What's Happening?

[Peter]

Ghs wrote:

Do you have a VIP lounge? I will need it after Peter Taylor finds out that I am active on OL.

End quote

Not a problem George. That intro sounds like an invite to talk again. You’re still my hero for writing ATCAG. I thought you weren’t going to talk to me again after I HYPOTHETICALLY threatened to shoot you, the day after the day after Armageddon?

I had previously hung George, in November of '09, and I think about eight years ago I shot him on Atlantis 1, while joking about dueling and his middle name being Humpty, or is it Hamilton?

I have yet to do him in using the Gas chamber, electrocution, lethal injection, firing squad, not to mention those oldies but goodies of crucifixion, drawing and quartering, and walking the plank.

What kind of sadist would deny me the pleasure of working my way back to cave man days and bludgeoning him?

All on paper, of course, or in this instance, hypothetically on a computer AFTER DOOMSDAY.

George and I were discussing Anarchy and I had gotten to the collapse, the day of anarchy and mourning, and then The Pope (George) going to see Attila the Hun and his hordes (me and my extended family 8 -)

George and his flunkies insisted on taking that as a serious threat.

If you want to forgive me, Saint George, all is forgiven. I saw that what I said was wrong, the minute after I sent the letter. Things said on the internet can be misconstrued. Sorry, again. I might even buy your new book. Or maybe not.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

I was going to inquire if the US military had any drones over Maryland and do the job right, but you might take that seriously.

Adam

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

I was going to inquire if the US military had any drones over Maryland and do the job right, but you might take that seriously.

end quote

He followed me to OL! Does he miss me? Perhaps he just wants his daily saucer of milk? By golly I believe I hear a purr.

George would be a great asset to Objectivist Living. He usually brings out the best in people. Perhaps I can gain his forgiveness with a funny question.

Will he answer this criticism of Anarchy? Remember the character Jethro Bodine? You could clean him up, teach him what to say in a social situation, put a good suit on him and yet, something about Jethro still wasn’t quite right. Anarchy just isn’t quite right.

"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."

‘Glossary of Objectivist Definitions’ by Ayn Rand.

Do you see anything in that definition that is incompatible with rational anarcho-capitalism? She does not mention a ‘State.’ She does not say official state run courts or retaliatory use of force in the hands of government agencies are required. Nor does she mention the non initiation of force principle, but definitions cannot be all encompassing.

Then, how would a Rational Anarchist explain Ayn Rand’s vehement opposition to anarchism, since you consider it so sensible?

Edith! Get me a beer before our show starts.

"Boy the way Glen Miller played, songs that made the hit parade,

guys like us we had it made, those were the days,

and you know where you were then,

girls were girls and men were men,

mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again,

didn't need no welfare states

everybody pulled his weight,

gee our old Lasalle ran great,

those were the days!"

Peter

Edited February 13, 2010 by Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

You explain that:

"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."

'Glossary of Objectivist Definitions' by Ayn Rand.

Do you see anything in that definition that is incompatible with rational anarcho-capitalism? She does not mention a 'State.' She does not say official state run courts or retaliatory use of force in the hands of government agencies are required. Nor does she mention the non initiation of force principle, but definitions cannot be all encompassing.

Then, how would a Rational Anarchist explain Ayn Rand's vehement opposition to anarchism, since you consider it so sensible?

Psst, keep this on the down low, but Rand was wrong about this issue, as she was wrong about a few other issues.

There is nothing incompatible within that definition to what is being envisioned as an anarchist society.

Essentially, it is the same problem we have with human argumentation. As Korzybski explains, "The map is not the territory." The map says Russia, but it does not tell us what Russia is in reality.

Rand railed regarding anarchism and we can all speculate as to why, but I have seen no cogent argumentation from Ayn of Anarchism.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

Rand railed regarding anarchism and we can all speculate as to why, but I have seen no cogent argumentation from Ayn of Anarchism.

Although a reasonable case can be made for Randian limited government, I hope you are not expecting to hear it from Peter. Not long ago, while both of us were active on Atlantis II and after most A2ers had given up on Peter, I made the mistake of attempting to engage him in a serious exchange on this subject. Since few people are ever converted in these debates,

I stated that their value was in compelling each side to examine the fundamentals of their approaches to political theory. But all I got from Peter was one insulting cliché after another, culminating in his threat that should a condition of anarchy ever come about, he would "kill" me. And lest anyone think he was joking, Peter emphasized that he was serious about this.

That's when I said I wouldn't respond to any more of Peter's posts, and he left A2 shortly thereafter.

Even if we deem Peter's threat "hypothetical," it was a very odd thing to say. I could only conclude that Peter does not trust himself to behave in a civilized manner unless he has governmental power looming over him, threatening to punish him should he wish to murder innocent people.

Ghs

[Selene]

Rand railed regarding anarchism and we can all speculate as to why, but I have seen no cogent argumentation from Ayn of Anarchism.

Although a reasonable case can be made for Randian limited government, I hope you are not expecting to hear it from Peter. Not long ago, while both of us were active on Atlantis II and after most A2ers had given up on Peter, I made the mistake of attempting to engage him in a serious exchange on this subject. Since few people are ever converted in these debates,

I stated that their value was in compelling each side to examine the fundamentals of their approaches to political theory. But all I got from Peter was one insulting cliché after another, culminating in his threat that should a condition of anarchy ever come about, he would "kill" me. And lest anyone think he was joking, Peter emphasized that he was serious about this.

That's when I said I wouldn't respond to any more of Peter's posts, and he left A2 shortly thereafter.

Even if we deem Peter's threat "hypothetical," it was a very odd thing to say. I could only conclude that Peter does not trust himself to behave in a civilized manner unless he has governmental power looming over him, threatening to punish him should he wish to murder innocent people.

Ghs

George:

Interesting point you raise. The concept of self control is rarely one of the primary questions in the debate on anarchism.

I am a firm believer that the debate on anarchism should start with that question. Agreed to definitions would also be nice, but most folks hate being pinned down to a hard definition.

So, a question that we should discuss is that:

If some men can exercise self control over themselves, their community, property and lives, why is there any need for a "government" which is limited?

However, if, no man can be trusted by "society" to be in a state of self control, then who could you trust in a government run by men?

This used to be the last sticking point in the anarchist conferences that we held in NY City. I would ask the "left-wing" anarchist [there can be no private property in an anarchist society arch-type] a simple question.

If our goal is "complete" "individual" "freedom", our anarcho-capitalist ["right wing"] model permits the left wing commune to exist by agreement, but the anarcho-capitalist would be banned from the left's anarchist model.

Got kinda sticky for their arguments after that day.

Adam

[Peter]

George Hamilton Smith wrote:

“But all I got from Peter was one insulting cliché after another, culminating in his threat that should a condition of anarchy ever come about, he would "kill" me. And lest anyone think he was joking, Peter emphasized that he was serious about this . . . Even if we deem Peter's threat "hypothetical," it was a very odd thing to say. I could only conclude that Peter does not trust himself to behave in a civilized manner unless he has governmental power looming over him, threatening to punish him should he wish to murder innocent people.”

End quote

It’s a shame Ghs won’t be reading this. Sigh. Perhaps he should go back to NeverNeverLand. George, you hypothetical Philosophical Anarchist, in Anarchic territory you are required to defend yourself. How can you NOT get that? When the darkness descends, you defend yourself. A fellow Anarchist will do whatever the eff he pleases until he is persuaded not to, or he will desist when another anarchist forces him to stop. What part of anarchy don’t you get?

I was polite before. (well, politer 8 -) I will tell you what I did not say then. The Scenario was this: The day after doomsday, there will be a day of mourning AND Anarchy, and then you will be approached by someone, who wants to make a deal for self protection, or for a just society. Or he will not like the way your eyes shift, in a Reverend Jim Jones fashion, from all the drugs you have been taking (and I do agree you have that right to mix drugs until you have a shifty eyed deformity). If that person thinks you are a menace to HIS society . . . that’s right George. Dot. Dot, Dot.

I don’t get it. Every other Anarchist I have corresponded with is a small arms freak, or they will tell you which form of hand to hand combat they prefer. They are the ones who profess violence. They expect and hope for violence when the lights go out. They think they will prevail and be the next Idi Amin! You can’t be an anarchist and a wimp at the same time. Well, unless you are taking your own army of flunkies with you to do the fighting.

Aha! That is why you are trying to subvert our nation’s youth, you strangely preverted Pied Piper. Taking our easily influenced youths away from civilization and luxuries, like Big Macs and cokes. Well, dot, dot, dot, you will have to answer to the Coca Cola Company!

There is no such thing as a *Civilized Anarchy,* George. There is an interim after a societal collapse called anarchy that lasts until a new government is established. In your twisted way, when you describe my mental state as, “. . . should he wish to murder innocent people . . .” you are not talking about me or any Objectivist. You are talking about Philosophical Anarchists who want to shoot up AND shoot ‘em up.

People are not Vulcans, not even Objectivists. People are not angels. Few people are even Amish. To preach this rubbish is irresponsible. You preach to *True Believers* as did Billy Graham. You want to heal Constitutional Government with *faith* in human nature like Orel Roberts.

You speak in tongues:

George wrote:

“Given all that I had said before, did you actually think that Bentham was defending the "right to resist oppression"? . . . do you think that I would be foolish enough to have picked his caricature as a good example of anarchistic reasoning?”

end quote

Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. George speaks in tongues and handles rattlesnakes. He is just what he *preached against* in “Atheism The Case Against God.” He is a twisted, evangelical advocate . . .

of what Rand called, In The Virtue of Selfishness:

“Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.”

End quote

I rest my case. Tell everyone on Objectivist Living, Mr. Smith, how wrong Ayn Rand was.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

I decided to address the one non psychotic section of your post Peter:

In The Virtue of Selfishness:

"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government."

End quote

***

***Could you help me out on this one, anarchism is a floating abstraction, but the concepts "objective laws" "an arbiter"are not?

I am confused. Unless, you disagree with the explanation of "floating abstraction," as explained by the gentleman in the video.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George made a good request and I did it.

I peeled off a couple of posts on addiction and put them in a new thread here:

Addiction posts from Atlantis II

Michael

btw - I didn't realize George and Peter were in love...

[George H. Smith]

George made a good request and I did it.

I peeled off a couple of posts on addiction and put them in a new thread here:

Addiction posts from Atlantis II

Thanks. Btw, the exchange took place on the original Atlantis, not on Atlantis II.

btw - I didn't realize George and Peter were in love...

Absolutely. I can't get enough of the guy. Indeed, I was so lonely and despondent after Peter left A2 that I followed him here so I could savor every word he has to say. 8-)

It's probably a good thing that I didn't know Peter was active on OL. Even after being enticed by "Joy," I might never have returned. Oh, well -- such are the trials and tribulations of life.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I decided to address the one non psychotic section of your post Peter:

Congratulations for finding the proverbial needle in a haystack.

I am confused. Unless, you disagree with the explanation of "floating abstraction," as explained by the gentleman in the video.

The gentleman in the video does not seem to understand what Rand meant by "floating abstraction." Fictional creatures, such as gremlins, don't fall into that category, so long as the person using the concept understands that it refers to an imaginary creature.

Before writing this post, I fired-up my "Objectivism Research CD-ROM" and reviewed every instance where Rand uses the term "floating abstraction."

(1) This passage from IOE is typical: "The level of abstraction with which a man is able to deal indicates how much he had to know in order to reach that level. I am not speaking here of men who mouth memorized floating abstractions, but only of those who actually grasp all the steps involved."

As indicated by this passage, a person uses a floating abstraction whenever he does not understand the "steps involved" in the formation of that concept. (This would include the lower level concepts and perceptual concretes on which that concept is based.) This means that even legitimate concepts can qualify as floating abstractions if the person who uses them lacks the necessary understanding. For example, according to Rand, "'Government,' to most people, is a big, vague, floating abstraction.…"

Rand obviously does not mean that "government" per se is a floating abstraction. Rather, her point is that the concept "government," as commonly used, is a floating abstraction, because most people don't understand the steps involved in its formation.

We can dub this type of floating abstraction "contextual floaters," because they are person-specific; i.e., they depend on the context of knowledge of the person who uses them.

(2) In addition to these contextual floaters, some ideas are treated by Rand as floating abstractions per se, because they are inherently incapable of being derived in a rational manner, regardless of who uses them. Rand gives two examples of these absolute floaters in "The Ayn Rand Letter," namely, "society as a whole" and "conscience of a community."

(3) In her discussion of anarchy and anarchism in "The Nature of Government," Rand draws an interesting but little-noticed distinction. In one oft-quoted passage, she writes:

"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: for all the reasons discussed above, a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare."

But now consider what Rand says when she turns to "a recent variant" of anarchist theory, which she mistakenly calls a theory of "competing governments":

"One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms "competition" and "government." Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately." (My italics.)

My purpose in this post is merely to outline what Rand has to say about floating abstractions and their connection to "anarchy," so I won't attempt to interpret or criticize her remarks here. I will leave those tasks for a later time, after I read what others have to say about the material I have posted here.

Ghs

[Selene]

George:

Understood. This could be a valuable discussion.

I was also interested in how folks would react to the presentation of the gentleman in the video.

It was the first item in a quick search and it intrigued me the way he attempted to present the issue.

I know nothing about his boner fidies [yes Phil - I intentionally wrote it that way to sound kinda country folksy].

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> I know nothing about his boner fidies [yes Phil - I intentionally wrote it that way to sound kinda country folksy].

How did I get dragged into this discussion?

Faithful boners?

[George H. Smith]

The following are some other examples where Rand uses the term "floating abstraction." From The Art of Fiction:

"Oh! to love a woman! to be a priest! to be hated!" Strong concretes, naming the essence of the conflict. "To feel that for the least of her smiles one would give one's blood, one's guts, one's character, one's salvation, immortality and eternity, this life and the next." Had he said, "I would give anything for your favor," it would have been a floating abstraction.

Again, from the same source:

Suppose I had started by saying: "It was evening and she sat at the window of a train. The twilight was draining the sky without the wound of a sunset." That would have been a floating abstraction. I first have to give specific details: there is a brown stretch of prairie, the sky is covered with clouds, they are of a rusty shade so that one would not see the sun setting.

I don't understand why these examples qualify as "floating abstractions," at least not in any technical sense. Granted, they may constitute bad writing, owing to the lack of concrete details, but that's not what Rand meant elsewhere by "floating abstraction."

Would anyone care to explain this to me?

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> they may constitute bad writing, owing to the lack of concrete details, but that's not what Rand meant elsewhere by "floating abstraction."

George, she generally uses the term floating abstraction to mean a disconnected or poorly connected-to-reality abstraction: anything which is insufficiently or incorrectly concretized or otherwise not thoroughly tied down to less abstract material - so it kinda floats away.

It's a very useful concept, even though I'm sure you don't agree that it applies to anarcho-capitalism.

[George H. Smith]

> they may constitute bad writing, owing to the lack of concrete details, but that's not what Rand meant elsewhere by "floating abstraction."

George, she generally uses the term floating abstraction to mean a disconnected or poorly connected-to-reality abstraction: anything which is insufficiently or incorrectly concretized or otherwise not thoroughly tied down to less abstract material - so it kinda floats away.

The examples cited by Rand are not "disconnected or poorly connected-to-reality" abstractions. They are merely too generalized to evoke the perceptual "feel" that is essential to good fiction writing.

I suspect that Rand was using her metaphor "floating abstraction" metaphorically. 8-)

Ghs

[Selene]

> they may constitute bad writing, owing to the lack of concrete details, but that's not what Rand meant elsewhere by "floating abstraction."

George, she generally uses the term floating abstraction to mean a disconnected or poorly connected-to-reality abstraction: anything which is insufficiently or incorrectly concretized or otherwise not thoroughly tied down to less abstract material - so it kinda floats away.

The examples cited by Rand are not "disconnected or poorly connected-to-reality" abstractions. They are merely too generalized to evoke the perceptual "feel" that is essential to good fiction writing.

I suspect that Rand was using her metaphor "floating abstraction" metaphorically. 8-)

Ghs

she generally uses the term floating abstraction to mean a disconnected or poorly connected-to-reality abstraction

Guys:

She used it to gloss over several awkward concepts that she just believed and was willing to jam down her acolytes throats, my friend.

Understand, I am, I guess, a neo-Randian, but I do not need to have a B.F. Skinner pigeon hole place to continue to advance most of her brilliant ideas.

Having just become aware these last two (2) years of this big O litmus test conglomerate, I intend to speak out more cogently after reading different sources. I have never read anything by Kelly which makes me incredibly blind to a whole section of this schism. I do not like blind spots.

Adam

[Peter]

George wrote:

(3) In her discussion of anarchy and anarchism in "The Nature of Government," Rand draws an interesting but little-noticed distinction. In one oft-quoted passage, she writes:

"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: for all the reasons discussed above, a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare."

But now consider what Rand says when she turns to "a recent variant" of anarchist theory, which she mistakenly calls a theory of "competing governments":

"One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms "competition" and "government." Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately." (My italics.)

My purpose in this post is merely to outline what Rand has to say about floating abstractions and their connection to "anarchy," so I won't attempt to interpret or criticize her remarks here. I will leave those tasks for a later time, after I read what others have to say about the material I have posted here.

End quote

Good observation George. I think she meant to say that “competing governments” was a floating abstraction, or as Roger calls it in the following, a “frozen abstraction.” Either way, we can agree that Rand thought both *Anarchy* and *competing governments* were terms not tied to reality. Rand thought they were inappropriately formed abstractions.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Exerpts from:

On the Fine Art of Thawing out Frozen Abstractions: an Essay in Mental Economics

by Roger E. Bissell

~~Abstractions -- Valid, Floating, and Frozen~~

A frozen abstraction doesn't include ~all~ of the concretes that its valid counterpart would include, but instead "freezes" itself to some lesser group of those concretes. In Ayn Rand's original example, the frozen abstraction (MORALITY = altruism) "froze" itself to only ~one~ of the concretes. (The altruist who says that egoism is not morality, and that only a doctrine that advocates sacrifice of self to others is a morality, is failing to subsume all the other concrete moralities than altruism under his abstraction for morality. See Rand in "Collectivized Ethics.")

"Frozen," in Rand's original conception, thus means (for example) that the abstraction "morality" omits all other moralities and fixates on one to the exclusion of all others. So (to offer another example), Objectivism would be the only morality and Christianity, Hinduism, Atheism, Utilitarianism, Hedonism, etc. would not be moralities.

A floating abstraction, by contrast, is one that has not been anchored ~at all~ to lower level abstractions or concretes, but instead is part of a free-floating spider web of ideas. In that respect, it fails to subsume ~any~ of the concretes or lower level abstractions under it that its valid counterpart would subsume.

The essential motivation in freezing abstractions is what I have called "conceptual chauvinism." The desire is to freeze out perhaps one, perhaps more than one, of one's opponents or enemies or competitors. The example Rand gave was of altruism vs. egoism, very simplified in order to get the point across. But the definition suffered as a result. Thus, the implication is that if ~more than two~ competitors are involved, the abstraction is frozen on the (relatively more) concrete level to only one's own favorite, thus freezing out ~all~ of one's competitors -- as in the example above. However, it need not work that way.

Morality as a "frozen abstraction" can instead ~subsume~ numerous specific moralities, such as Objectivism, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Atheism, Bundyism, and all the others, while excluding~ only one, such as the morality of Utilitarianism. Here we see an example of a frozen abstraction that is ~frozen at~, or fixated upon, not just one concrete, but (perhaps) ~dozens~ -- and that is ~freezing out~ not dozens, but only ~one~.

This is a frozen abstraction rather than a floating abstraction, because it's still tethered to an ultimate ground in perceptual reality. However, it's not grounded in a way that is non-contradictory, since it deliberately cuts itself off from part of its grounding, the very real morality of Utilitarianism. It would be an error to regard an abstraction that a person fails or refuses to connect to one or more of its concretes as being a floating abstraction. "Floating" doesn't mean partially unconnected, but completely unconnected.

The kind of abstraction that is partially tethered to reality ~does~ need to be recognized as a distinct category, both from abstractions that are completely untethered and those that are completely tethered.

Since the second example above, in which one freezes out ~only~ one's least favorite concrete, is essentially similar to the first case, in which one freezes out all concretes ~but~ one's favorite, we can use the same term to refer to each case -- as well as any cases in between. The motivation is similar in all cases, conceptual chauvinism.

Consider the divide-and-conquer approach of a crafty Fundamentalist Christian. He thinks all other people are going to Hell, but he wisely would begin by getting together with other theists and saying that all atheists are going to Hell. Then he'd get together with other Christians and say all non-Christian theists are going to Hell, too. Then he'd get together with all Protestants and say all Catholic and Greek Orthodox

Christians are going to Hell, too. Etc., until he's finally shown his true colors and frozen virtually everybody but his own little cult out of the concept of (?) "heaven-bound." There is a whole continuum of conceptual chauvinism he can employ, on an opportunistic, pragmatic basis, to stomp down his rivals and enemies, in whatever way gives him the most effectiveness at any given time. (This is not intended to single out Fundamentalist Christians, or theists in general. There are Objectivists and other atheists who would employ a graduated, situational approach to condemning various groups of theists, according to how relatively intolerable they were.)

Again, by "floating" is meant unconnected to reality, untied to a ground in perceptual level facts. Like a hot air balloon all of whose tethers to the ground have been cut loose and is now drifting away into the wild blue yonder. If it still has some of its tethers attached to the ground, it is not floating (free), but still connected to reality. However, it does not have ~all~ of its tethers attached. Its connection to the ground is "frozen" to (improperly fixated upon) those of its tethers that ~are~ still attached, and the tethers that have been cut loose have been "frozen out" of the ground-connection relation.

Freezing is a deliberately less than complete tie to reality. Floating is an all or nothing matter. Either an abstraction is cut loose from reality completely, or it retains some tie, more or less. Thus, non-floating may be either frozen (more or less) or completely connected (within the context of knowledge). This gives us a jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive set of three concepts for describing the degree of connection to reality of a given person's abstraction.

Rand's concept of "frozen abstraction," as it stands in her essay, and the concept of "floating abstraction, only account for inappropriately formed abstractions with one of the relevant, known concretes included and with none of the relevant, known concretes included. This leaves no way of accounting for an inappropriately formed abstraction that includes, say, all but one of the relevant known concretes. For this reason, I strongly urge that Rand's concept of "frozen abstraction" be modified so that it is understood as referring to the freezing of an abstraction to the level of some (one or more, but not all) of its concrete instances. This gives us a very useful ALL--SOME—NONE partition between abstractions that are valid (connected to all known instances), frozen (connected only to some [not all] known instances), and floating (unconnected to known instances).

On this basis, I would offer the following (re)definition of Rand's fallacy of the frozen abstraction: the substituting of some one or more particular concretes for the wider class to which they belong. And with that, my glitch and Rand's inadequate definition have been repaired, and I will incorporate these new developments into the growing body of material I am compiling for a book on the subject. (And thanks to Gayle Dean for her helpful suggestions. She is absolved of all responsibility for the use I have made of them in this post. :-)

Edited February 14, 2010 by Peter Taylor

[9thdoctor]

Having just become aware these last two (2) years of this big O litmus test conglomerate, I intend to speak out more cogently after reading different sources. I have never read anything by Kelly which makes me incredibly blind to a whole section of this schism. I do not like blind spots.

Adam

Here's Truth and Toleration, free to download, read and grok. Can't recommend it enough.

http://www.atlassociety.org/cth-62-1703-contlegacyonline.aspx

[George H. Smith]

Peter Taylor wrote:

I think she meant to say that “competing governments” was a floating abstraction...

Since, in regard to the theory of "competing governments," Rand says, "Nor can one call it a floating abstraction," I think we may safely conclude that she did not mean to say that "competing governments" is a floating abstraction.

...or as Roger calls it in the following, a “frozen abstraction.”

Roger distinguishes between frozen abstractions and floating abstractions. This is a major point of his interesting piece. If Rand did not consider "competing governments" to be a floating abstraction, she certainly would never have dubbed it a frozen abstraction, since (in Roger's interpretation), this would mean that the concept has at least some connection to perceptual concretes.

Either way, we can agree that Rand thought both *Anarchy* and *competing governments* were terms not tied to reality. Rand thought they were inappropriately formed abstractions.

In its non-pejorative sense, "anarchy" simply means "society without government." This is neither a floating abstraction nor a frozen abstraction. The concept is a completely legitimate one, however much one may disagree with various theories of anarchism.

As for the notion of "competing governments," this is indeed nonsense, given the context in which Rand was writing, but it is also a straw man. No "anarcho-capitalist" has ever advocated such a thing. If anarchists advocated governments of any kind, whether "competing" or otherwise, they would not be anarchists, now would they?

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Frankly, I see competing governments all over the place. They are called countries.

Michael

EDIT: I know, I know... That was just a quip...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thanks. Btw, the exchange took place on the original Atlantis, not on Atlantis II.

George,

I fixed the title in the new thread.

But not in this thread. Otherwise this discussion would not make much sense to new readers.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Frankly, I see competing governments all over the place. They are called countries.

I agree. That's why I inserted the qualification "given the context in which Rand was writing."

The fact that we do "see competing governments all over the place" raises an old and interesting question, viz: Why don't the Randian advocates of limited government call for a one-world government? Surely we cannot have the chaos of "competing governments" with different legal systems but no ultimate arbiter, or sovereign, to render final decisions in cases of conflict. Instead, nation-states, which exist in a state of anarchy relative to other nation-states, often resort to war and other violent means. So, again, why doesn't the minarchist apply his Randian arguments against "competing governments" to the entire planet and call for a one-world government?

I have posed this question to many minarchists over the years but have never received anything approaching a satisfactory answer. The best I have gotten is that a one-world government is "impractical." Fine, but if that is the position of Randian minarchists, they should at least be candid enough to admit that they do indeed favor a one-world government in theory, even if they think this system would be very difficult to implement in practice.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Frankly, I see competing governments all over the place. They are called countries.

I agree. That's why I inserted the qualification "given the context in which Rand was writing."

The fact that we do "see competing governments all over the place" raises an old and interesting question, viz: Why don't the Randian advocates of limited government call for a one-world government? Surely we cannot have the chaos of "competing governments" with different legal systems but no ultimate arbiter, or sovereign, to render final decisions in cases of conflict. Instead, nation-states, which exist in a state of anarchy relative to other nation-states, often resort to war and other violent means. So, again, why doesn't the minarchist apply his Randian arguments against "competing governments" to the entire planet and call for a one-world government?

I have posed this question to many minarchists over the years but have never received anything approaching a satisfactory answer. The best I have gotten is that a one-world government is "impractical." Fine, but if that is the position of Randian minarchists, they should at least be candid enough to admit that they do indeed favor a one-world government in theory, even if they think this system would be very difficult to implement in practice.

Ghs

I think Madison thought the Federal system could be exported, but I don't think he thought it could simply expand to span the globe. Unfortunately, I have no time to research this even though I can see the books from where I sit that probably contain the answer.

--Brant

[merjet]

I have posed this question to many minarchists over the years but have never received anything approaching a satisfactory answer. The best I have gotten is that a one-world government is "impractical." Fine, but if that is the position of Randian minarchists, they should at least be candid enough to admit that they do indeed favor a one-world government in theory, even if they think this system would be very difficult to implement in practice.

I don't know what impractical reasons others have given, but here are some impromptu ones.

1. Too big to be focused and effective.

2. Too many languages.

3. More than one government allows simultaneous comparisons. One government does not.