If you ever decided to leave the USA, where would you go?

[jriggenbach]

> I'm at a loss when it comes to figuring out what THE purpose of the thread is

1. You read the title and the first post.

2. You deduce that the thread is about where you would go if you left the USA.

3. You infer that posts on what Ronald Reagan did and whether or not he was the "worst U.S. President" and on whether or not Peter Taylor is a bad man and whether or not you are still nursing old wounds from past encounters with him are neither relevant, nor, in the second case, particularly mature.

Especially if you go on and on and on about them, repetitiously in the second case and if you simply make a series of flat, sweeping unsupported assertions in the first.

Sorry if that's too taxing for you. Try to keep up,

Phil

I can only look upon your towering intellect, overwhelming erudition, and precise writing with awe, Phil.

JR

[Peter]

Phil Coates wrote:

. . . Especially if you go on and on and on about them, repetitiously in the second case and if you simply make a series of flat, sweeping unsupported assertions in the first.

End quote

The man is a genius. I have praised George H. Smith for his writing abilities and insight in the past, and I must also praise Phil. I would love to see an article or a book about Ayn Rand’s characters written by Mr. Coates.

Now don’t you bother yourself Phil. Let me go on and on to the rascals, with some sweeping assertions. Take this you varmints!

At the top of the intellectual pyramid sits Ayn Rand who contributes the most to all us below her, but she receives no intellectual bonus from Libertarians and Anarchists, though she does from her adherents, like Phil Coates, who also inhabits this site, and builds on her philosophy. Thank you, Alisa Rosenbaum, for creating Ayn Rand. Thank you Michael and Kat for creating Objectivist Living.

The Anarchist and Left Libertarians bleat faint attribution to Objectivism. And their diluted praise is no payment at all, because an evil sits at the end of their road. It is an evil that taints her philosophy by association. It always has and will stink the air, because the perpetrators always fail to check their premises. They may never change.

Do they really believe in living objectively, or are they caught in some psychological loop of causality? She deserves so much more than to have her reasoning branch off into a grotesque schism in her philosophy. That schism is growing in the stagnant swamp of nihilism. That schism, if successful, will inevitably end in tribalism, gang warfare or some other variant of totalitarianism.

You damn Irrational-ists. Your argument is with Ayn. She was able to name the consequences of your flawed thinking, in a few paragraphs and she never had another word to say to you, because what you say was worthless to her. She despised and shunned you, but apparently her disgust never affects you to this day. She never, ever, had another word to say to you, for Pete’s sake. Perhaps you should leave her and Lady Liberty alone, and as this thread suggests, go somewhere else. No tears will be shed.

To say that your thinking is worthless is not psychologizing. Taking the mature vision of your greatest exemplar, Murray Rothbard is not psychologizing. It proves for you Anarchists and Left Libertarians, that the end of your path is evil. Your twisted thinking will inevitably lead to some variation of Rothbard-ian or Nietzsche-an insanity. And isn’t it fitting that Rothbard was a Left Libertarian and an Anarchist, combining the worse with the worst?

Once more let me quote something found in the Peter Schwartz article, “Libertarianism, the Perversion of Liberty.” It is a quote from Murray Rothbard who wrote it, in: “For a New Liberty.”

Rothbard wrote:

Taking the twentieth century as a whole, the single most warlike, most interventionist, most imperialistic government has been the United States . . . . Lenin and his fellow Bolsheviks adopted the theory of “peaceful coexistence” as the basic foreign policy of a communist state. The idea was this: as the first successful communist movement, Soviet Russia would serve as a beacon for, and supporter of other communist parties throughout the world.

But the Soviet state qua state would devote itself to peaceful relations with all other countries, and would not attempt to export communism through interstate warfare . . . . Thus, fortuitously, from a mixture of theoretical and practical grounds of their own, the Soviets arrived early at what Libertarians consider the only proper and principled foreign policy . . . . Increasing conservatism under Stalin and his successors strengthened and reinforced the non-aggressive, “peaceful existence” policy.”

End quote

That is such vile crap. It needs to be exposed to sunlight again and again. Maybe you Anarchist and Left Libertarians should read it again, and plug in a variation on your theme of dystopia. Those will hopefully be your final thoughts here. We are back where we started. So, where will you go and will you please leave soon?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

I don't think I know any "Right" libertarians. I think, for reasons Jeff Riggenbach presented in his recent book, all libertarians are true heirs of the Left -- and most on the so called Left have become either heirs to the Right or have grafted Left ideals (i.e., reason, freedom, social progress) onto Right means (i.e., force).

The qualifiers "left" and "right" can be misleading when applied to schools of anarchistic thought. The Rothbardian style of anarchism, which stresses natural rights and private property, is more properly described as "right," whereas "left anarchism" usually refers to the communistic anarchism of Bakunin, Kropotkin, and others. It was owing to Sam Konkin that Rothbardian anarchism has been called "left anarchism." I had many conversations with Sam about his nomenclature, and I believe he embraced the label as much for strategic reasons as anything else. Historically considered, the label doesn't make a lot of sense.

A better label than "right anarchism" is "individualist anarchism." But even this label has its problems, since it was adopted by the nineteenth century American followers of Proudhon, such as Benjamin Tucker. The Tuckerites were a strange breed; working from a labor theory of value and an occupancy theory of land ownership, they defended private property while opposing things like interest and rent.

If not for the modern corruption of the term "liberal," I would opt for the label "liberal anarchists" to describe modern Rothbardians. This tradition is rooted in the natural-rights classical liberalism of John Locke and others, not in the American Left of the 1960s or any other time. It is the radical wing of the Lockean tradition.

Ghs

[dan2100]

I don't think I know any "Right" libertarians. I think, for reasons Jeff Riggenbach presented in his recent book, all libertarians are true heirs of the Left -- and most on the so called Left have become either heirs to the Right or have grafted Left ideals (i.e., reason, freedom, social progress) onto Right means (i.e., force).

The qualifiers "left" and "right" can be misleading when applied to schools of anarchistic thought. The Rothbardian style of anarchism, which stresses natural rights and private property, is more properly described as "right," whereas "left anarchism" usually refers to the communistic anarchism of Bakunin, Kropotkin, and others. It was owing to Sam Konkin that Rothbardian anarchism has been called "left anarchism." I had many conversations with Sam about his nomenclature, and I believe he embraced the label as much for strategic reasons as anything else. Historically considered, the label doesn't make a lot of sense.

A better label than "right anarchism" is "individualist anarchism." But even this label has its problems, since it was adopted by the nineteenth century American followers of Proudhon, such as Benjamin Tucker. The Tuckerites were a strange breed; working from a labor theory of value and an occupancy theory of land ownership, they defended private property while opposing things like interest and rent.

If not for the modern corruption of the term "liberal," I would opt for the label "liberal anarchists" to describe modern Rothbardians. This tradition is rooted in the natural-rights classical liberalism of John Locke and others, not in the American Left of the 1960s or any other time. It is the radical wing of the Lockean tradition.

Ghs

I can understand this, though I do think there are more affinities, of the sort Spencer and Jeff Riggenbach mention, between the 19th century or 18th century Left and modern libertarians -- at least, consistent anarchist ones -- than there are between the latter and the Right. Following Spencer and Riggenbach here, it looks more to me like the liberals and Left gave up their basically libertarian leanings -- which I think Tucker shares, but, like you, I think he and many of his seconds are strange and probably not thinking through things clearly -- and adopting Right tactics. While this happened -- again, taking a page or two from Spencer and Riggenbach -- some of the more consistently libertarian folks on the Left made a sort of faustian pact with the Right. And this is why I believe many libertarians (and Objectivists fall under this) think they're children or allies of the Right and that the Right is, somehow, where the camp they must win over to change society.

Here I'm not relying on affinities with the American Left of the 1960s, though I do think, from my readings and talking to people from that era, that there were some libertarian currents in their thinking. But, like most historical movements, it seems a mixed bag...

I wonder, though, this is a typical pattern. A pro-freedom or anti-authoritarian movement arises and when it starts to gain some traction it's co-opted by statists. This would seem to fit in with notion of cycling of elites somehow. Opposition elites might adopt libertarian rhetoric and co-opt more or less libertarian movements. You've read more on this than me, so do you think this has any merit?

[dan2100]

At the top of the intellectual pyramid sits Ayn Rand who contributes the most to all us below her, but she receives no intellectual bonus from Libertarians and Anarchists, though she does from her adherents, like Phil Coates, who also inhabits this site, and builds on her philosophy. Thank you, Alisa Rosenbaum, for creating Ayn Rand. Thank you Michael and Kat for creating Objectivist Living.

The Anarchist and Left Libertarians bleat faint attribution to Objectivism. And their diluted praise is no payment at all, because an evil sits at the end of their road. It is an evil that taints her philosophy by association. It always has and will stink the air, because the perpetrators always fail to check their premises. They may never change.

Do they really believe in living objectively, or are they caught in some psychological loop of causality? She deserves so much more than to have her reasoning branch off into a grotesque schism in her philosophy. That schism is growing in the stagnant swamp of nihilism. That schism, if successful, will inevitably end in tribalism, gang warfare or some other variant of totalitarianism.

You damn Irrational-ists. Your argument is with Ayn. She was able to name the consequences of your flawed thinking, in a few paragraphs and she never had another word to say to you, because what you say was worthless to her. She despised and shunned you, but apparently her disgust never affects you to this day. She never, ever, had another word to say to you, for Pete's sake. Perhaps you should leave her and Lady Liberty alone, and as this thread suggests, go somewhere else. No tears will be shed.

To say that your thinking is worthless is not psychologizing. Taking the mature vision of your greatest exemplar, Murray Rothbard is not psychologizing. It proves for you Anarchists and Left Libertarians, that the end of your path is evil. Your twisted thinking will inevitably lead to some variation of Rothbard-ian or Nietzsche-an insanity. And isn't it fitting that Rothbard was a Left Libertarian and an Anarchist, combining the worse with the worst?

Once more let me quote something found in the Peter Schwartz article, "Libertarianism, the Perversion of Liberty." It is a quote from Murray Rothbard who wrote it, in: "For a New Liberty."

Rothbard wrote:

Taking the twentieth century as a whole, the single most warlike, most interventionist, most imperialistic government has been the United States . . . . Lenin and his fellow Bolsheviks adopted the theory of "peaceful coexistence" as the basic foreign policy of a communist state. The idea was this: as the first successful communist movement, Soviet Russia would serve as a beacon for, and supporter of other communist parties throughout the world.

But the Soviet state qua state would devote itself to peaceful relations with all other countries, and would not attempt to export communism through interstate warfare . . . . Thus, fortuitously, from a mixture of theoretical and practical grounds of their own, the Soviets arrived early at what Libertarians consider the only proper and principled foreign policy . . . . Increasing conservatism under Stalin and his successors strengthened and reinforced the non-aggressive, "peaceful existence" policy."

End quote

That is such vile crap. It needs to be exposed to sunlight again and again. Maybe you Anarchist and Left Libertarians should read it again, and plug in a variation on your theme of dystopia. Those will hopefully be your final thoughts here. We are back where we started. So, where will you go and will you please leave soon?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

No proof. No reasoning. Just ranting away again. I was hoping Peter Taylor might actually read the arguments for libertarian anarchism rather than quote from Peter Schwartz. Has Taylor even bothered to read the Rothbard book Schwartz quotes?

Also, does Taylor understand that to accept libertarian anarchism does not mean assenting to everything any particular libertarian anarchist wrote, including Rothbard? (This is no different than to accept Objectivism does not assenting to everything Rand, Branden, Peikoff, Kelley, etc. wrote or said.) I'm guessing here that as Taylor has never presented any reasoned argument against libertarian anarchism, he doesn't understand this or doesn't want to. Or as Taylor tells us, "Those will hopefully be [his] final thoughts here. We are back where we started. So, where will [he] go and will [he] please leave soon?"

[Peter]

George H. Smith wrote:

The qualifiers "left" and "right" can be misleading when applied to schools of anarchistic thought.

End quote

I stand corrected George.

So you expect to be paid to write a book and not be paid just by sales?

In Jennifer Burn’s book, “Goddess of the Market,” it says she took eight years to write it, and I can’t find the quote but she was apparently being paid to write. She also received help form ARI and its archives.

However, “. . . Discrepancies between Rand’s published journals and archival matererials were first publicized by the Rand scholar Chris Sciabarra, who noticed differences between The Journals of Ayn Rand (1999) and brief excerpts published earlier in The Intellectual Activist. After several years working in Rand’s personal papers I can confirm Sciabbara’s discovery: the published versions of Rand’s letters and diaries have been significantly edited in ways that drastically reduce their utilitary as historical sources.”

End quote

It would be tough to get admittance to the archives with Peter Schwartz standing guard, if you were The Well Known Rational Anarchist.

And Ayn was also paid to write by publishing houses. Alas I don’t have that kind of money. It is nice to wonder what it would be like if I had Rush’s dough. If I were him I would start a PAC and raise a billion dollars. And hire you for at least a half a dozen projects.

Burn’s also quotes The National Review’s obituary of Ayn Rand by William F. Buckley Jr.:

“Ayn Rand is dead. So, incidentally is the philosophy she sought to launch dead; it died stillborn.”

End quote

What a creep. Was he ever wrong! George we need you to expand Objectivism.

And Dan I am afraid to go to that site you recommend. I might pick up a virus.

And one more thing Dan, can you please find an emotican sticking its tongue out at me? That would charge my batteries to write another diatribe and make me feel better too.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[dan2100]

And Dan I am afraid to go to that site you recommend. I might pick up a virus.

I lit a candle, but Peter Taylor prefers to curse the darkness, what more is to be said?

It's strange to have to try to persuade someone, who supposedly admires Rand, to keep context. Anyone else notice this?

Edited April 19, 2010 by Dan Ust

[George H. Smith]

If not for the modern corruption of the term "liberal," I would opt for the label "liberal anarchists" to describe modern Rothbardians. This tradition is rooted in the natural-rights classical liberalism of John Locke and others, not in the American Left of the 1960s or any other time. It is the radical wing of the Lockean tradition.

I can understand this, though I do think there are more affinities, of the sort Spencer and Jeff Riggenbach mention, between the 19th century or 18th century Left and modern libertarians -- at least, consistent anarchist ones -- than there are between the latter and the Right.

I don't recall that Spencer ever said anything like this. He spoke of the Whig and Tory traditions, and he sometimes drew a distinction between liberals and paternalists (or conservatives). But he never discussed consistent anarchists and their affinity with the "left" of the 18th and 19th centuries. Left and Right were not part of Spencer's political vocabulary, so far as I can recall, nor did he discuss the history of anarchism. Spencer was never an anarchist.

Following Spencer and Riggenbach here, it looks more to me like the liberals and Left gave up their basically libertarian leanings -- which I think Tucker shares, but, like you, I think he and many of his seconds are strange and probably not thinking through things clearly -- and adopting Right tactics. While this happened -- again, taking a page or two from Spencer and Riggenbach -- some of the more consistently libertarian folks on the Left made a sort of faustian pact with the Right. And this is why I believe many libertarians (and Objectivists fall under this) think they're children or allies of the Right and that the Right is, somehow, where the camp they must win over to change society.

I'm afraid I can't follow much of this. In traditional American political typology, the Left was viewed as consisting of socialists and other big-government types, so they had few liberal leanings to give up. I simply don't know what you mean by "the more consistently libertarian folks on the Left." Even Rothbard acknowledged his roots in the "Old Right."

Ghs

[dan2100]

If not for the modern corruption of the term "liberal," I would opt for the label "liberal anarchists" to describe modern Rothbardians. This tradition is rooted in the natural-rights classical liberalism of John Locke and others, not in the American Left of the 1960s or any other time. It is the radical wing of the Lockean tradition.

I can understand this, though I do think there are more affinities, of the sort Spencer and Jeff Riggenbach mention, between the 19th century or 18th century Left and modern libertarians -- at least, consistent anarchist ones -- than there are between the latter and the Right.

I don't recall that Spencer ever said anything like this. He spoke of the Whig and Tory traditions, and he sometimes drew a distinction between liberals and paternalists (or conservatives).

I think you're right here. i was thinking of Spencer's essay "The New Toryism," where what he's talking about is how liberalism during his lifetime had changed from a pretty much libertarian (not his term) to a basically statist (not his term either) movement -- and also how true liberals had made common cause with the Tories. I was mapping this into Jeff's view here, but it does seem to fit.

But he never discussed consistent anarchists and their affinity with the "left" of the 18th and 19th centuries. Left and Right were not part of Spencer's political vocabulary, so far as I can recall, nor did he discuss the history of anarchism. Spencer was never an anarchist.

I thought he did flirt with anarchism at one point or that, at least, some of his views would lead to this, such as his view, in an edition of one of his books, where he had a section on ignoring the state. (I believe he changed this in latter editions.)

Following Spencer and Riggenbach here, it looks more to me like the liberals and Left gave up their basically libertarian leanings -- which I think Tucker shares, but, like you, I think he and many of his seconds are strange and probably not thinking through things clearly -- and adopting Right tactics. While this happened -- again, taking a page or two from Spencer and Riggenbach -- some of the more consistently libertarian folks on the Left made a sort of faustian pact with the Right. And this is why I believe many libertarians (and Objectivists fall under this) think they're children or allies of the Right and that the Right is, somehow, where the camp they must win over to change society.

I'm afraid I can't follow much of this. In traditional American political typology, the Left was viewed as consisting of socialists and other big-government types, so they had few liberal leanings to give up. I simply don't know what you mean by "the more consistently libertarian folks on the Left." Even Rothbard acknowledged his roots in the "Old Right."

What about if we go back to the 18^th and 19^th centuries?

[George H. Smith]

I don't recall that Spencer ever said anything like this. He spoke of the Whig and Tory traditions, and he sometimes drew a distinction between liberals and paternalists (or conservatives).

I think you're right here. i was thinking of Spencer's essay "The New Toryism," where what he's talking about is how liberalism during his lifetime had changed from a pretty much libertarian (not his term) to a basically statist (not his term either) movement -- and also how true liberals had made common cause with the Tories. I was mapping this into Jeff's view here, but it does seem to fit.

Spencer's point was not that liberalism had changed, but that the label "liberal" had been co-opted by paternalists who were essentially Tories in disguise. According to Spencer. the "new liberalism" was not based on "true liberalism" at all; the label was deceptive packaging, in effect. He never said that true liberals had allied themselves with the Tories. His point was that a new brand of Tories were now calling themselves "new liberals."

I thought he did flirt with anarchism at one point or that, at least, some of his views would lead to this, such as his view, in an edition of one of his books, where he had a section on ignoring the state. (I believe he changed this in latter editions.)

To say that Spencer flirted with anarchism in his early work is not really accurate. The book you refer to is Social Statics (1851), his first book. The first edition of this contains a chapter titled "The Right to Ignore the State," which is actually a plea for the consistent application of consent theory, not a defense of anarchism. Although many critics of consent theory, going back as far as Locke, claimed that consent theory, consistently applied, will logically lead to anarchism, this was not Spencer's point. (As the 18th century critic Josiah Tucker put it, consent theory "is the universal demolisher of all governments, but not the builder of any.")

Moreover, at the conclusion of "The Right to Ignore the State," Spencer states that the ideas contained in that chapter would not apply for a long time to come -- only after society had evolved to a higher degree of perfection.

In Social Statics as in his later books, Spencer defended what he regarded as the proper functions of government, which are the same as those defended by Ayn Rand and others in the classical liberal tradition.

Spencer omitted "The Right to Ignore the State" in a later abridged edition of Social Statics, but he omitted a couple other chapters as well. He later characterized the material in those deleted chapters as part of his "juvenile radicalism." He was clearly concerned about the radical implications of those ideas, especially since some had been picked up and used by anarchists in America, and by the voluntaryist Auberon Herbert --an advocate of "voluntary taxation" -- in England.

There is more to this story, but those are the basics, as I understand them.

Ghs

[Peter]

Dan wrote:

I lit a candle, but Peter Taylor prefers to curse the darkness, what more is to be said? It's strange to have to try to persuade someone who supposedly praises Rand to keep context. Anyone else notice this?

End quote

I have. Oh, listen. Seventy six trombones lead the big parade. . . .You’ve got to know the territory! Sometimes I forget who said what, but . . . damn, a raccoon is eating the dog’s food. Come look! . . . like when I said you looked like Nomi but I meant the other guy and when I said you looked like a hobbit, when I meant you looked like one of the Elfen people, which you must admit, is an improvement, and not a slur at all.

Ghs wrote:

To say that Spencer flirted with anarchism in his early work is not really accurate. The book you refer to is Social Statics (1851), his first book. The first edition of this contains a chapter titled "The Right to Ignore the State," which is actually a plea for the consistent application of consent theory, not a defense of anarchism. Although many critics of consent theory, going back as far a Locke, claimed that consent theory, consistently applied, will logically lead to anarchism, this was not Spencer's point. (As the 18th century critic Josiah Tucker put it, consent theory "is the universal demolisher of all governments, but not the builder of any.")

What were you saying? Oh yeah the first edition. How do you know all this stuff George? Are you one of those know-it-alls who reads books?

Book,em Dan’l.

Peter the Elder, and getting elder.

[dan2100]

I don't recall that Spencer ever said anything like this. He spoke of the Whig and Tory traditions, and he sometimes drew a distinction between liberals and paternalists (or conservatives).

I think you're right here. i was thinking of Spencer's essay "The New Toryism," where what he's talking about is how liberalism during his lifetime had changed from a pretty much libertarian (not his term) to a basically statist (not his term either) movement -- and also how true liberals had made common cause with the Tories. I was mapping this into Jeff's view here, but it does seem to fit.

Spencer's point was not that liberalism had changed, but that the label "liberal" had been co-opted by paternalists who were essentially Tories in diguise. According to Spencer. the "new liberalism" was not based on "true liberalism" at all; the label was deceptive packaging, in effect. He never said that true liberals had allied themselves with the Tories. His point was that a new brand of Tories were now calling themselves "new liberals."

Quick comment: Yes, I was wrong to say liberalism had changed. Instead, George is correct to point out the label had been "co-opted by paternalists who were essentially Tories in diguise." I'll have to re-read his essay regarding the "new liberals."

Edited April 19, 2010 by Dan Ust

[dan2100]

Dan wrote:

I lit a candle, but Peter Taylor prefers to curse the darkness, what more is to be said? It's strange to have to try to persuade someone who supposedly praises Rand to keep context. Anyone else notice this?

End quote

I have. Oh, listen. Seventy six trombones lead the big parade. . . .You've got to know the territory! Sometimes I forget who said what, but . . . damn, a raccoon is eating the dog's food. Come look! . . . like when I said you looked like Nomi but I meant the other guy and when I said you looked like a hobbit, when I meant you looked like one of the Elfen people, which you must admit, is an improvement, and not a slur at all.

I submit, Peter Taylor won't even bother trying to get to know the territory -- that territory here being not what someone else wrote about Rothbard, but what Rothbard actually wrote in his For a New Liberty.

As expected, too, when confronted on a specific issue where his ignorance is undeniable, Taylor retreats into silliness.

[algernonsidney]

As expected, too, when confronted on a specific issue where his ignorance is undeniable, Taylor retreats into silliness.

The important thing is that he is able to count to ten. He can also spell out the words.

[anthony]

As expected, too, when confronted on a specific issue where his ignorance is undeniable, Taylor retreats into silliness.

The important thing is that he is able to count to ten. He can also spell out the words.

"Ignorance", I don't think so - "silliness", sometimes.

I feel it is an advantage sometimes to be the Outsider, to come to the party unknowing of backgrounds and 'history' of O'ist posters.

Part of the fun and interest on forums is evaluating posters as individual human beings. (And if I burn in Objectivist hell for psychologizing, so be it.)

It seems to me that Peter is quirky, eccentric, and circular - often. He does have definite and informed opinions (like all of us to one degree or other), but chooses to hide them, mostly, under a mischievous cover.

However, there is a razor-sharp intellect lurking there, when he wants to get to the point.

Here, one gets the incredibly powerful and assertive minds; the combative ones; the preachy types (like myself) ; and, rarely, the retiring, gentler, Taylor types.

Ultimately, a mixed bag of individualists, most of whom I guess are seeking a little bit of acknowledgement, and engagement.

(Egoists, all; with just the occasional slide into egotism.)

Great stuff!

Tony

[dan2100]

As expected, too, when confronted on a specific issue where his ignorance is undeniable, Taylor retreats into silliness.

The important thing is that he is able to count to ten. He can also spell out the words.

"Ignorance", I don't think so - "silliness", sometimes.

I feel it is an advantage sometimes to be the Outsider, to come to the party unknowing of backgrounds and 'history' of O'ist posters.

I don't want to dwell too much on Peter Taylor, but I used ignorance here because he made or quoted specific statements bashing Murray Rothbard based on quotes he got from Peter Schwartz, a critic of Rothbard, and then, when I gave him an easy means to check these statements (namely, Rothbard's book where you can read the quotes in context), he wouldn't bother to do so. Add to this, he's had the opportunity to check these statements for years now. He's never done so and shown no inclination to understand Rothbard. He prefers, it seems, to stick with Schwartz's view here and do so in complete ignorance of Rothbard's actual writings. If that's not an example of willful ignorance to you, then I'm not sure what would qualify.

Also, this sort of thing, at least on this particular subject -- though there's a pattern here in his behavior -- would not, in my view, lead a reasonable person to believe he's has "informed opinions." After all, he's avoiding being informed here. And to inform his opinion, he'd have to start by reading Rothbard's book -- whether he gets it from a free download or gets a treeware version. He's simply not interested in doing so. This is not, by my reckoning, how people going about informing their opinions. It is, however, the tactic of the partisan -- someone who is more interested in scoring points than in holding informed opinions. Or, to be charitable, if his opinions are informed, he's sure good at hiding that.

Finally, I've had much online experience with Taylor. His typical method is to make some statement about someone or some idea, not back it up, and when called on it to retreat into some sort of patronizing, joking posture. (To be fair, he's not the worst case of this, but it's a consistent pattern I've noticed with him.)

[algernonsidney]

Add to this, he's had the opportunity to check these statements for years now. He's never done so and shown no inclination to understand Rothbard. He prefers, it seems, to stick with Schwartz's view here and do so in complete ignorance of Rothbard's actual writings. If that's not an example of willful ignorance to you, then I'm not sure what would qualify.

I think all of Rothbard's work is available on-line now. It's all at the web site of the Mises Institute. ARI might consider doing something like this with Rand--they won't though. People are generally quite busy, so I don't always expect them to pick up every book in the world. Still, this stuff is pretty easy to find.

For a philosophy that talks so much about rationality and complains so much about "whim worshippers," it is certainly easy to find plenty of people who engage in whim worshipping. People like this feel something, then they look for evidence to support it. Often the "evidence" comes from people who act the same way. They also block out anything that might contradict their whims.

[dan2100]

Add to this, he's had the opportunity to check these statements for years now. He's never done so and shown no inclination to understand Rothbard. He prefers, it seems, to stick with Schwartz's view here and do so in complete ignorance of Rothbard's actual writings. If that's not an example of willful ignorance to you, then I'm not sure what would qualify.

I think all of Rothbard's work is available on-line now. It's all at the web site of the Mises Institute. ARI might consider doing something like this with Rand--they won't though. People are generally quite busy, so I don't always expect them to pick up every book in the world. Still, this stuff is pretty easy to find.

If you're going to attack a person or condemn a whole movement based on an article that quotes from book, I'd expect you to read that book. Well, I'd expect that from any reasonable person -- one who actually aspires to hold an informed opinion on the subject. The last thing I'd expect from such a person is for them never to even want to read the book and to continued sallying forth as if he had all the knowledge necessary to hold that opinion.

(Also, the person we're discussing, busy as he might be, certainly has time to read and quote Schwartz again and again over the years. It takes an act of willful ignorance, in my view, to maintain such over years.)

Rothbard's For a New Liberty is available for free at:

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

For a philosophy that talks so much about rationality and complains so much about "whim worshippers," it is certainly easy to find plenty of people who engage in whim worshipping. People like this feel something, then they look for evidence to support it. Often the "evidence" comes from people who act the same way. They also block out anything that might contradict their whims.

And so it seems.

And here I'm not focusing on a single act -- as I believe most people slip up and make wrong moves now and then. (I know I do.) I'm talking about a pattern or habit that seems to tell us much about a particular person's character rather than a minor error that might be overlooked. (Of course, such habits can be broken. The person we're discussing could start trying to break it by actually bothering to read Rothbard's book.)

[Peter]

whYNOT wrote:

"Ignorance", I don't think so - "silliness", sometimes. I feel it is an advantage sometimes to be the Outsider, to come to the party unknowing of backgrounds and 'history' of O'ist posters . . . It seems to me that Peter is quirky, eccentric, and circular - often.

End quote

I have fun, Tony. I like to share a few laughs while I tweak True Believers. Have you noticed they have no sense of humor?

Tony wrote:

However, there is a razor-sharp intellect lurking there, when he wants to get to the point.

end quote

Thank you, Tony. Say hi to your mom for me. Naw, let me do it: "Hi Sis. You raised a great boy. I’ve already picked out all your Christmas presents from the Neiman Marcus Catalogue."

Tony, I think your writing is great too.

Uncle Peter

Edited April 21, 2010 by Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Dan Ust wrote:

I submit, Peter Taylor won't even bother trying to get to know the territory -- that territory here being not what someone else wrote about Rothbard, but what Rothbard actually wrote in his For a New Liberty . . . As expected, too, when confronted on a specific issue where his ignorance is undeniable, Taylor retreats into silliness.

End quote

I have been incommunicado due to my own intentions and then an outage at Mediacom, my internet service. I have suggested to them that they put their cable underground, but they have it up there with the electric lines and every time someone hits a telephone pole on the busy beach access roads, wham, there goes my internet. “Sorry about that deer jumping in front of your car, sir, but now you need to answer to the cable company.”

Dan, when you say my ignorance is undeniable, you are saying I don’t know much about “nothing” because Anarchism is nothing. Why should I study Christianity, Numerology, the Roman Gods, or Islam? They are all about nothing. You must have “faith” in them first, or you are wasting your time, and it is the same with Anarchism. I won’t read Rothbard about nothing. I will not have a revelation about nothing. I try to not be sarcastic when I speak to you or George, when you suggest I read this or that, but to me it is honestly like any of those other Keepers of Odd Knowledge (Kooks) asking me to read their “sacred texts.”

One needs faith that somehow, somewhere, some-when, SOMEWOW ! ! ! a planned anarchic territory will be created. It won’t happen any more than a planned Objectivist territory will be created (which is your constant rebuttal . . . unless it is right here in America. Not anarchy, or Galt’s Gulch or Atlantis, but still something wonderful, so please read on.)

A do nothing President has at least one latter day precedent, Calvin Coolidge who said:

"The chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing, and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life."

End quote.

We have a constitution, and a tradition of exceptionalism and freedom.

The difference in a non existent anarchism, and a non existent Objectivist Government is that limited government is a reality. It has happened. I do NOT disagree with you that it has expanded. Planned Anarchy has not happened. It is a phantasy, a religion, and a true faith. To compound the outrage, that Ayn felt towards you “Religious Anarchists,” is that you have an agenda. And your agenda may be like the mafia’s, which is your ideal, or like some small “c” communistic commune. But the essential point and the essential goal of your agenda is the destruction of The United States of America - if you were serious.

George explored the terms, Left, Right, and Individualist as regards Anarchism, and then he wrote:

If not for the modern corruption of the term "liberal," I would opt for the label "liberal anarchists" to describe modern Rothbardians. This tradition is rooted in the natural-rights classical liberalism of John Locke and others, not in the American Left of the 1960s or any other time. It is the radical wing of the Lockean tradition.

End quote

To me and Objectivists like Rand, Peikoff, and Schwarz that is like saying:

If not for the modern corruption of the term "liberal," I would opt for the label "liberal alien influenced architecture" to describe the modern alien abductee - architect. This tradition is rooted in the night sky visions and classical nostradamian speculations of the character John Locke on the show “Lost,” and others, not in the Left leaning Roswell abductee –architect experience of the early fifties. It is the kitchenette, radical wing of the Lockean tradition of abductee architecture to which I BELIEVE.

Oy vey. Am I talking to a sentient being? You are a “true believer!” Stop the insanity. Join the Secular Movement.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[dan2100]

Dan Ust wrote:

I submit, Peter Taylor won't even bother trying to get to know the territory -- that territory here being not what someone else wrote about Rothbard, but what Rothbard actually wrote in his For a New Liberty . . . As expected, too, when confronted on a specific issue where his ignorance is undeniable, Taylor retreats into silliness.

End quote

I have been incommunicado due to my own intentions and then an outage at Mediacom, my internet service. I have suggested to them that they put their cable underground, but they have it up there with the electric lines and every time someone hits a telephone pole on the busy beach access roads, wham, there goes my internet. "Sorry about that deer jumping in front of your car, sir, but now you need to answer to the cable company."

Dan, when you say my ignorance is undeniable, you are saying I don't know much about "nothing" because Anarchism is nothing. Why should I study Christianity, Numerology, the Roman Gods, or Islam? They are all about nothing. You must have "faith" in them first, or you are wasting your time, and it is the same with Anarchism. I won't read Rothbard about nothing. I will not have a revelation about nothing. I try to not be sarcastic when I speak to you or George, when you suggest I read this or that, but to me it is honestly like any of those other Keepers of Odd Knowledge (Kooks) asking me to read their "sacred texts."

This is strange because the issue was not anarchism and its ontological status, but what Rothbard wrote -- specifically the context of passages from one of Rothbard's book as quoted by Peter Schwartz. If Peter Taylor is going to have an informed opinion on what Rothbard wrote -- and "informed opinion" here does not mean agreeing with Rothbard, but understanding what he write and its significance -- then how can avoid reading Rothbard's book -- or, at least, those parts of it relating to Schwartz's essay. If he's unwilling to do this, then he should at least admit his ignorance is willful.

Let me put this even more clearly, though I'm sure Taylor will ignore it and keep practicing his head-in-the-sands approach to political philosophy: Schwartz makes certain claims about libertarians. He backs these claims by quoting from Rothbard. Taylor quotes Schwartz and similarly condemns libertarians based on the same quotes and draw further conclusions about Rothbard and libertarians. When asked to examine the original context that Schwartz quoted from, Taylor cares not to. He then goes on a tear listing all the reasons why being a metaphorical ostrich is the highest state anyone should ever aspire to. After all, Schwartz has already told him what to believe. It's funny how he calls those who question his stance here "Kooks" and compares them to religious believers.

If ignorance were strength, Taylor would be with peer.

[Peter]

Dan Ust wrote:

If ignorance were strength, Taylor would be with peer.

End quote.

Did you mean “without peer,” Ust, or were you actually overachieving? If you actually meant to say, “with peer,” Congratulations, Mr. Potato Chip! I would gladly wish to be a peer with Peter Schwartz, Leonard Peikoff, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, (and continuing with some local OL talent) Phil Coates, Peter Reidy, Christopher Lipp, David Lee, and others (sorry if I left off other Objectivist’s names): I think they are all Objectivists who profess to be O’ists. (Roger Bissell is a special case 8-)

Who cares what Rothbard wrote, other than his fellow KOOKs? Have I struck a crack in your armor? You don’t seem quite as enthusiastic with your memorized condemnations.

Planned Anarchism is a farce, without referent in reality. It would immediately lead to gangs, and/or charismatic leaders, and “might makes right.” Free Range Anarchy, or that anarchy which occurs when there is a migration to lawless territories, or a breakdown in government, always evolves into “something else.” ALWAYS! There has never been a planned anarchy.

If a planned Anarchist territory were to be established it would need to be homogeneous, and agrarian / mercantile while it lasted, (not Capitalist which requires multi-generational contracts upheld by law). A planned Anarchy would last until the first Attila took over, or until the first generation of teenagers, with their rebellion and secret societies, came of age.

Bull Crap Dan. You are a true believer . . . in . . . *nothing.* I will always effortlessly win this argument because I am right. And you are wrong. Throw off your mysticism, Dan. Handle the truth.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Edited April 22, 2010 by Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

"The difference in a non existent anarchism, and a non existent Objectivist Government is that limited government is a reality. It has happened."

When has the ideal limited government advocated by Ayn Rand -- i.e., a government without the power of coercive taxation, a government that gets its money from lotteries and through other voluntary methods -- ever "happened"? Never, that's when. Never has and never will, because for a government to surrender the power to tax would be to surrender its very lifeblood and its ability to maintain a coercive monopoly. The end of taxation is the beginning of an anarchistic society.

To compound the outrage, that Ayn felt towards you “Religious Anarchists,” is that you have an agenda. And your agenda may be like the mafia’s, which is your ideal, or like some small “c” communistic commune. But the essential point and the essential goal of your agenda is the destruction of The United States of America - if you were serious.

The United States as we know it today could not exist without the power to tax. I assume you agree with Rand that this power is unjust in principle and that it should eventually be abolished. So why do you advocate the eventual "destruction" of the United States of America, Peter? Why are you a traitor -- and a hypocrite to boot, professing to love the selfsame country that you seek to undermine?

George explored the terms, Left, Right, and Individualist as regards Anarchism, and then he wrote:

If not for the modern corruption of the term "liberal," I would opt for the label "liberal anarchists" to describe modern Rothbardians. This tradition is rooted in the natural-rights classical liberalism of John Locke and others, not in the American Left of the 1960s or any other time. It is the radical wing of the Lockean tradition.

End quote

To me and Objectivists like Rand, Peikoff, and Schwarz that is like saying:

If not for the modern corruption of the term "liberal," I would opt for the label "liberal alien influenced architecture" to describe the modern alien abductee - architect. This tradition is rooted in the night sky visions and classical nostradamian speculations of the character John Locke on the show “Lost,” and others, not in the Left leaning Roswell abductee –architect experience of the early fifties. It is the kitchenette, radical wing of the Lockean tradition of abductee architecture to which I BELIEVE.

Your ignorance of the history of ideas is matched only by your contempt for ideas themselves. I have never seen such a rabid anti-intellectual invoke Objectivism for support. When you spew your epistemological rat poison on a Christian website, do you invoke the Bible for support?

Ghs

[sbeaulieu]

Updating my list...although it's within the U.S.

Adding Arizona:

Arizona votes to check candidates' citizenship

I'm likely to not come back to Hawaii because of this:

Hawaii to shun requests for Obama's birth certificates

The issue I take with Hawaii is that if it's legit, answer the request and settle the issue once and for all. Instead, they spend taxpayer dollars to put this crap to a vote. Needless if there's nothing to hide.

~ Shane

Edited April 22, 2010 by sbeaulieu

[dan2100]

Who cares what Rothbard wrote, other than his fellow KOOKs? Have I struck a crack in your armor? You don’t seem quite as enthusiastic with your memorized condemnations.

Yes, my mistake. I did mean to write "without peer": If ignorance were strength, Peter Taylor would be without peer.

As for caring about "what Rothbard wrote," I think anyone who quotes him cares, to some degree, about what he wrote. Peter Schwartz quoted him, so he must have cared -- cared enough to score some point in his poorly reasoned essay on libertarianism. And Taylor cared enough to quote Scwartz quoting him. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Also, the quote in question was not about anarchism, but about the US and the Soviet Union. This was in his post:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8406&st=240&p=96735entry96735

It was this and not Rothbard's anarchism that was the focus of the quote and also the focus of my attempt to get Taylor to actually read from a source he quoted from, albeit indirectly. Again, Taylor cared enough to take a Rothbard quote and draw conclusions from it. Apparently, his cares here don't extend to such Objectivist intellectual virtues as keeping context or focusing on the facts. So much for his faith-based, ostrich-style approach to ideas.

I feel George responded to Taylor's other verbal effusions decisively and find little need to add to this. No doubt, Taylor will basically ignore George's response and retreat, once more, to some silly aside or maybe a quotefest from Atlantis.