What's Happening?

[Peter]

George wrote:

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

end quote

George, the source never got to me. I was not careless. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Now here is verbatim what just came to me, so that you might understand:

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

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.

end quote

George, I never saw what I wrote. To me it looks just as you see it, like you are making up quotes and saying I said them.

You should read what I said to the kindergarten teacher, Angela German, who uses the pen name Xray. We may have some common ground.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

I am confused. You consider "minarchism" to be a slur?

This is the very first time I have ever heard of anyone objecting to the term like that.

Here is a passage from Wikipedia on Minarchism.

Samuel Edward Konkin III, an agorist, coined the term in 1971 to describe libertarians who defend some form of compulsory government. Konkin invented the term minarchism because he initially felt dismayed of using the cumbersome phrase limited-government libertarianism.[2][5] Some classical liberals, who believe in the necessity of the state, label themselves as minarchists to differentiate from market anarchists.

I have always considered myself to be a minarchist ever since I heard the term. I equate it with holding a position of small government with focus on freedom and individual rights. And I have always seen it used that way until now.

I even thought the play on words was kinda cute when I first heard it. I agree with Konkin, that it is far less cumbersome than "limited-government libertarianism."

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

Peter,

I am game for calling all of this a misunderstanding.

I originally thought you were objecting to the "dogmatic Objectivist" quote. In context, it sounded like that was the one.

Anyway, what do you say we all kiss, make up and sing Kumbaya?

(btw - My good humor is real, not sarcastic...)

Michael

[George H. Smith]

"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."

Ghs goaned, then pulled his hair, then yelled at his dog, and then groaned again...He hoped to write this reply before going completely mad.

No, Peter; "minarchism" is not "a derivative of Monarchism."

The word, which is shorthand for the theory of minimal government, was coined decades ago by the libertarian Sam Konkin. It is useful because it is more economical to refer to someone as a "minarchist" rather than as "an advocate of minimal government." "Minarchism" and "minarchist" have a nice symmetry with "anarchism" and "anarchist."

The last time I checked, Randian nomenclature, such as "psycho-epistemology," cannot be found in standard dictionaries, either. Does that stop you from using these and other specialized terms?

Ghs

[Peter]

Michael Stuart Kelly wrote to Ghs:

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 . . . 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?

End quote

I prefer Roger Bissell's formulation, except for his later addition of jail time for murder for women who abort after the baby in her womb, becomes *aware.* Anyway, in case George doesn't remember, here is one of his millions of letters I have cached.

Peter

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Abortion

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:24:39 -0600

Laura Rift wrote (to Greg Johnson):

"In your world, at least half the adult female population could be tried for murder and theoretically imprisoned or executed. In a single century, over 100 million women would be either executed or imprisoned in this country alone. I rest my case. I am thinking about forwarding your e-mail to pro-choice groups. Thanks for the help. It's honest people like you that help our cause!"

And let us keep in mind that all of this is to be done for a just cause, in the name of human rights. 8-)

I have long maintained (on Atlantis and elsewhere) that anti-abortionists should have the courage of their convictions and embrace the legal horrors that logically follow from their defense of zygotes. Contrary to the earlier claim of Gayle Dean, however, I have never regarded this an argument against abortion per se. But it should give pause when dealing with a controversial issue like abortion, if one would be logically compelled to embrace a near totalitarian system of enforcement.

Chris Cathcart seems to be one of the few people who understands the theoretical issues that are involved in this dispute. You cannot simply examine the DNA of a cell and say, "Ah, this has rights." As I argued at considerable length in an earlier incarnation of this controversy, a zygote or fetus does not qualify as an individual" from a moral point of view, simply because, as part of the mother's body, it is impossible for something to affect her without possibly affecting the fetus as well.

Individual rights are possible because physically discrete individuals can experience the physical consequences of their own actions without simultaneously affecting other individuals as well. If all human beings were somehow organically linked via a biological lifeline, whereby no one component (the term "person" would not apply here) could not experience something without everyone else experiencing it as well, then a theory a rights could never even get off the ground.

Rights are predicated on the existence of physically discrete individuals -- "persons," in a moral sense -- because it is only in virtue of this physical individuality that I can bear the physical consequences of my own actions, without adversely affecting you as well. Rights protect this individuality, and where such individuality does not exist (as is the case with woman and fetus), it is impermissible, given the formal requirement of compossibility, to attribute separate sets of rights to one individual.

A woman's right of self-ownership is not diminished in virtue of her becoming pregnant. One cannot forfeit pre-existing rights (such as the right to commit suicide) through a non-aggressive act, and pregnancy is not an aggressive act.

Moral individuality begins at the moment of birth, because only then are the mother and child physically discrete individuals with compossible rights. This has nothing to do with DNA. It has to do with the fact that only after birth are the mother and child capable of possessing rights without conflict. The pre-existing rights of the mother have priority here, and we cannot legitimately ascribe rights to a zygote or fetus, because to do so would be to deprive the mother of her rights without just cause. She has the absolute right to use and dispose of her own body, regardless of what is growing inside of it, and she cannot forfeit this right through becoming pregnant. Pregnancy is not a criminal act, so one cannot possess fewer rights after becoming pregnant than one did before.

If you truly believe in the sanctity of the fetus, then launch a moral crusade to dissuade women from having abortions. But leave the coercive arm of the law outside of her body. Here I am in full agreement with Ellen Moore. If the law may invade a woman's body, telling her what she may and may not eat or otherwise consume, forcibly preventing her from engaging in risky activities, etc., etc., then the concept of individual rights means nothing at all.

As Chris has repeatedly emphasized, moral theory is not biology. Greg Johnson, for all of his blustering about his articles in JAR, has so far failed to present anything close to a coherent theory of rights that would justify his rabid anti-abortion stand. He can prattle on about DNA all he likes, but this has nothing to do with the *moral* concept of individuality.

Ghs

[Peter]

George wrote about himself in the third person:

"Ghs groaned, then pulled his hair, then yelled at his dog, and then groaned again...He hoped to write this reply before going completely mad . . .

No, Peter; "minarchism" is not "a derivative of Monarchism."

end quote

Ok. But, I still don't like it.

George wrote:

The word, which is shorthand for the theory of minimal government,

end quote

Come on George. "Mini," like in minivan but "Mal as in Government?" Trying to slip it in while she's sleeping again? "Mal" means bad and you are equating government with bad.

Peter

[George H. Smith]

Anyway, what do you say we all kiss, make up and sing Kumbaya?

I should have known better than to violate my Atlantis II resolution by responding once again to Peter's posts. I have better things to do, such as watching my hard drive defragment and listening to my shortwave radio for messages from outer space.

I will therefore reinstitute my earlier policy of ignoring Peter.

No need to thank me, Michael. 8-)

Ghs

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

I am game for calling all of this a misunderstanding . . . Anyway, what do you say we all kiss, make up and sing Kumbaya?

end quote

Ah gee, Michael - kiss? And sing kumbaya? I prefer Miriam Makeba singing, "Love Tastes Like Strawberries," with a group hug, and no tongues.

Michael wrote:

(btw - My good humor is real, not sarcastic...)

end quote

Thanks Michael. I do get your humor. I always know when you are joking . . . if I get a verbatim transcript of what you were saying. Unfortunately my humor is underappreciated.

Before more is misunderstood, I am going to fix myself a bourban, a ham sandwich, watch "Big Love," and then go to bed.

It's great having George here. I think I must give him "intellectual ideas," from what he considers my stupidity. Otherwise, why does he read my letters? I will try not to drive him off (if that were possible.)

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Ghs wrote:

I should have known better than to violate my Atlantis II resolution by responding once again to Peter's posts. I have better things to do, such as watching my hard drive defragment and listening to my shortwave radio for messages from outer space . . . I will therefore reinstitute my earlier policy of ignoring Peter . . . No need to thank me, Michael. 8-)

end quote

I did not hear a sigh of relief from Michael. Excellent. He knows what drama is. Now I will but count the days. Come on George. You missed me, didn't you? Who else calls your bluff?

All kidding aside, I really do like you George. You are one of a kind. Let me edit your next book, so it will be perfect.

Peter

[Selene]

Peter:

Now maybe you can give me an answer.

Is the family the smallest anarchist society that we can identify?

Yes __

No __

Maybe __

None of the above are acceptable to me __

___________________________ Fill in your own answer.

Additionally, there are no points for answering the above teach.

Adam

Thinking of different processes Peter can do with all ten (10) of those points

[George H. Smith]

In case anyone thinks that I have treated Peter unfairly, here is a post (one of many) that I addressed to Peter on Atlantis II, when I still had some hope for him.

----- Original Message -----

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@comcast.net>

To: "atlantis_II" <atlantis_II@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 3:36 PM

Subject: [atlantis_II] Advice for Peter

Peter,

Here is an unsolicited but good piece of methodological advice for writing more productive posts: Assume that you are not going to change anyone's mind about anything and that no one is going to change your mind about anything.

Working from this premise could significantly improve the quality of your posts. It will free you up to explore difficult and/or interesting objections to your positions while doing so for your own benefit -- as a means of developing your own ideas in more detail -- rather than for the futile purpose of persuading others.

Some A2ers who have given up on you have wondered why I continue to respond to your posts, often in considerable detail. My reasons have nothing to do with you or with anyone else on A2. I do so when I think I can get some value from what I write.

Granted, given how many years I have debated anarchism and related topics, it is unlikely that I will come up with completely new arguments. But it often happens that I think of a fresh and better way of stating familiar arguments. Such improvements may consist of using better illustrations, formulating an argument more succinctly, etc.

The major problem with many of your posts is that you ignore the specific objections of your adversaries. You often don't mention them at all. This is not only annoying, it is also rude. And it gives the impression -- whether this is your intention or not -- that you have no serious interest in discussing ideas but merely wish to score some polemical points. Now, there is nothing wrong with using zingers (I often use them myself), but they should have some substance behind them. To write one post after another with virtually nothing but zingers is useless and ineffective, and it will make you look shallow.

In response to my advice, I expect you to say that you already know that you won't persuade anyone, or at least that the odds of doing so are extremely small. But it's one thing to believe this in the abstract and quite another to write posts with this belief explicitly in mind.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Peter:

Now maybe you can give me an answer.

Is the family the smallest anarchist society that we can identify?

This isn't a fair question. Rand said very little about the family, so how do you expect Peter to answer it?

Btw, where do you get those animations? Some are quite clever. I've seen a few sites where similar novelties can be downloaded, but I've also heard that such sites are sometimes a source of viruses, spyware, and other bad things. I assume you have found a trustworthy source.

Ghs

[Selene]

Peter:

Now maybe you can give me an answer.

Is the family the smallest anarchist society that we can identify?

This isn't a fair question. Rand said very little about the family, so how do you expect Peter to answer it?

Btw, where do you get those animations? Some are quite clever. I've seen a few sites where similar novelties can be downloaded, but I've also heard that such sites are sometimes a source of viruses, spyware, and other bad things. I assume you have found a trustworthy source.

Ghs

Yes as to the sources George.

However, I am but a grasshopper to 9th Doctor - he got me started on them. I never download from a site unless someone else or I know that it is secure.

With the icons, I will bookmark it. Then as I get comfortable with it, I will take that site to a bookmark file with the sites that I use and then I will cut and paste them onto the post. Sometimes, the software of Michael's OL forum will not allow a particular image.

You may not be aware, but I started teaching at Queens College when I was 20. I received a graduate fellowship that carried a deferment...2A.

The Selective Service, as you are probably aware, used the deferment system to "channel" folks into professions like teaching and doctoring.

I am developing a rhetoric for the internet type communications which employs the multi media which we all have at our fingertips.

It is 9th Doctors fault!

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As Chris has repeatedly emphasized, moral theory is not biology.

Peter,

This is a position, I suppose.

It's not the position, though.

If a person excludes biology from ethics, he cannot claim his ethical theory is based on human nature.

That is, unless he wants to claim that biology has nothing to do with human nature. And in that case, I would have no way to communicate since I don't understand that language.

In short, I don't agree that ethics (a code of values for humans) should exclude human nature.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

However, I am but a grasshopper to 9th Doctor - he got me started on them. I never download from a site unless someone else or I know that it is secure.

Animations and embedded YouTube videos allow for a new kind of illustrated essay form, its fun to experiment with it. I haven’t been doing it as much lately though. Set up a Photobucket account (its free), and when you see something you like, right click and save it, then upload it to your account when you want to use it. Copy the IMG code and paste it into your post, that’s all there is to it. As for viruses, you’re not going to run the file as an executable on your computer, so I think you should be safe there. I haven’t had any problems. As to where to find emoticons, here’s a good source: http://planetsmilies.net/ but Google works well, if you can narrow down what you’re seeking, for instance: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=doctor+who+emoticons&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=baa94940edcea411

I’ve certainly swiped a few from Richard Dawkins’ website, I know the crucified Santa came from there. BTW I’ve never heard anything about copyright issues with emoticons.

Here’s to George and Peter:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I'm not saying who's who.

[9thdoctor]

What's the deal with slapping someone with a fish? Seems there's got to be a deeper meaning to it that I'm missing.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Selene]

9th:

Yes, I also followed your advice or it might have been Michael and set up a photo bucket account. It is quite nice.

Adam

Post Script:

As you can see George, I am mere reflected light, a shadow on the cave wall...

Wow, almost Platonic...

Adam

Edited February 15, 2010 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

To be secure in your ideology is to be at peace. Rand was secure in hers but "voluntary taxation" is an oxymoron. I just see "anarcho-capitalism" as a strategic retreat from Rand's impractical Utopianism to a more defendable position that re-enforces the moral basis of Objectivism while cutting the practical politics adrift. But the peace is maintained.

In a person is the potential for good and bad because of free will. People both have and need morality therefore. But Randian heroes neither display nor need this basic ambiguity or struggle with it. If they do wrong it's because of lack of knowledge, not moral failure or its very real temptation.

It's a queer kind of heroism when you are essentially a hero for what you are and say rather than what you otherwise do. A Randian hero is like an arrow shot from a very powerful bow penetrating and perforating anything in its path. Not one of them demonstrates one real ounce of heroism to Ayn Rand's ton of it in accomplishing what she did. But she personally disowned that for the phony veneer of a Randian hero and thus eviscerated Objectivism in its cradle by leaving it essentially an intellectualization and, ironically, a cult.

--Brant

Edited February 15, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

As an addendum to the previous post, the heroes in AS who were on the wrong side of Galt were heroes until they got on the right side. Then by inertia. Somewhat exceptions being Ragnar and Francisco. Galt himself didn't do much that way until the bad guys got ahold of him.

--Brant

Edited February 15, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Dragonfly]

It is another illegitimate "package deal." Minarchism is a derivative of Monarchism.

No, it isn't. It's based on the Latin minimus = the smallest (superlative of parvus = small, little), and the Greek ἄρχειν = to rule.

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

Is the family the smallest anarchist society that we can identify?

end quote

I already gave you ten points in previous post for being right, if we accept your definition of “anarchy” and conflate it with “family.” I have yet to know any family member who says, "Where is Anarchist family member Daddy?" Again, you are confusing Free Range Anarchists with Philosophical Anarchists.

If we are speaking about humans, then the smallest non-governmental unit is the individual. Then the family. Then the Clan. All of these groups may be freely associating without a government in a certain geographical area. People can be rational and exist without violence, but historically this is only for an interim time.

Let me go over it again. Philosophical Anarchists are usually better educated and espouse their views from within the protection of a relatively free society, with leisure and surpluses. They reject any restrictions on their actions. The think a non-system of social interaction is better than any government, where each individual can do as they please until another Anarchist or group of Anarchists persuades or forces them to stop.

They say they are sure they can sustain individual rights and ensure justice because they and the people they will associate with, are capable of it. They point to themselves as proof and say, “I am rational enough, to freely and respectfully, interact with other individuals. Ayn Rand and many ARI Objectivists hold these people to be contemptible and unworthy of association.

Free Range Anarchy, in contrast, is my way of describing an interim lack of government after migration, or for uncivilized people living under a family and clan system. They don’t deliberately choose Anarchy as a way of life, except in the sense that they may have been escaping something worse, such as savages or despotism. They are unable to articulate or establish a system that truly protects individual rights. These people are unsophisticated but not worthy of contempt. They deserve better and through cultural osmosis or interaction with civilizations they can become more civilized.

I would not consider Anarchy, under a free range system, the jungle. Generally all people have a sense of self worth and sovereignty, and this manifests itself in mutually acceptable social behaviors. If this sociable sense did not exist, anthropologists insist, we would be extinct and not here today. Toddlers learn this from each other and mentors. Civility becomes the norm. I think those commercials showing Vikings bashing everyone are meant to be comical, and not as a true representation of free range anarchists.

Philosophical Anarchists also have a sense of self worth and sovereignty, and this can also manifest itself in mutually acceptable social behaviors. The problem is they have rejected a system that better guarantees multi-generational contracts and stability. There is no Capitalism in Anarchism. There are legitimate disagreements among reasonable people, and a justice system founded on a government has always better guaranteed justice. Always. They cannot point to a successful capitalist *society* founded on, "What will be, will be." But of course, in the interim, no government is better than despotism.

A free trade, world market does exist, but even then, the participants have recourse to conflict resolution through contractually agreed arbitration, their governments, or the World Court. This is Capitalism, not an Anarchist Society.

Philosophical Anarchists may claim that their espousal of Anarchism is a way to fight runaway Government by supplying citizens with the intellectual ammunition to fight power creep. Or, they may be trying to start some commune where they will profit, or get you to buy into some get - rich - quick scheme, or they may simply wish for *niche notoriety* and followers. (This is not a jab, at any particular person 8 -)

Philosophical Anarchists are viewed by Rand as “Prudent Predators.” They know a successful Anarchist Society is laughably unlikely. But they are trying to scam others with a scheme that has no “referent in reality.” It is a flim - flam to bilk the gullible in some fashion, for some monetary or personal gain, for the Prudent Predator.

They may be selling a book or a commodity, or looking for followers, but I would suggest, “Buyer Beware!”

I am not speaking about any people who currently agree with the essentials of Objectivism, especially those called Tolerationists by some, when I say, Rand despised people who seemed to understand her philosophy but misrepresented it. They claim she was really an anarchist at heart. She was not. She hated people who cashed in on her fame, while misrepresenting her philosophy, and then preying on her adherents. And like Howard Roark I think she rarely thought about these Elsworth Tooey’s after denouncing them.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

George wrote:

“No, Peter; "minarchism" is not "a derivative of Monarchism.". . . "Minarchism" and "minarchist" have a nice symmetry with "anarchism" and "anarchist."

end quote

That nice symmetry you mention is exactly my point. Someone is trying to cash in or conflate the floating abstraction Anarchy (Anarchist Antichrist) with Minarchy (Limited Government,) while at the same time, drawing a parallel between Monarchy and Miniarchy. I don’t care who coined it. I don’t accept the “one letter off”, “Min” to “Mon” slur. It IS an attempt to gain legitimacy by Philosophical (Anarchists Antichrists). Even a cave man could get my conflation of Anarchist Antichrists as an attempt to smuggle in another meaning. “Yeah,” historians will say, “Back in 1971, was in Konkin or Taylor who coined the phrase *Anarchist Antichrists*?”

I agree with Michael Stuart Kelly that Miniarchy is a nice shorthand word, but I think its origins are suspect. I will continue to spell out limited government or constitutional government.

George wrote:

The last time I checked, Randian nomenclature, such as "psycho-epistemology," cannot be found in standard dictionaries, either. Does that stop you from using these and other specialized terms?

End quote

No. It is a handy term. I will continue to use “psycho-epistemology” because it in NO WAY tries to sneak in another meaning. Now if I were to coin the phrase “Rand-Brain Epistomology” that would be an attempt to smuggle in another meaing or connotation.

I thank Barbara Branden for the wonderful phrase, “Psycho-epistemology.”

This is why we need word police, gentlemen and ladies. Officer Oxford Webster, arrest that man for conflating!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

I think Barbara dislikes "psycho-epistemology."

--Brant

[Peter]

Brant Gaede (intelligent Air Force veteran) wrote:

In a person is the potential for good and bad because of free will. People both have and need morality therefore. But Randian heroes neither display nor need this basic ambiguity or struggle with it. If they do wrong it's because of lack of knowledge, not moral failure or its very real temptation.

End quote

They are fictional heroes, written without ambiguity. The inner struggle Galt has about sexually possessing Dagny “before it’s time” is great drama, but not realistic. Not to me.

Brant wrote;

But she personally disowned that for the phony veneer of a Randian hero and thus disowned herself and eviscerated Objectivism in its cradle by leaving it essentially an intellectualization.

end quote

She could have done more. I wish she had, but people grow old and crotchety. They make mistakes. Objectivism would be better off as a philosophy if it encompassed NBI, ARI, and TOC. With time it will. The older generation will eventually hand over the reins to those who never lived through the schism.

Brant Gaede wrote:

To be secure in your ideology is to be at peace. Rand was secure in hers but "voluntary taxation" is an oxymoron. I just see "anarcho-capitalism" as a strategic retreat from Rand's impractical Utopianism to a more defendable position that re-enforces the moral basis of Objectivism while cutting the practical politics adrift. But the peace is maintained.

end quote

Brant, that is very insightful, and a neat twist. But a strategic retreat? “Anarcho-Capitalism” is an attempt to place capitalism into anarchism, a place where it has never existed. Rather than retreating to a safer position, the phrase “Anarcho-Capitalism” is an oxymoron.

Eyal Mozes wrote while at TOC:

James Donald states that anarcho-capitalism would function well in a culture in which "natural law crimes" are "totally uncontroversial", and in which "for ordinary routine crimes there would be no disagreement". To which my question is: in such a culture, why would you need anarcho- capitalism? Why would you need any institutions *at all* for protecting individual rights, whether competitive or monopoly? If there is no disagreement on crime, i.e. everyone with no exception understands individual rights and respects them, then no one would want to commit any crimes, and so protection from crime is not needed; and while there might still be disputes about contracts, so contract arbitration may still be needed, everyone would voluntarily comply with the decisions of any arbitrator that they have agreed to accept, so the use of retaliatory force for contract enforcement would also not be needed. The *only* function that might still be needed for the retaliatory use of force would be national defense.

End quote

Ayn Rand stated that voluntary taxation would be one of the last things implemented into a Limited Randian Government. I also view this as Utopian. However, the existing fact of compulsory taxation does not mean that the burden cannot be lessened, nor that the rate cannot be changed, because it has changed in the past. Nor does existing, compulsory taxation mean that eventually a Government cannot be financed through voluntary taxation. It is not impossible but as I stated, it may be utopian. As MSK said we need to amend the Constitution to put “caps” into place.

This is an area to which the experts will provide the solution. Voluntary financing will be one of the last changes implemented by an Objectivist/Tea Party Government, but it is a NECESSARY moral obligation to be sought after, even if it cannot be accomplished.

Anarchists seem to imply they are the "experts" but I say, the eff they are. To the heroes on Objectivist Living: Don’t piss your life away, by diddling with the idea of Anarchy. Fight for your rights. Brothers and Sisters, stand your ground! Remain Objectivists.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Here are a couple of cute letters from people we know. Enjoy. Boy, wouldn’t it be a surprise to hear Ghs say, “I was wrong?”

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: sophistry

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:29:41 -0500

a.d. smith wrote:

"Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force.)

"I was wondering how my fellow Atlanteans would reply to this argument I think I did a fairly good job in elucidating the differences between physical force and "economic coercion," but I could have done better. What would you guys have said in this situation ?

I find that well-constructed examples and counter-examples can sometimes communicate the distinction better than abstract arguments, or at least serve as an introduction to them.

Many years ago, during a college seminar on Marxism, my professor gave the following popular example: Suppose I am stranded in the middle of the desert, and I run across the only oasis in my vicinity. It is privately owned, and the owner tells me that I must (a) work for him at fifty cents per hour, or (B) stay off his property. And since he is charging $5,000 for the food and water that are required to sustain my life during the remainder of my journey, this means that I am being economically coerced -- indeed, enslaved -- since I must either accept the offer or face certain death.

I responded by changing one condition of the example. The same oasis owner has more money than he knows what to do with, so (as before) he tells me that I must take a job to earn my supplies, but he now offers me $10,000 per hour instead of fifty cents. So now I can earn what I need in 30 minutes (during which the owner, who is starved for intellectual companionship, only requests that I talk to him about philosophy) and even walk away with a handsome surplus.

The professor then protested, "But that's not a realistic example."

"Neither is your example," I replied, "but that's not the point. The purpose of the example is to isolate the key elements that generate what you call economic coercion. If your example, in which I am economically coerced to work for 50 cents an hour is valid, then so is my example where I am economically coerced to work for $10,000 per hour by discussing philosophy. I didn't change anything essential in the hypothetical; all I did was change some details, which should be irrelevant to the point you are making. So if you claim that my example doesn't qualify as economic coercion, then why doesn't it? I will die just as surely if I turn down the offer for $10,000 as if I refuse to work for fifty cents. What's the difference? According to your definition, I am being coerced in either case -- but it sounds a little strange to say that I am being 'forced' to work at the higher wage. You are loading the example in your favor by including very low wages, but the amount of the wage is immaterial to the point you wish to make. Surely the validity of your argument should not depend solely on its emotional appeal, so it should make equal sense to take about a wage-slave who is forced to discuss philosophy at $10,000 per hour."

I don't remember my exact words, of course, but the preceding is a fair representation of my argument. It took the discussion in some interesting directions that might otherwise have been overlooked – such as whether the CEO of a multinational corporation is also economically "coerced" to accept his multi-million dollar salary -- and the discussion ended when the Marxist professor said, "Well, I'll have to give some additional thought to your example."

That's about as close to an unconditional surrender as a student is ever likely to get from a professor.

Ghs

From: BBfromM@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: sophistry

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 04:40:33 EDT

A. D. Smith wrote"

<< Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force. >>

There is no such thing as "economic coercion." We owe it to people not to use force against them; we do not owe it to them to supply them with employment nor to keep them employed if we do not choose to. People have a right to seek jobs; they do not have a right to *have* jobs if the employer finds them unsuitable. So to threaten an employee with firing is in no sense of the term "coercion." The job is not his by right, but only by the decision of the owner of the business.

Barbara

Edited February 15, 2010 by Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

I think Barbara dislikes "psycho-epistemology."

end quote

If that is so, I apologize to Barbara. Crap. I thought she coined the phrase.

About thirty years ago I used the phrase in a pschology paper. The Professor wrote, "There is no such phrase. Where did you hear it?"

By the end of the terms the Professor was saying "psycho-epistemology," on a regular basis. It is a good term. I like it.

Live long and prosper,

Peter