to invasion, I can see it happening. And justified.

Michael

So would you personally round up and compel people to join your army, and punish them if they refused to comply, or threaten to shoot them if they resisted your imperious commands? Or would you leave it to others to do the dirty work?.

How about if you encountered Quakers and other pacifists? Would you force guns into their hands and threaten to shoot them if they refuse to shoot the enemy? Or would "reason" demand that they be given a break, perhaps with special CO exemptions or being forced to work as medics?

Reason is a wondrous and multi-faceted thing, especially when used to justify slavery.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Almost everyone accepts the rationality of the NIOF principle in their daily lives.

Really?

Even thugs?

Hmmmmm...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So would you personally round up and compel people to join your army, and punish them if they refused to comply, or threaten to shoot them if they resisted your imperious commands? Or would you leave it to others to do the dirty work?.

George,

In the scenario I mentioned, there wouldn't be much time to play these kinds of games.

But let's look. How would I act if I were in charge? I would probably try to emulate George Washington's attitudes.

That, to me, is how you make the best out of a horrible situation.

But that is using reason, which you apparently eschew in an invasion.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Is it not already obvious to you that many, indeed most, people do not accept the rationality of the NIOF principle? You don't accept it, for example,...

George,

This is bull-crap.

Of course I accept NIOF as rational.

I think I've even said that explicitly.

I don't accept NIOF as more fundamental than rationality itself. Or a replacement for it. And rationality covers a hell of a lot more than NIOF.

Michael

You accept the NIOF principle as an occasional principle, to be applied only when "reason" dictates that it should. This is not how Rand uses the NIOF principle, and this was what I was referring to.

Almost everyone accepts the rationality of the NIOF principle in their daily lives. And many accept it, if only implicitly, in certain political areas, such as religious freedom and freedom of the press. But this doesn't mean that they accept NIOF as a fundamental and essential restraint on government. Rand believed exactly this, and so do I. You and Dennis, in contrast, do not accept this.

Ghs

I accept this, but government no matter how well restrained will continue to trash about and will continue to need restraining, imperfect as that might be.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Reason is a wondrous and multi-faceted thing, especially when used to justify slavery.

Tell me about it.

I've even heard some people talk about the legitimacy of the pre-Civil war Confederate governments' "rights" as if slavery was a non-issue in their "rights."

How's that for a lot of reason being used to justify a lot of real-life slavery?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Almost everyone accepts the rationality of the NIOF principle in their daily lives.

Really?

Even thugs?

Hmmmmm...

Michael

At least regarding their own persons.

--Brant

half a loaf

[George H. Smith]

George,

Of course I accept NIOF as a binding limitation on government. But it's not the only one. And as with all limitations, there are exceptions based on principles that are more fundamental than they are (like reason).

The NIOF force principle cannot be "a binding limitation on government" if there are exceptions -- and especially if the government itself gets to decide what the exceptions are and when they occur.

I have a chapter in my forthcoming book titled "The Presumption of Freedom." This refers to the belief of most classical liberals that individual freedom is a defeasible presumption that can be overriden when the "common good" demands exceptions. Like you, however, they were typically vague about the their standard for exceptions -- and this Achilles Heel of classical liberalism eventually led to its disintegration and to its replacement by the "new liberalism" of the modern era. With no firm standards to limit the powers of government, the new liberals simply expanded the meaning of "common good." Herbert Spencer wrote a brilliant essay on this very problem.

Like the classical liberals, you treat the NIOF principle as a defeasible presumption, one that has exceptions. And though you have not appealed to the "common good" to justify your exceptions -- at least not yet -- your standard of "reason" is even more vague than the "common good."

To paraphrase Santayana, those who don't know history are doomed to repeat its errors.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Almost everyone accepts the rationality of the NIOF principle in their daily lives.

Really?

Even thugs?

Hmmmmm...

Michael

Did you not notice the qualifier "almost"? Should I speak more slowly again?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

If we were only talking about freedom instead of the basic structure of a society. The former is human, the latter Utopian. While needed, Utopian shouldn't be imposed, only used as a point of intellectual reference.

--Brant

both sides

[George H. Smith]

Reason is a wondrous and multi-faceted thing, especially when used to justify slavery.

Tell me about it.

I've even heard some people talk about the legitimacy of the pre-Civil war Confederate governments' "rights" as if slavery was a non-issue in their "rights."

How's that for a lot of reason being used to justify a lot of real-life slavery?

Michael

I have never argued this way, so what's your point? Go dig up the bones of 19th century defenders of slavery, if you wish to argue with them.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The NIOF force principle is cannot be "a binding limitation on government," if there are exceptions -- and especially if the government itself gets to decide what the exceptions are and when they occur.

George,

Why do you consistently ignore the fact that people vote and oversimplify as if they don't by treating the government as comepletley cut off from the citizens?

I heard a rumor that amendments to the constitution exist and even other mechanisms for restraining government.

It's just a matter of employing them.

You have one view of human nature. I have another.

I believe the massive growth of government over the last century was due in part to the giddiness of people with the explosion of wealth created by the industrial and information revolutions. They just didn't pay attention.

But it seems to be swinging back.

I place my bets on that part of human nature.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

So would you personally round up and compel people to join your army, and punish them if they refused to comply, or threaten to shoot them if they resisted your imperious commands? Or would you leave it to others to do the dirty work?.

George,

In the scenario I mentioned, there wouldn't be much time to play these kinds of games.

But let's look. How would I act if I were in charge? I would probably try to emulate George Washington's attitudes.

That, to me, is how you make the best out of a horrible situation.

But that is using reason, which you apparently eschew in an invasion.

Michael

So when you shoot someone who resists your conscription, this is an exercise of "reason"? I just want to be clear about this, since I normally don't view reason as something that comes from the barrel of a gun.

Btw, should your emegency ever occur, don't be surprised if some of your intended slaves shoot back. That's what I would do. I would defend myself against your aggression and kill you in a heartbeat, if necessary.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have never argued this way, so what's your point?

Of course you did.

You stated quite explicitly that you believe the Confederate states probably had more right to secede under the constitution than not. I can dig up the quote, but I'm not into wasting a lot of time documenting gotcha games.

That's a hell of a "right" for a government that endorses slavery.

I realize that slavery was in the constitution at the time, but it's funny how this word "right" gets selectively kicked around by libertarians. I wonder what it means at times...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

So would you personally round up and compel people to join your army, and punish them if they refused to comply, or threaten to shoot them if they resisted your imperious commands? Or would you leave it to others to do the dirty work?.

George,

In the scenario I mentioned, there wouldn't be much time to play these kinds of games.

But let's look. How would I act if I were in charge? I would probably try to emulate George Washington's attitudes.

That, to me, is how you make the best out of a horrible situation.

But that is using reason, which you apparently eschew in an invasion.

Michael

So when you shoot someone who resists your conscription, this is an exercise of "reason"? I just want to be clear about this, since I normally don't view reason as something that comes from the barrel of a gun.

Btw, should your emegency ever occur, don't be surprised if some of your intended slaves shoot back. That's what I would do. I would defend myself against your aggression and kill you in a heartbeat, if necessary.

Ghs

Actually, it wouldn't be Michael but a brainless minion of the state. Anyway, I don't think anything like this happened since the NYC draft riots during the Civil War. Americans seemed to be more like Americans in those days that way.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Btw, should your emegency ever occur, don't be surprised if some of your intended slaves shoot back. That's what I would do. I would defend myself against your aggression and kill you in a heartbeat, if necessary.

I'm done.

I refuse to descend to this level of discussion and cheap macho bullshit.

I seek ideas, not play actors.

(And I would shoot the invaders, not my own people. But, hey, that's me.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Btw, should your emegency ever occur, don't be surprised if some of your intended slaves shoot back. That's what I would do. I would defend myself against your aggression and kill you in a heartbeat, if necessary.

I'm done.

I refuse to descend to this level of discussion and cheap macho bullshit.

I seek ideas, not play actors.

Michael

Well, George, you really did the bridge too far thing with that one. Not a good idea to mix up Internet postings with CATO deadlines.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

The NIOF force principle is cannot be "a binding limitation on government," if there are exceptions -- and especially if the government itself gets to decide what the exceptions are and when they occur.

George,

Why do you consistently ignore the fact that people vote and oversimplify as if they don't by treating the government as comepletley cut off from the citizens? [snip]

This has nothing to do with the topics I have been discussing. You have raised the sociological concept of legitimacy, which I have written about elsewhere. In other words, you have raised the issue of the many people who may regard their government as legitimate (as most Americans currently do), even if this widely accepted belief lacks moral justification. Many, perhaps most, North Koreans regard their government as legitimate as well, but this sociological fact differs from the philosophical problem of moral legitimacy.

This is not the first time you have confused apples and oranges. If you don't have a taste for political philosophy, then don't engage in the enterprise. But it you wish to discuss political philosophy, then you should learn how it differs from other fields, such as political "science" and political sociology.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

All the OL postings for the last ten hours have been on this thread.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I have never argued this way, so what's your point?

Of course you did.

You stated quite explicitly that you believe the Confederate states probably had more right to secede under the constitution than not. I can dig up the quote, but I'm not into wasting a lot of time documenting gotcha games.

That's a hell of a "right" for a government that endorses slavery.

I realize that slavery was in the constitution at the time, but it's funny how this word "right" gets selectively kicked around by libertarians. I wonder what it means at times...

Michael

Under the Constitution, yes. But I also agreed with Garrison's attitude, namely, that the Constitution was "a convenant with death and an agreement from hell."

Taxation and tariffs are constitutional, according to Article I., sect. 8. This doesn't mean that I personally approve of taxes and tariffs.

I am frankly getting tired of having to correct your inability or unwillingness to make key distinctions. Think before you write any more of this crap. This is a waste of my time.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you don't have a taste for political philosophy...

Oh,

I have a taste (and small talent that I see growing) for political philosophy. I'm beginning to believe I am going to make a mark one day.

I just get tired of pompous bullshit from otherwise intelligent people.

Life's just too short, so I'll develop my "taste" in more serious settings.

btw - I don't feel "corrected" in distinctions at all. I still think what I think. I just stop talking because of the obnoxiousness.

Now I'm done.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Btw, should your emegency ever occur, don't be surprised if some of your intended slaves shoot back. That's what I would do. I would defend myself against your aggression and kill you in a heartbeat, if necessary.

I'm done.

I refuse to descend to this level of discussion and cheap macho bullshit.

I seek ideas, not play actors.

As one who advocates the potential enslavement of millions of people, in the name of "conscription," you certainly know a lot about "cheap macho bullshit."

I draw a firm line with people who defend slavery in the name of protecting freedom. This is inexcusable hypocrisy.

(And I would shoot the invaders, not my own people. But, hey, that's me.)

I figured as much. Let others to do your dirty work, by all means. All you need do is assure your hired thugs that they are acting according to "reason."

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

You are projecting delusions. Whoever you're talking to, it's not me. It's someone in your head who won't go away.

Out here in the real world you're being silly and I believe you are better than that.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

If you don't have a taste for political philosophy...

Oh,

I have a taste (and small talent that I see growing) for political philosophy. I'm beginning to believe I am going to make a mark one day.

I just get tired of pompous bullshit from otherwise intelligent people.

Life's just too short, so I'll develop my "taste" in more serious settings.

btw - I don't feel "corrected" in distinctions at all. I still think what I think. I just stop talking because of the obnoxiousness.

Now I'm done.

Michael

I've been at this business of political philosophy for over 45 years. It has been a profession for me, not an avocation. If almost anyone else had failed to make the same elementary distinctions that you have failed to make, I would probably ignore them; and if I did respond, I would have done so in much harsher terms than I have used with you.

Your ideas and arguments bounce all over the place, seemingly at random. You need to spend a lot more time thinking about the nature and methodology of political philosophy. It is not a bunch of spaghetti that you can throw on the wall in the hope that something will stick. I would recommend that you read some introductory texts on political philosophy. I can name a few that I like, if you ever become interested.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George,

You are projecting delusions. Whoever you're talking to, it's not me. It's someone in your head who won't go away.

Out here in the real world you're being silly and I believe you are better than that.

Michael

I assume that you don't equate military conscription with slavery. If this is the case, please explain the essential difference.

Ghs