What's Happening?

[Peter]

Say, ninth doctor. Is that you in the video? I noticed a striking resemblence. Are you royalty and a real doctor?

Perter, I mean Pewter, no - Putter Taylor

[rhartford]

If any two agencies differ in practical application of that foundational theoretical principle [unfailingly [protecting] political freedoms and unfailingly [constraining] those who would violate a political freedom], how would adjudicating the conflict differ when resolved by a third agency subscribing to the same theoretical principle versus being resolved by a “voluntarily-financed” limited government subscribing to that same theoretical principle?

The first scenario would be voluntary, because the final arbiter would be agreed upon by the disputing parties. In the second scenario the government forcibly precludes such options. That's the difference.

If the two agencies agreed to binding arbitration by the third agency, that would be voluntary and a legitimate government (if there is such an institution) would not preclude that option.

If one of the two agencies did not voluntarily submit the conflict to the third agency, and that third agency tried to enforce an erroneous judgment, a legitimate government (if there is such an institution) would preclude that option.

[George H. Smith]

If one of the two agencies did not voluntarily submit the conflict to the third agency, and that third agency tried to enforce an erroneous judgment, a legitimate government (if there is such an institution) would preclude that option.

Fine, but if an agency attempts to enforce an unjust decision, why would only a monopolistic government have the right to "preclude that option"? If a rogue agency is violating someone's rights, then any justice agency would have the right to stop it, just as any agency would have the right to stop a thug from killing someone.

Ghs

[Selene]

If one of the two agencies did not voluntarily submit the conflict to the third agency, and that third agency tried to enforce an erroneous judgment, a legitimate government (if there is such an institution) would preclude that option.

Fine, but if an agency attempts to enforce an unjust decision, why would only a monopolistic government have the right to "preclude that option"? If a rogue agency is violating someone's rights, then any justice agency would have the right to stop it, just as any agency would have the right to stop a thug from killing someone.

Ghs

George and or Robert:

"...then any justice agency would have the right to stop it, just as any agency would have the right to stop a thug from killing someone."

Out of curiosity, in this model, would they have the obligation to stop the enforcement of the unjust decision or stop the thug from killing someone?

Adam

[rhartford]

If one of the two agencies did not voluntarily submit the conflict to the third agency, and that third agency tried to enforce an erroneous judgment, a legitimate government (if there is such an institution) would preclude that option.

Fine, but if an agency attempts to enforce an unjust decision, why would only a monopolistic government have the right to "preclude that option"? If a rogue agency is violating someone's rights, then any justice agency would have the right to stop it, just as any agency would have the right to stop a thug from killing someone.

Are you assuming that the "any justice agency" specified, regardless of which justice agency, is correct in assessing that a particular agency is a "rogue agency"? If the "any justice agency" taking action is incorrect in its judgment that an agency is a "rogue agency," then what?

[George H. Smith]

If one of the two agencies did not voluntarily submit the conflict to the third agency, and that third agency tried to enforce an erroneous judgment, a legitimate government (if there is such an institution) would preclude that option.

Fine, but if an agency attempts to enforce an unjust decision, why would only a monopolistic government have the right to "preclude that option"? If a rogue agency is violating someone's rights, then any justice agency would have the right to stop it, just as any agency would have the right to stop a thug from killing someone.

Are you assuming that the "any justice agency" specified, regardless of which justice agency, is correct in assessing that a particular agency is a "rogue agency"? If the "any justice agency" taking action is incorrect in its judgment that an agency is a "rogue agency," then what?

Before I deal with this, I would like to see how you would solve the same problems that you raise, as those problems apply to a government. Hence:

(1) What happens when a government renders and attempts to enforce an unjust decision? Who will stop this? Or must the victim grin and bear it?

(2)Suppose a government is the rogue agency that you refer to in your question, and suppose that this government is incorrect in its judgment that another agency is a rogue agency --then what? Given the sovereign power claimed by a government, which you would presumably defend, would you maintain that an unjust government should prevail over a just private agency?

It's easy to see where you wish to go with your line of questioning. But if you cannot even answer your own questions in a satisfactory manner, then they don't do you any good. Hence, after you answer the above question that you put to me, as that problem pertains to a government, I'll be happy to take a stab at it. We can then compare answers and see which is more satisfactory.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

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.

Just another theorectical, there being no anarchism to stick capitalism into. One's entitled to be theorectical if only to get started.

--Brant

don't kill the baby! noooooo!

[George H. Smith]

Come on, guys.

Can't you try to make this thing work?

Perter thinks I'm brilliant.

I want to pretend I'm indifferent, but that feels good.

It's not like I get something like that everyday...

Michael

Many veteran members of Atlantis II were convinced that Peter is a troll. I didn't think so early on, but now I'm not so sure. If his psychotic rants are intended seriously (see his latest topic thread for more examples), then the guy has some very serious problems. At least he hasn't threatened to kill me again, hypothetically or otherwise, but I have now been transformed into an advocate of drug use who poses a danger to children, as well as a traitor who wishes to aid in the destruction of America and its Constitution. I eagerly await the time, which will probably not be long in coming, when Peter reposts some posts I wrote years ago in which I argued that current age of consent laws should be lowered to a more reasonable age. Then he can accuse me of being a proponent of pedophilia.

Peter is an irresponsible lunatic -- so no, Michael, we can't make this thing work.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Well, Peter is anti-philosophical generally. George, like most libertarians, seems to prefer the politico-economico sphere so at the core he too is anti-philosophical. Peter seems to be the kind of conservative Rand devolved to. In a real sense then, he's a Randian. George seems to be a pre-Objectivism Randian--or Atlas Shrugged without Galt's speech. So what we have is a turf war, essentially. I have to go with George on this one because he's a thinker but have to admire Peter manning the barricades of Randian sensibilities. The impracticality or impossibility of anarcho-capitalism is a strawman that Peter keeps hitting George over the head with, but is not really an argument against what George is really about which is the history and practicability of political philosophy and that in the context of the original federalist/anti-federalist debate now more than two-hundred years old. This is an anti-intellectual-intellectual battle and George is the intellectual, but he ironically has made too generous use of ad hominem out of defensiveness not properly understanding what was really going on regards the deeper ad hominem of Peter, Peter also not properly understanding this.

When I say Peter is anti-philosophical generally, I mean only in the context of what has been going on with him and George. That's all I know about him. And Peter, I'm talking to you Peter, threatening to kill a man is the ultimate ad hominem even if not really ad baculum (or however the hell you spell it) and dressing it out as supposed humor is cowardly hypocrisy for there is never any humor there. You can't bronze it into something else. But on the gut level I'm still with you and Rand, not the libertarians.

--Brant

a real killer--that's me--and God help me, in the context of war I wish I had killed more communists and in the context of peace I'm glad I didn't, but in the context of me--well, that's me--but IMO my fellow SF medic, Robert Johnson, KIA with his legs blown off by a North Vietnamese 175mm shell that hit his medical bunker, who said just before he died, "I'm sorry"--sorry he could not live even with multiple IVs and all those trying desperately trying to keep him alive for the too-late Medavac--Robert Johnson who so enjoyed life and living on earth--so positive about everything--so dead since May 1967!

(Gary Howser: where the fuck are you? You were Robert's best friend! I know you shot up your medical-pharmacy when you heard about what happened to him. The Verde Valley School has no current info on you.)

Edited February 16, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

George, like most libertarians, seems to prefer the politico-economico sphere so at the core he too is anti-philosophical.

This is a bizarre thing to say. Have you read any of my published books and articles? Most of them are pure philosophy. Moreover, political theory is a branch of philosophy. As for economics, I've published very little on that subject (though I've written quite a bit), but even economics must have a sound philosophical foundation.

Peter seems to be the kind of conservative Rand devolved to. In a real sense then, he's a Randian. George seems to be a pre-Objectivism Randian--or Atlas Shrugged without Galt's speech. So what we have is a turf war, essentially. I have to go with George on this one because he's a thinker but have to admire Peter manning the barricades of Randian sensibilities.

This is an insult to Ayn Rand. To quote passages from Ayn Rand instead of presenting arguments does not qualify as "manning the barricades of Randian sensibilities," whatever that may mean. I have been promoting Rand's ideas, in print and in lectures, for nearly 45 years now, and the fact that I disagree with her on a few points does not diminish my admiration for her. I have seen more people than I can remember turned off to Objectivism by blowhards like Peter, so -- please -- don't get my hackles up on this subject.

This is an anti-intellectual-intellectual battle and George is the intellectual, but he ironically has made too generous use of ad hominem out of defensiveness not properly understanding what was really going on regards the deeper ad hominem of Peter, also not properly understanding this.

I don't really know what this means, but would you care to cite just one example where I have used an ad hominem argument against Peter?

Also, you need to keep in mind that I have a history with Peter. When some A2ers wanted Peter booted off the list for being a troll, I spoke out in his defense. And I spent a lot of time presenting detailed arguments to him on Atlantis II, only to have them ignored, as Peter went into his usual routine. Why don't you engage Peter in a discussion about an issue you disagree on and see how that works out for you?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Well, George, your post 183 was a partial ad hominem against Peter and your 155 almost 100%. You seem to have missed my point that essentially he is almost 100% ad h. against you.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

George, it is one thing ro have written about phbilosophy from a to z, it's another to embrace a philosophy a to z.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Well, George, your post 183 was a partial ad hominem against Peter and your 155 almost 100%. You seem to have missed my point that essentially he is almost 100% ad h. against you.

--Brant

I asked you to identify even one ad hominem argument that I have ever used against Peter. So quit with the percentages and show me one.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

George, some Rand yes, some Rand no. If you are an Objectivist, say so. If not, is it just because you are an anarchist and she is not?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

George, as for engaging Peter I stopped most of my posting on AtlantisII some time ago and only read a small part of it now ever so often. For instance, I tried to find the actual post he threatened to kill you but couldn't, but since it was subsequently non-controversial by all and sundry, I took it for a given.

Sorry to have pissed you off, but I'd like to see how you or any libertarian can reconcile libertarianism with philosophy from metaphysics to epistemology to ethics to politics and can call it libertarianism and not Objectivism and why. All libertarianism is from all I've read over four decades now is politics-economics. Do you claim more than that? Then put it up! This for me is libertarianism: anything goes underneath the politico-economico surface. So you get left-wing libertarians and right-wing ones. Guess what? The left always comes out on top because they know what they are about in spite of any fools under its lying tent.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Well, George, your post 183 was a partial ad hominem against Peter and your 155 almost 100%. You seem to have missed my point that essentially he is almost 100% ad h. against you.

--Brant

I asked you to identify even one ad hominem argument that I have ever used against Peter. So quit with the percentages and show me one.

Ghs

A general ad hominem assault is not an ad h. argument?

He does the same to you, but deeper.

--Brant

Edited February 16, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

George, some Rand yes, some Rand no. If you are an Objectivist, say so. If not, is it just because you are an anarchist and she is not?

--Brant

I don't call myself an "Objectivist" largely out of respect for Rand, because she would not have approved of an anarchist using that label. I do sometimes refer to myself as a "Neo-Objectivist," however.

I also disagree with Rand on some other issues, but the philosophical disagreements are relatively minor, and many of the more serious ones pertain to her historical interpretations, especially in the history of philosophy. I also have some serious disgreements with her views on psychology.

I think Rand's best work by far was in ethics and epistemology, and I am pretty much a plumb-line Objectivist in those areas. Indeed, for the 16 years that I lectured on rights theory for IHS conferences (attended mainly by grad students), I strongly recommended "Man's Rights" as the best brief treatment of natural rights ever written. And I did this despite pressure from "above" not to mention Rand, because she was not academically respectable. I replied that I wasn't academically respectable either, and that I didn't give a shit about such matters. If Rand's arguments were good, then that's all that mattered to me. And I got my way.

I frankly don't trust people who claim to agree 100 percent with everything Rand said.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

George, I'm going to sleep on all this and I suggest you do the same, and will post more when I wake up and the markets close, etc.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Well, George, your post 183 was a partial ad hominem against Peter and your 155 almost 100%. You seem to have missed my point that essentially he is almost 100% ad h. against you.

--Brant

I asked you to identify even one ad hominem argument that I have ever used against Peter. So quit with the percentages and show me one.

Ghs

A general ad hominem assault is not an ad h. argument?

He does the same to you, but deeper.

--Brant

Calling someone a "bad" name is not an ad hominem argument. It may be an evaluation, a personal opinion, a fact of reality, etc. -- but it is not an argument of any kind.

When you lump all this, incorrectly, under the label "ad hominem," you imply that there is something inherently wrong, say, with calling someone a "fool." But there really are fools out there.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George, it is one thing ro have written about phbilosophy from a to z, it's another to embrace a philosophy a to z.

So if I don't embrace a given philosophy from A to Z, that makes me anti-philosophical "at the core"? Very strange. How about if I embrace the philosophy from A to Y? Would I still be anti-philosophical, but not quite so much?

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

Say, ninth doctor. Is that you in the video? I noticed a striking resemblence. Are you royalty and a real doctor?

Perter, I mean Pewter, no - Putter Taylor

You’ve got to be kidding…

Many veteran members of Atlantis II were convinced that Peter is a troll. I didn't think so early on, but now I'm not so sure. If his psychotic rants are intended seriously (see his latest topic thread for more examples), then the guy has some very serious problems.

In trying to understand Peter, I’m beginning to perceive three distinct possibilities, similar to the famous CS Lewis trilemma about Jesus (Mad, Bad, God; Lunatic, Liar, Lord). The Taylor Trillemma: Facetious, Piteous, Cretinous. Alternately: Droll, Dull, Troll. Yes, I believe these categories are mutually exclusive in Peter’s case, hence the Trillemma.

[Peter]

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- George S. Patton

George wrote:

I would like to write more, since I would dearly love to reinforce your illusion that your comments are worth responding to, but I need to work on my plans to destroy America. As for my model for an anarchistic society, I have one -- but the blueprints are top secret and can only be revealed to those who know the secret password.

End quote

Your writing is improving. I actually got a kick out of that.

Once again you produce zilch. You Phoney baloney. Other than your attachment to *anarchistic nothingness* you are pretty smart. Respectability isn’t bad George.

Fixing errors in Objectivism.

I always liked the phrase, found here on OL, of Looking at Objectivism Sideways. In other words, we all have a good *feel* for Objectivism. We usually *know* what she meant. Yet her words don’t quite measure up. We just need to understand her *intent.*

Her fictional Judge Narragansett would say, “What is the intent of the law?”

What was Ayn’s intent, when she attempted to fit this phrase into Objectivism? She did not write The Bible. so if she made an error we fix it. Many times she said her philosophy was contextual, so if within the context of what we now know we see she was incorrect we fix it. If she was clumsy in her phraseology we fix it. So if we are to expand Objectivism it must undergo peer review. And as a start, what better place to do it than here?

Then we just have to get Doctor Peikoff to sign off on it. Just Kidding!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

What was the main intent of the Founding Father’s when they wrote the Constitution? To protect individual rights. The fact that Judge Robert Bork, when nominated to the Supreme Court, did not understand this, set Rand off like a firecracker.

If we are talking about amending Objectivist Politics, we should include in that, fixing the US Constitution, because Ayn Rand read it, understood it, and thought the best way to guarantee individual rights was to amend the Constitution, not to do away with it.

We need a succinct rewrite of Objectivist Politics to prepare us for re-writing select portions of the Constitution, to more perfectly reflect reason, to extend its own longevity, and to more perfectly reflect the Founders’ intent, and to more perfectly align it with the flawed Political Philosophy we know as Objectivist Political Theory.

And of course, with Judge Narragansett in "Atlas Shrugged," and other implied or hinted at resolutions, we know John Galt and the other Atlanteans are coming to the rescue of the Federal Government. The reconstituted government will be limited to the preservation of individual rights, but the Atlanteans are going to utilize the existing Constitution of the United States of America.

From “Atlas Shrugged:”

The rectangle of light in the acres of a farm was the window of the library of Judge Narragansett. He sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . ."

I have always been intrigued by the fact that Rand crossed out several portions but only rewrote one small portion of the Constitution, (that we can explicitely see through her mind’s eye) and she ended the passage with dot, dot, dot. Remember the times were the 50’s, with commies, blacklisting, and a savage Cold War? She was being prudent.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

NOTES

P.T. Galt wrote back in 2001:

Regarding Rand and anarcho-capitalism, I consider the organization of Galt's Gulch to be relevant:

"We're not a state here, not a society of any kind--we're just a voluntary association of men held together by nothing but every man's self-interest." --Atlas Shrugged, p. 690 (35th Anniverery paperback edition). GG had the basic hallmarks of anarcho-capitalism--private arbitration (Judge Narraganset), private coining of currency (Midas Mulligan), "foreign policy" and defense conducted without centralized coercion (John Galt) and a free economy. It was also a deliberately-created colony whose members agreed on principles, as the first real A-C society will need to be. There was nothing in GG to forcibly prevent people from seeking out Hank Rearden or Francisco D'Anconia for arbitration instead of Judge Narraganset, or just settling their dispute themselves.

Of course GG wasn't exactly realistic, in that such complete harmony among people, even those with above-average rationality and explicit commitment thereto, is pretty close to impossible. The O'ist movement itself has demonstrated this empirically. Nonetheless, it represents Rand's ideal environment in which humans live together and engage in production and trade--and it was anarcho-capitalist in all but name.

End quote

From: "Peter Taylor" <solarwind47@hotmail.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Methodological Individualism and Reification.

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:18:12 GMT

George wrote:

"Peter, I have no desire to make an enemy of you. Perhaps we can start over."

OK. The patriotism I feel (and rationally think about) is the system of government described in the constitution. In "Atlas Shrugged" paperback version, page 1073, Ayn prudently wrote of the character Judge Narragansett acting in this way,

Quote:

The rectangle of light in the acres of a farm was the window of the library of Judge Narragansett. He sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . ."

End of quote

[Selene]

What was the main intent of the Founding Father's when they wrote the Constitution? To protect individual rights. The fact that Judge Robert Bork, when nominated to the Supreme Court, did not understand this, set Rand off like a firecracker.

Peter:

I am going to attempt, a final time, to try to have a debate with you. Towards that end, I am going to address point by point this last post.

Cite a source that supports your assertion that:

"...the main intent of the Founding Father's when they wrote the Constitution." was "To protect individual rights."

Adam

trying to ascertain whether we are going to be playing in Fenway Park or Yankee Stadium since Baltimore has no "professional" baseball teams playing in the league anymore [yes a cruel sports dig].

[George H. Smith]

If we are talking about amending Objectivist Politics, we should include in that, fixing the US Constitution, because Ayn Rand read it, understood it, and thought the best way to guarantee individual rights was to amend the Constitution, not to do away with it.

The best way to guarantee individual rights? Ayn Rand never said anything of the kind. I can understand in a way why you consistently misrepresent my views, but must you misrepresent Rand's as well?

We need a succinct rewrite of Objectivist Politics to prepare us for re-writing select portions of the Constitution, to more perfectly reflect reason, to extend its own longevity, and to more perfectly reflect the Founders’ intent, and to more perfectly align it with the flawed Political Philosophy we know as Objectivist Political Theory.

In what manner is Objectivist political theory "flawed"? I was under the impression that you thought it is perfect as is. Do you now intend to tinker with perfection, thereby attempting to destroy Objectivism -- and eventually America itself -- in the process?

As for who should rewrite the Constitution, I humbly nominate myself. I do this on the basis of a strong recommendation by that brilliant constitutional scholar, Peter Taylor. On 12/08/09, on Atlantis II, Peter wrote:

"Why don't you amend or write the Constitution, George? You are imminently qualified, and the original Constitution is only 17 pages long. If I had a million dollars I would commission you to do a rewrite."

I would rather think of myself as eminently qualified, especially since I haven't a clue what "imminently qualified" means, but I appreciate the endorsement. Let's see -- I think I'll begin with the Preamble so that it reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union without government...."

Hey, this should be fun -- and I only have 17 pages left to revise!

It is a long journey from being "imminently qualified" to rewrite to the Constitution to being an enemy of America who wishes to destroy the Constitution. Unbeknownst to me, my views must have changed a lot since last December. 8-)

Ghs