What's Happening?

[9thdoctor]

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?

One overwhelming reason to oppose one world government is entropy. All governments in history have gone to hell over time, and there needs to be other places for the refugees to go, to escape. I can’t claim this is a “Randian argument", but it has ample basis in reality. BTW I include capital in my concept of refugee.

[Selene]

Peter:

First of all, Rand wrote the quote it would be really helpful if you could use the quote function, I would be glad to help you with it.

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."

You are the individual who first offered the quote and then you pick up some "O"bjectivist Eight Ball cube *** to divine what Ayn meant to say. Pal, that is way way past your pay grade.

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.

Apparently, you just make it up as you go along. I am astonished.

Excellent argument George. I will bet you got the same non-response that the left wing anarchists gave in response to their model not being as inclusive of human freedom as the anarcho-capitalist model.

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

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

In my vision of government, government itself arises out of human nature.

As I understand Objectivism, fundamental philosophical knowledge is hierarchical. In other words, at the base there is Metaphysics and Epistemology. Ethics flows from--and is build on--them. Politics flows from--and is build on--Ethics, which means, at base, Politics flows from--and is built on--Metaphysics and Epistemology.

Greg Nyquist, despite many poor arguments, made an excellent point in Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature in noticing that there is no philosophical category for Human Nature in Obectivism--that Human Nature falls somewhere between Metaphysics and Epistemology.

Even someone over at the Ayn Rand Institute has noticed this and kind of snuck in Human Nature on the Essentials of Objectivism page. Notice that there are 6 categories of philosophy there, not the Big 5 normally given in Objectivism (Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics and Esthetics--spelled without the "a" at the beginning). The ARI page includes a blurb on Human Nature.

As it should.

Not including Human Nature was a terrible oversight and I am glad to see it being fixed.

I claim that the Objectivist view of human nature is also incomplete. It is correct in the claim that humans are conceptual beings with volitional minds. But it falls short on the prewiring stuff.

(As as aside, I have been working on a project about epistemology, since I believe this error has played havoc with Rand's notions of normative abstractions. I also have a few minor beefs with her system of cognitive abstractions, too, but I will present all this at a later date.)

Now, where does all this fit in with minarchism, one world government or anarchism?

I believe the choice is irrelevant if the Objectivist view of human nature is used as being the whole enchilada. People will argue to death and will always perceive at root that something is missing.

So here is one of my major points regarding government and human nature in layperson's terms.

We are born with a set of pre-emotions (called affects) that become full emotions with experience. Emotions are motors that drive us to action, but they are a poor steering mechanism. That's where the cognitive mind comes in.

Some people allow certain emotions to overdevelop or they overdevelop from things like chemical imbalances, etc. And these emotions become their steering mechanism. Bullying is one of those cases. There are many reasons for this. Simply growing up as children among adults who always tell us what to do is one of them. We react. We learn behavior. We have our own individual biological make-up. And so forth. Lots of reasons.

Regardless of what the reason or cause is, some people become bullies.

Notice that bullying is a temptation because it is a short-cut to getting what you want. If we could eliminate that temptation--even without eliminating nonvolitional stuff like chemical imbalances--from human nature, I would be an anarchist. But since we cannot, I prefer a government with a peace-keeping law enforcement branch.

The rub is that bullies can also become politicians or members of law enforcement. So the laws governing the use of power must be extremely restrictive.

But when has law ever stopped a bully?

The only thing that seems to work is the system of Checks and Balances set up by our Founding Fathers. People certainly like power when they get it, bullies and normal folks alike. So if you divide the power up among a lot of people, and if a bully starts getting too much power, the other people who consequentially start losing what little power they have stand up and oppose him.

Power also comes with a huge temptation for a person to allow himself to become a bully. The power check game gets really nasty when one bully starts checking another. But all in all, this system works to keep a bully from becoming Leader Supreme like the older kings and tyrants were.

This is not an easy sytem to operate. Just the bickering process alone is off-the-charts complicated.

When the central system gets too big, there are a lot of cracks where bullies can widen their powers. They don't get a shot at the structure as a whole (unless they get really really big), but they do in one geographical place or another, or in one system division or another. The larger the central system is, the greater the space for bullies to flourish.

That is my main argument against a global government. Imagine the larger-and-larger spaces that will open to bullies. A smaller government is easier to fix if a bully manages to grab on to more power than he should have and starts going hog-wild with what bullies like to do: pushing folks around at whim and, if they can get away with it, ultimately killing, torturing and plundering. If the bully gets too big, people can take the entire structure down and put another in its place. They can't do that with a humongous structure.

I beleive Thomas Paine's premise that society comes from the goodness in man and government is necessary because of his wickedness has a fundamental nugget of truth in it. I disagree with Paine that man has an inherently wicked part, but I do acknowledge that man inherently has the capacity to become wicked if he so chooses, and another capacity to convince others, and even another capacity to organize other human beings around him. That increases his capacity to do wicked things exponentially.

That cannot be allowed to grow unchecked.

That, to me, is the basis of government based on human nature. This is only a skeleton and I admit that there is a lot to be filled out, and maybe even some bones are missing.

I love the anarcho-capitalist's dream, though. It would be a wonderful world if people lived on the basis of self-reliance and self-responsibility and the market could hold bullying and gang-organization in check. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit with what I have observed in human nature.

Still, I love the dream...

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Fair enough. Pretty close to where I have always been. A part of me will always have the dream in my soul, but the limited, checks and balances we had, or have here, is the best that I am aware of.

We both responded to the Tea Party movement, to Beck, with his warts, Palin and others who speak to the basic goodness in man.

Paine is an idol of mine. He actually walked in the snow from, I believe, Philadelphia to Valley Forge. Took him over a week. On the way, he began writing Common Sense.

Washington, had it read to all the troops.

I often say that I am a cynic which is a humanist with experience.

But there is that dream that keeps playing in my soul.

Adam

[Peter]

Ghs wrote:

“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.

end quote

The principal of “Rand’s Razor.”

A razor is a principle that slashes off a whole category of false and/or useless ideas. Rand’s Razor is addressed to anyone who enters the field of philosophy. It states: “name your primaries.” Identify your starting points, including the concepts you take to be irreducible, and then establish that these ‘are’ objective axioms. Put negatively: do not begin to philosophize in midstream. Do not begin with some derivative concept or issue, while ignoring its roots, however much such issue interests you. Philosophical knowledge, too, is hierarchical. OPAR pages 138-139.

End quote

“Society without government” is *anarchy* with a small “a.” It is not a floating or frozen abstraction. It exists as an interim phenomenon whenever new territories are settled by individuals, not part of government expeditions, when the individuals are no longer part of a greater society. Small ”a” *anarchy* also exists when governments collapse and no new system rushes in to fill the void by invasion. They are usually pastoral, agrarian societies, not civilizations.

“Philosophical Anarchy” with a capital “A” is “society without government,” but it purports to be more. It would be an anarcho-capitalistic civilization. So far, it’s form has eluded every Anarchist I have ever spoken to. None will show me an Anarchic Society that currently works, creating and sustaining civilization, leaving people free to trade and be Laissez Faire Capitalists, and protecting everyone’s individual rights at the same time. No Anarchist will show me a model. As Michael Kelly mentions, the success of their various illusory visions depend upon the nature of creatures who do not exist.

If a capital “A” Anarchist cannot point to a group of people, and not just themselves, who demonstrate complete rationality, and non-violent settlement of disputes, while existing in a certain geographical area, for longer than an “interim” period of time . . . then would it be incorrect to say Anarchy is a “floating abstraction?”

Of course Constitutional Government still exhibits power creep, bullies, and criminals but checks and balances keep them to a minimum for long periods of time. Since I can point to several such governments they are not floating abstractions.

So, I ask all Anarchists, again quoting Doctor Peikoff, will you please, “name your primaries.”

“Identify your starting points, including the concepts you take to be irreducible, and then establish that these ‘are’ objective axioms.”

“Put negatively: do not begin to philosophize in midstream. Do not begin with some derivative concept or issue, while ignoring its roots, however much such issue interests you.”

“Philosophical knowledge, too, is hierarchical.”

The History of Political Philosophy shows us how we got here, but it does not constitute proof that *Anarchy* is workable.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

The individual human family is the most basic anarchistic unit that we can identify.

Yes or No.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

The principal of “Rand’s Razor.”

A razor is a principle that slashes off a whole category of false and/or useless ideas. Rand’s Razor is addressed to anyone who enters the field of philosophy. It states: “name your primaries.” Identify your starting points, including the concepts you take to be irreducible, and then establish that these ‘are’ objective axioms. Put negatively: do not begin to philosophize in midstream. Do not begin with some derivative concept or issue, while ignoring its roots, however much such issue interests you. Philosophical knowledge, too, is hierarchical. OPAR pages 138-139.

That's not at all how I remember "Rand's Razor", I don't have OPAR handy, but see the online lexicon http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rands_razor.html

It's similar to Occam's Razor in my reading, hence the name.

concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity—the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity.

The first part restates Occam (though substituting concepts for entities), the second part is the addition.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[George H. Smith]

Rand’s Razor is addressed to anyone who enters the field of philosophy. It states: “name your primaries.” Identify your starting points, including the concepts you take to be irreducible, and then establish that these ‘are’ objective axioms. Put negatively: do not begin to philosophize in midstream. Do not begin with some derivative concept or issue, while ignoring its roots, however much such issue interests you. Philosophical knowledge, too, is hierarchical. OPAR pages 138-139.

This is good advice, Peter. When do you plan to follow it?

No Anarchist will show me a model.

Please show me a model -- any model, past or present -- of a truly limited government that includes Rand's "principle of voluntary government financing."

Are you aware that the most common criticism of the 18th century American "experiment" in the republican form of government was that no such system had ever worked successfully in the history of civilization, and that all such attempts had quickly degenerated into despotism? Silly question. Of course you're not.

Btw, Rand's notion of a "floating abstraction" has nothing whatever to do with historical models. Your use of "floating abstraction" is itself a floating abstraction.

Since you are fond of quoting official Objectivist sources, here is one from Rand that you should ponder:

The dogmatic Objectivist desperately tries to reduce principles to concrete rules that can be applied automatically, like a ritual, so as to bypass the responsibility of thinking and of moral analysis. These are "Objectivist" ritualists. They want Objectivism to give them what a religion promises, namely, ten or one hundred commandments, which they can apply without having to think about or judge anything. (The Art of Nonfiction, Chapter 4)

For good measure, here is one more relevant quotation -- this time from that notorious epistemological pervert and champion of chaos, Thomas Jefferson:

I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. (Letter to Edward Carrington, Jan. 16, 1787.)

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

One more thing...

So, I ask all Anarchists, again quoting Doctor Peikoff, will you please, “name your primaries.”

In the realm of political theory, my (contextual) primaries are individual rights and the need for a consistent application of the non-initiation of force principle. I and other anarcho-capitalists think that Ayn Rand provided an excellent moral justification for these principles. All we ultimately ask is that Objectivist minarchists take them as seriously as we do.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

The only thing that seems to work is the system of Checks and Balances set up by our Founding Fathers. People certainly like power when they get it, bullies and normal folks alike. So if you divide the power up among a lot of people, and if a bully starts getting too much power, the other people who consequentially start losing what little power they have stand up and oppose him.

The following are some pertinent remarks that I posted on Atlantis II (11/28/2009).

Americans took their theory of the separation of powers from various sources, but the main authority was Montesquieu, who, in his Spirit of the Laws, presented a somewhat idealized account of the British government as an embodiment of the separation of powers. There was a problem, however, when this theory was applied to the American government, a problem that was pointed out by some contemporary critics of the Constitution.

The basic idea behind the separation of powers doctrine was to pit interest groups against each other, so no one interest group could dominate. This made some sense in regard to the British government, because the three branches -- House of Commons, House of Lords, and King -- did represent different classes to some degree, and therefore different interests.

But this wasn't true of the American government, so critics of the Constitution were highly skeptical that its separation of powers would serve as an effective check on the power of the federal government.

Madison eventually came to agree. He later called the separation of powers, as embodied in the Constitution, a mere "parchment barrier" to the growth of governmental power. According to Madison, the three branches of the federal government, rather than gaining power at the expense of the other two, would each expand its power by grabbing it from the private sector, so each branch would become increasingly powerful over time. And Madison was right, of course.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I love the anarcho-capitalist's dream, though. It would be a wonderful world if people lived on the basis of self-reliance and self-responsibility and the market could hold bullying and gang-organization in check. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit with what I have observed in human nature.

Still, I love the dream...

Similarly, I love the Randian dream of a limited government that truly respects individual rights to the point where it doesn't even compel its citizens to pay any taxes. If we could ever attain that utopia, I would be very happy indeed.

Unfortunately, that system would be quite unstable, since any government that observed Rand's principle of "voluntary government financing" would soon find itself unable to maintain its sovereignty. It would either advance to anarcho-capitalism, wherein citizens choose to pay other agencies for the protection of their rights (perhaps because they regard those competing agencies as more efficient than the existing coercive monopoly), or it would degenerate into a traditional government, wherein taxes are coercively imposed.

The latter alternative is far more likely, since governments, like every coercive monopoly, are loath to surrender their special privileges voluntarily.

Ghs

[Dragonfly]

The anarcho-capitalist's dream and the Randian limited government are both pipe dreams, as they don't take human nature into account. Most people don't want such systems. It's no coincidence that we see traditional governments everywhere.

[Selene]

The anarcho-capitalist's dream and the Randian limited government are both pipe dreams, as they don't take human nature into account. Most people don't want such systems. It's no coincidence that we see traditional governments everywhere.

DG:

You may be correct about "most people," it sure is getting much too close to the tipping point in America than I care to even consider.

You would argue that most people in the world will, if given a choice, opt for security rather than freedom...yes.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

The anarcho-capitalist's dream and the Randian limited government are both pipe dreams, as they don't take human nature into account. Most people don't want such systems. It's no coincidence that we see traditional governments everywhere.

I agree with you at least to this extent: If anarcho-capitalism is a pipe dream, then a Randian limited government is also a pipe dream, since both systems could come about only with an unprecedented degree of rationality among the general population. (They are very similar in other ways as well.) I don't regard this as impossible, so I don't see it as stemming from human nature per se. I merely regard either system as highly unlikely.

As I have said many times before, I don't defend anarcho-capitalism because I think this system will ever come about. One reason I press the case for anarchism over minarchism is because the former challenges the moral legitimacy of governmental power, as it presently exists in America and elsewhere, in a more consistent and convincing manner than the latter ever could.

Ghs

[Peter]

Ghs wrote:

Please show me a model -- any model, past or present -- of a truly limited government that includes Rand's "principle of voluntary government financing."

end quote

Why? I can point to my government, and it has mandatory taxation. Point to your non-government, with no taxation. It is up to you to prove your formulation. Or is it all a dream or a floating abstraction?

Once again, and this time by the opinion of THE WORLD’S GREATEST AUTHORITY ON RATIONAL ANARCHISM we are left with someone who has no clue. Your opinion about *nothing* is not worth a damn. You just can’t do it can you, George? Show me something. *Any Thing.* Not *Nothing.*

At least Adam came up with the basic non-governmental societal unit, *the family.* Who’s in charge of the family? The kids? The Secret Societies of Teenagers? Moms with tough love? I would say it is a compromise between the above and the guy with the most testosterone.

10 points for Adam!

George (Chance the Gardner) Smith, zero.

George, where did you make up or where did you read this quote? It is very uncharacteristic of Rand.

“For good measure, here is one more relevant quotation -- this time from that notorious epistemological pervert and champion of chaos, Thomas Jefferson:”

Government without taxation? Well, here is something I wrote to a kindergarten teacher.

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing—how to determine the best means of applying it in practice—is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.

End quote

I doubt that the Federal Government could exist on the voluntary system Rand promoted in an emergency, or war. She places voluntary taxation as one of the last ideals to be implemented once government is shrunk to its proper size. I see a "fully free society" as Utopian.

I do NOT see taxation as immoral, until the state withers away. That’s meant as a joke. It won’t wither away. Joking aside, avoiding excess taxation is moral while evading taxation is not, because the consent of the governed is implied if you continue to live in this geographical area. Cough up your fair share of taxes to pay for the government that protects your rights, or immigrate to Somalia or Darfur.

However Rand definitely wanted taxation kept to a minimum. How to do that? Rand had the idea of legal paper. Legal paper is government stamped paper that entitles the document to be used in a civil suit. Essentially it is paying for the services of the courts. Originally Ayn estimated the price would be around a penny a copy (times billions of documents.) But with inflation I would now say 10 cents a page, or more. The paper would have a watermark from the paper mill, so when you bought a ream of “legal” paper you would pay for it by paying the paper mill, or vendor. Or you could hike the per-page price for quicker access to the courts.

If a contract was not written on legal paper, then you could not address the courts for redress. Hand shake deals work all the time, and there is also contractually agreed arbitration, as in Baseball, so a person does have alternatives to the courts.

However, war bonds, savings bonds, etc., added to paying for other services, and a national lottery, could keep mandatory taxation to a minimum. Could we have defeated the world domination of Hitler or The Soviet Union without mandatory taxation? No.

Toll roads would work. Free market space exploration could work.

Paying for services is an ideal, but I see problems with police departments and the military too. What if a person did not pay their FBI or local police department tax, and their rights were violated?

Does this open the door for competing defense agencies that may not uphold the Constitution? No. Would a cop ignore a crime if it were committed upon a person who did not pay the police tax? No. And how would the cop know you didn’t pay anyway? The imponderables with a voluntary police tax, also moves the idea into the Utopian range.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

That's an interesting thought.

The checks and balances system does work to keep a monarch from taking over, and I am committed to (1) my analysis of it serving to limit the abuses of bullies and (2) the need to base government on human nature instead of principles without reference to human nature, but it's true that the checks and balances system does not stop the growth of government encroachment on individual freedom.

One of the real problems with government growth is that it's limit is open-ended. There are few constraints that can be capped effectively--and capping is the main problem with growth.

So why not set caps?

I even know where to go to get the standards: human nature.

For quite some time, now, I have been thinking of an 80-20 or 90-10 split (or whatever number, so long as there is a big part and a small one and the difference between them is large) with respect to the human individual and the human species. This goes for categories and a whole host of other things.

Here is one that is traditionally quite sticky.

One of the most basic issues regarding individual freedom is what to do about the young. I am totally at odds with Rand's definition of a human being that excludes a zygote. To call a cell that is a fertilized human egg anything but human life is to base the definition of what is human on opinion and not observation. At what point of development that human life gains protection for right to life is another issue. But I don't believe it can be solved by butchering the definition of human life--by pretending that a human being at a later stage of development is somehow a different biological species.

The rub is that this one individual life is shared with another individual life during 9 months. So if the only political standard is protection of the individual, what do you do when biological reality presents two individuals in the same body? And if, by definition, one of those individuals needs to be cared for during a time period in order to survive, why is this fact eliminated from "right to life"? Withholding that care (say, for a newborn) is the same thing as imposing a death sentence.

btw - I am generally pro choice. I do not believe in one-size fits all situations for abortions, though, and I believe that rational "human nature that includes species" standards can be set. I have not read this discussed anywhere from the perspective I am thinking about it--that is rights, for instance, should include both individual rights and species rights.

Human nature includes human biology. I have given this a lot of thought. I have tried and tried to make the human being fit certain principles instead of going from the other direction, but I was never able to see how biology can be excluded--or essential parts of biology pruned--from the definition of human nature.

So rather than exclude the inconvenient parts of human nature when they don't fit the principles, why not use human nature's proportions to set the caps on the control governments can have over humans, and even use their limits as a standard to define what governments can and cannot do? Governments can be limited to the same proportions and functions that nature imposes on human individuals and the human species, especially in the sticky areas when more than one individual is involved for survival, or a characteristic is identified as more species-survival-oriented than individual-survival-oriented. I speak of normal healthy individuals for "species" kinds of measurements. Not the sick or the defective.

Human nature provides a perfect standard for both the moral existence of government and for setting limits on it.

This does not fit the founding of the USA and it is one of the reasons I think being "endowed" with rights by a Creator is a huge crack in the foundation. The problem with basing rights on a Divine Gift is that the Divine, by definition, is limitless. If the premise is that rights are the basis for government and their supernatural source is limitless, is it any wonder that no limits are set on their protection in the political philosophy based on this premise? And if the protecting agent (the government) has no such limits on its duties, is it any wonder that the "no limits" idea spills over to government growth?

I have not matured this thinking, but every time I mull it over, it makes more and more sense to me. Human life has inherent proportions in a variety of areas. Why not use them for the organizational structure when human beings live in a group, i.e., society?

Wouldn't it be nice to tell politicians, "Government exists to keep order, but it cannot be more than 10%--ever!", and have a rational standard for that 10% to make sure stays that way?

(Or 20%, or 5% or 1% or whatever?)

I haven't thought through voluntary taxation according to this kind of thinking yet, but capping the taxation proportion according to a standard more solid than what-politicians-can-get-away-with seems like an excellent idea.

Michael

[Peter]

Ghs wrote:

In the realm of political theory, my (contextual) primaries are individual rights and the need for a consistent application of the non-initiation of force principle. I and other anarcho-capitalists think that Ayn Rand provided an excellent moral justification for these principles. All we ultimately ask is that Objectivist minarchists take them as seriously as we do.

end quote

Once again you are trying to smuggle your made up terms into general usage. There is not such thing as an anarcho-capitalism. No interim anarchist society, as in our old west or in Iceland during the Saga period, ever made it past agriculture, trading, and Mom and Pop stores. There is no Capitalism in Anarchism. If there is, “Show me the Money!”

The correct term is LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM. To get that you need a Constitutional Government based on individual rights, and the placement of the retaliatory use of force in the hands of a governmental representative.

Minarchists is another bull shit term. We have no monarchy so why stick a king or queen where they don’t belong? Your quest for unfounded legitimacy is pathetic. Why should we take Anarchism, which you don’t take seriously, seriously? Seriously???

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ghs wrote:

Please show me a model -- any model, past or present -- of a truly limited government that includes Rand's "principle of voluntary government financing."

end quote

Why? I can point to my government, and it has mandatory taxation. Point to your non-government, with no taxation. It is up to you to prove your formulation. Or is it all a dream or a floating abstraction?

Once again, and this time by the opinion of THE WORLD'S GREATEST AUTHORITY ON RATIONAL ANARCHISM we are left with someone who has no clue. Your opinion about *nothing* is not worth a damn. You just can't do it can you, George? Show me something. *Any Thing.* Not *Nothing.*

At least Adam came up with the basic non-governmental societal unit, *the family.* Who's in charge of the family? The kids? The Secret Societies of Teenagers? Moms with tough love? I would say it is a compromise between the above and the guy with the most testosterone.

10 points for Adam!

George (Chance the Gardner) Smith, zero.

George, where did you make up or where did you read this quote? It is very uncharacteristic of Rand.

Peter,

Come on, man. Play nice.

That quote is from Rand and George gave his source. I quote from his post "(The Art of Nonfiction, Chapter 4)". I can even give you the page number in that book--page 30.

When a person gives a quote and a source, you should only question his honesty if you look it up and check and see if he lied or not.

You can be passionate without doing that kind of stuff. From what I have read in your writing, you are better than that.

Michael

[Peter]

Ghs wrote:

Similarly, I love the Randian dream of a limited government that truly respects individual rights to the point where it doesn't even compel its citizens to pay any taxes. If we could ever attain that utopia, I would be very happy indeed . . . The latter alternative is far more likely, since governments, like every coercive monopoly, are loath to surrender their special privileges voluntarily.

end quote

The anarchists who dream of no government interference in their activities are called “Organized Crime.” They have evolved past the interim stage but are loath to surrender their special privileges. They are the best example that I can come up with of the evolution of anarchism to gangster-ism, while still operating within the geographical borders of a Constitutional Government. Outside that jurisdiction, they are just clan leaders, warlords, or Huns.

Dream on George. I prefer reality to opium filled pipe dreams.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One reason I press the case for anarchism over minarchism is because the former challenges the moral legitimacy of governmental power, as it presently exists in America and elsewhere, in a more consistent and convincing manner than the latter ever could.

George,

Challenging "the moral legitimacy of governmental power, as it presently exists in America and elsewhere" is something that needs a whole heap of doing.

They constantly make a mess of it.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Minarchists is another bull shit term. We have no monarchy so why stick a king or queen where they don’t belong?

What have kings or queens to do with minarchism?

[Peter]

George H. Smith wrote:

As I have said many times before, I don't defend anarcho-capitalism because I think this system will ever come about. One reason I press the case for anarchism over minarchism is because the former challenges the moral legitimacy of governmental power, as it presently exists in America and elsewhere, in a more consistent and convincing manner than the latter ever could.

end quote

Rubbish! As soon as you claim Anarchism as your ideal you enter Keeper Of Odd Knowledge status: KOOK. If you claim the “never been,” “never formulated,” “not possible” “I can’t describe it,” as your ideal, you have already lost the battle. No one will trust your opinion. I sure as hell don’t.

“The Moral legitimacy of governmental power as it presently exists in America and elsewhere,” is debatable, and changeable. Zero times ten is zero. You can’t change *nothing* except to more *nothing.*

Dinner tonight was great, George, in our Constitutional Governmental society! Our waiters name was Raj. Raj did not come here to be lectured about how great *nothing* would be.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Sorry Michael. Here is what came to may hotmail account, verbatim.

Peter Taylor, George H. Smith has just posted a reply to a topic that you have subscribed to titled "What's Happening?". ----------------------------------------------------------------------This is good advice, Peter. When do you plan to follow it? Please show me a model -- any model, past or present -- of a truly limited government that includes Rand's "principle of voluntary government financing." Are you aware that the most common criticism of the 18th century American "experiment" in the republican form of government was that no such system had ever worked successfully in the history of civilization, and that all such attempts had quickly degenerated into despotism? Silly question. Of course you're not. Btw, Rand's notion of a "floating abstraction" has nothing whatever to do with historical models. Your use of "floating abstraction" is itself a floating abstraction. Since you are fond of quoting official Objectivist sources, here is one from Rand that you should ponder: For good measure, here is one more relevant quotation -- this time from that notorious epistemological pervert and champion of chaos, Thomas Jefferson: Ghs

Notice there is no source other than Rand.

Peter

[Peter]

Dragonfly wrote:

What have kings or queens to do with minarchism?

end quote

It is another illegitimate "package deal." Minarchism is a derivative of Monarchism. It is not in the dictionary. It equates Constitutional Government with Power derived from God to the Monarch, or if not from God then Might Makes Right.

I don’t use the slur.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

Ghs wrote:

Please show me a model -- any model, past or present -- of a truly limited government that includes Rand's "principle of voluntary government financing."

end quote

Why? I can point to my government, and it has mandatory taxation. Point to your non-government, with no taxation. It is up to you to prove your formulation. Or is it all a dream or a floating abstraction?

You could also point to Hitler's government, which murdered millions of Jews. That would be as much to the point as your example.

I had nearly forgotten how utterly irrational you are.. You completely ignore essential points and then drift off into La La Land. Would you like a real example of a floating abstraction? Okay, here's one: "A guy named Peter Taylor who posts on OL and is able to reason his way out of a paper bag."

As for historical examples of anarchistic societies, there are many, such as the Indian tribes mentioned by Jefferson. Another is medieval Iceland, as discussed in David Friedman's famous article at:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

Herbert Spencer discussed a number of anarchistic societies in his sociological writings, and modern anthropologists have done the same thing. If you ever read anything other than orthodox Objectivist writings, you might know these things -- but that's not likely to happen.

George, where did you make up or where did you read this quote? It is very uncharacteristic of Rand.

I cited the source immediately after the quotation. I knew that you are a very careless reader, but this is ridiculous.

If that passage strikes you as "uncharacteristic of Rand," this is because you only pay attention to what Rand has to say when it suits your purpose.

In response to the passage I quoted from Thomas Jefferson, Peter wrote:

Government without taxation? Well, here is something I wrote to a kindergarten teacher.

No, Peter; Jefferson, who was a careful student of Indian cultures, specifically refers to functioning societies with no government -- you know, the thing you claim has never existed. Focus, Peter, focus, if only for the few seconds that it takes to read a brief passage.

As for your kindergarten teacher -- as much as I would like to reply to this insightful and highly relevant comment, I cannot, for I need to find something that will stop my throbbing headache, which started after I read your post.

I am reminded of an old joke: The good thing about beating one's head against a wall is that it feels so good when you stop.

The good thing about engaging in a discussion with Peter Taylor is....

Ghs