Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

George H. Smith · February 4, 2011

As we all know, only a true gentleman who values politeness would call anarchists "overgrown teenagers," even using this as part of a thread title. You are indeed a model of civility, and I hope to follow in your footsteps.
George Eliza Smith, the master of the foolish cheap shot.
I never said my debate here has met a standard of being polite or gentlemanly, on the contrary several times I've said I don't believe in dogmatic politeness. You drop this context just to get in a stupid cheap shot. My respect for your fans goes down with every stupid post you make.
It's clear enough given the "treasure" of GES ad hominem in this thread why I'm calling for some politeness, it's in order to actually accomplish something productive. But since you're only here for your juvenile jollies, you don't care about actually doing something useful.
Shayne

For those you could not follow Shayne's theory of politeness, allow me to paraphrase: It is quite acceptable for Shayne to be extremely impolite when presenting his "refutation" of anarchism, but it is wholly unacceptable for an anarchist to respond impolitely to Shayne's impolite arguments.

Just think....Shayne was in a position to smash the overrated and senile Ghs, one of the best known and influential libertarian anarchists around today. What a mighty blow for reason and freedom this would have been.

But there was a chance that the old Anarchist Dragon would have breathed fire from time, so Sir Shayne the Dragonslayer, believing discretion to be the better part of valor, returned to his castle and explained to his anxious admirers that he would have slain the Anarchist Dragon, but that uncivilized monster would not agree beforehand not to breathe fire.

"If only the Dragon had agreed to fight on my terms," proclaimed Sir Shayne, "then I would have destroyed him, so he could trouble you no more!"

As Sir Shayne continued to explain how he could have slayed the Anarchist Dragon but chose not to slay an impolite Anarchist Dragon, a persistent clucking sound could be heard throughout the crowd.

Meanwhile, the old Anarchist Dragon lit a cigarette, admired the glowing tip, and chuckled about how much better it is to have fire in one's mouth than to have smoke in one's arse.

Ghs

sjw · February 4, 2011

For those you could not follow Shayne's theory of politeness, allow me to paraphrase: It is quite acceptable for Shayne to be extremely impolite when presenting his "refutation" of anarchism, but it is wholly unacceptable for an anarchist to respond impolitely to Shayne's impolite arguments.

This trick only works if your audience is dishonest. Are you going to keep ignoring the fact that I'm calling for resetting the debate here and actually doing something productive? I guess my biggest mistake is to think you might actually have something interesting to say. You don't, so you cover your ass by promiscuously mocking anything and everything you can find.

Anyway, an impolite statement is one thing, the cesspool of ad hominem you love to bath in is quite another. Which is again the point of making a dogmatic rule: give concrete-bound GES an inch and he takes a mile.

Shayne

George H. Smith · February 4, 2011

I suppose if the people at OL don't want a break from the incessant mockery, the sneering, the ad hominem, if they don't want to see a polite and rational debate/discussion of important ideas even if just in one thread, then I suppose Selene has a point, I should follow Philip and take my ball and go home.
(Unlike Philip, I'm not demanding that you all grow up in all the threads, I'm just calling for a single thread and a single debate where we pretend like we can actually be civilized for a change).
Shayne

Ghs

George H. Smith · February 4, 2011

For those you could not follow Shayne's theory of politeness, allow me to paraphrase: It is quite acceptable for Shayne to be extremely impolite when presenting his "refutation" of anarchism, but it is wholly unacceptable for an anarchist to respond impolitely to Shayne's impolite arguments.
This trick only works if your audience is dishonest. Are you going to keep ignoring the fact that I'm calling for resetting the debate here and actually doing something productive? I guess my biggest mistake is to think you might actually have something interesting to say. You don't, so you cover your ass by promiscuously mocking anything and everything you can find.
Anyway, an impolite statement is one thing, the cesspool of ad hominem you love to bath in is quite another. Which is again the point of making a dogmatic rule: give concrete-bound GES an inch and he takes a mile.
Shayne

Fine, reset the debate. That won't make your views any more coherent or magically transform your arbitrary assertions into arguments.

What will you call the new thread? Here is a suggestion: "A very polite refutation of anarchism, by Sensitive Shayne."

Don't say that I never offer constructive suggestions. :rolleyes:

Ghs

sjw · February 4, 2011

What will you call the new thread? Here is a suggestion: "A very polite refutation of anarchism, by Sensitive Shayne."

Every good-faith suggestion of mine is fodder for the George Eliza Smith mocking machine, isn't it?

Considering a reasonable debate with you reminds me of that scorpion and frog story...

Shayne

George H. Smith · February 4, 2011

What will you call the new thread? Here is a suggestion: "A very polite refutation of anarchism, by Sensitive Shayne."
Every good-faith suggestion of mine is fodder for the George Eliza Smith mocking machine, isn't it?
Considering a reasonable debate with you reminds me of that scorpion and frog story...
Shayne

I fail to see how a new thread will improve the chances that you will answer legitimate questions about your views. Your delaying tactics will only postpone the inevitable. Whether I crucify you here or on another thread is of little concern to me. But let me guess -- it might be a while before you regroup with a new thread, right? Fine, then your full crucifixion will take a while, but I will be driving some more nails on this thread.

You can cluck, cluck, cluck all you want, but this chicken hawk has you in his sights. You demanded a real contest, and a real contest you will get -- even if there is no doubt about the outcome -- as long as you remain on OL. When I am through with you, you will have very good reason, for once, to play the pathetic victim.

Ghs

sjw · February 4, 2011

Deleted original post here for being nasty.

George, I'm done with saying anything insulting or rude to you. You want me to be your punching bag, fine. Have your fun.

Shayne

Edited February 5, 2011 by sjw

George H. Smith · February 5, 2011

I fail to see how a new thread will improve the chances that you will answer legitimate questions about your views.
I think all these years of sarcastic mockery as substitute for argument has finally caught up to you, you are actually totally dishonest, and even inadvertently. I've always interpreted bits like this to be purposeful jabbing, but you're not doing it on purpose, you have actually lost the capacity to hold context. No wonder my terms of debate are unacceptable to you, you know you have no chance in hell at a debate based in reason rather than ad hominem. It's exactly as I said: instead of going out gracefully as your mind fades, you're going out shrieking nonsense.
You can cluck, cluck, cluck all you want, but this chicken hawk has you in his sights. You demanded a real contest, and a real contest you will get -- even if there is no doubt about the outcome -- as long as you remain on OL. When I am through with you, you will have very good reason, for once, to play the pathetic victim.
Ghs
Oh, so I mention bowing out of OL, and now you claim you're after me to leave. What a pathetic opportunistic creep you are.
Go ahead, attack your strawman. I'm sure it's more important to attack a fictionalized version of my view than to actually write that book you keep talking about.
Shayne

I hope you don't leave OL. That would deprive me of a lot of fun. Of course, if you do leave OL, I will claim all the credit. Your cowardly retreat, before you fired so much as a single shot, will become legendary. Future OLers will tell The Saga of Shameful Shayne to their children, before they are able to understand more complex characters like Peter Keating.

How does one distinguish between true and fictional accounts of your views when you refuse to explain what your views are, and when you refuse to answer questions about them? You even refuse to repost passages that contain your real views. Are they a closely-guarded military secret?

And what book do I keep talking about?

Ghs

sjw · February 5, 2011

Evidently I was too slow deleting that post...

Shayne

-Brant was right all along?

George H. Smith · February 5, 2011

Evidently I was too slow deleting that post...
Shayne
-Brant was right all along?

You have to be very fast to avoid the old Anarchist Dragon.

Since I am at my computer at least 12-14 hours per day in an effort to get real work done, I am alert during that time to any notifications from OL that promise the amusing diversion of smashing you.

Did I ever tell you about that blow-up clown I liked to punch as a kid? Oh, I did? Did I also mention how disappointed I would have been if that clown had deflated before I was finished punching it?

Thus do I politely ask that you not leave OL.

Ghs

sjw · February 5, 2011

Thus do I politely ask that you not leave OL.
Ghs

If I say anything at all it's just going to be to infrequently disclaim your forthcoming misinterpretations. I'm done participating in debates that sink to this level of incivility. Primarily because it's too inefficient for my purposes. For this reason I'll probably not be participating much on OL anymore, if at all.

Good luck with your future books and stuff, I hope they do well for you.

Shayne

George H. Smith · February 5, 2011

Deleted original post here for being nasty.
George, I'm done with saying anything insulting or rude to you. You want me to be your punching bag, fine. Have your fun.
Shayne

I have no problem with insults or rudeness. It is your incessant whining that annoys me. So here is my new rule:

Ghs

George H. Smith · February 5, 2011

Thus do I politely ask that you not leave OL.
Ghs
If I say anything at all it's just going to be to infrequently disclaim your forthcoming misinterpretations. I'm done participating in debates that sink to this level of incivility. Primarily because it's too inefficient for my purposes. For this reason I'll probably not be participating much on OL anymore, if at all.
Good luck with your future books and stuff, I hope they do well for you.
Shayne

Thank you. Now if you would apologize for calling anarchists "overgrown teenagers" and for your psychological diagnosis of them as envious of those in power, etc., I will call it even.

Ghs

George H. Smith · February 5, 2011

I will answer you in good faith. There is no question about that. But I will also demand that you explain your "theory" more carefully.
As for my supposed distortion of your views, I will now give you a chance to clarify them. Let's begin with your first sentence:
On my theory of government, the smallest unit of government is in fact the home (or other unit of owned land).
What do you mean by a "home"? A house? The land on which the house sits? The family that inhabits a house?
When you say that the smallest unit of government is in fact the home (or other unit of owned land, , you seem to say (by using the word "other") that a home is a "unit of owned land." Okay, if this is so, and if you think that the owner of a unit of land (i.e., a home) has the ultimate right to set rules for his tenants, what does this entail in regard to children and teenagers? If a husband, wife, and their children live in a rented house -- which is not their "home," according to your peculiar conception, because they own neither the house nor the land on which it sits -- then does their landlord have the legitimate authority to tell them how to raise their children? -- whether to take them to church, how they should be fed and educated, etc. Or does this authority reside ultimately with the parents, even if they don't own any land?
Moreover, if we are dealing with a unit of government here, does this mean that a government, if it gets the universal consent of all landowners, can legitimately pass laws that tell nonlandowning parents how they must raise their children in every particular? Similarly, if all the landowners happen to be fundamentalist Christians, can their government legitimately compel religious uniformity and enforce blasphemy laws again every citizen, including those who don't own any land?
I have many more questions, but I will forego asking them until you clarify you views on the matters I have stated here. I wouldn't would want to distort your views, whatever they may be.
Ghs

I never expect Shayne to address these and other important questions, but I will continue to plod through his headline post in the hope that the issues I raise will stimulate a serious discussion about the nature and justification of government. Shayne, of course, will not be participating, because I would not promise that I would be polite to him for ever and ever, but his absence will be a welcome contribution. One thing that a serious discussion doesn't need is continuous whining.

If Shayne says anything at all, then, as he himself predicted, it will be to complain that I have misrepresented his views. Since I will be quoting directly from Shayne's headline post, readers can judge this matter for themselves. Most will conclude, as I have, that Shayne's views are so muddled and poorly stated as to admit a variety of interpretations. Hence if Shayne refuses to clarify his ideas by answering questions, he deserves whatever he gets.

Shayne's political "theory" has no philosophical significance in its own right; a string of unrelated assertions does not a theory make. What makes Shayne's post interesting, if in a perverse way, is how dramatically it veers from the traditional classical liberal and natural rights justification of government. This grand tradition includes Rand's theory of government as well, according to which a government should be restricted to the protection of individual rights. Of course, Shayne will bitch that I have again misrepresented his "theory," but this is because he cannot grasp the difference between a position he explicitly endorses and the logical implications of his position.

For example, when I said earlier that Shayne embraces an Aristotelian approach to government -- an approach that needed to be overthrown before a theory of limited government could take hold - I obviously didn't mean that Shayne is an explicit Aristotelian, politically speaking, because Shayne knows zilch about Aristotle's political theory. The same applies to my remark about Shayne's feudal approach of government. All these historical artifacts are of no interest to Shayne, and what does not interest Shayne he sees no need to learn. Thus does Shayne forge blindly ahead, secure in his ignorance of theory and history, that he is blazing a new trail that leads to minarchism, not to anarchism.

The problem, of course, is that Shayne's trail logically leads not to a limited or minimal government but to the kind of paternalistic state that libertarians and O'ist abhor. In terms of its foundation, my Rothbardian anarchism differs not at all from Rand's approach; our differences emerge much higher on the hierarchy of arguments. Shayne's fundamental approach to government, in contrast, differs radically from both libertarian anarchism and Randian minarchism. It is with good reason that Shayne has expressed contempt for both Rand (in regard to her theory of rights) and O'ist minarchists. And it is is with equally good reason that I have repeatedly come to the defense of both Rand and O'ist minarchists by pointing out that their fundamentals are sound.

In my next post, I will sketch some general problems with Shayne's approach. Then, in subsequent posts, I will return to the specifics of his headline post.

Ghs

9thdoctor · February 6, 2011

I will continue to plod through his headline post

Don't take this the wrong way, but don't you have a book to write? This makes me think of a great little epigram from Stanislaw Lec: Cavorting with dwarves ruins your backbone.

While the book is open here's another funny one: Even in his silence there were grammatical mistakes.

Robert Campbell · February 6, 2011

In terms of its foundation, my Rothbardian anarchism differs not at all from Rand's approach; our differences emerge much higher on the hierarchy of arguments.

A point well worth reminding ourselves of.

The personal ill-will between Rand and Rothbard, and their public recriminations, have drawn attention away from their common ground.

Robert Campbell

George H. Smith · February 6, 2011

In this post and the one to follow, I will make some general observations about Shayne's "refutation" of anarchism. Here is the relevant passage:

Now what adult anarchist is going to argue with this? I would think none. But what is the difference between this scenario, and the scenario where a land owner and his adjoining neighbors enter a compact for government? If "arbitrary" house rules -- not Natural Law, but man-made law -- can be created on one parcel of land, then certainly they can be agreed on by two, or ten, or a whole town. The only requirement for such an arrangement is universal consent to these man-made laws. One can quibble about whether or not everyone would agree, but the fact that in principle they can agree clearly refutes anarchism as a theory.
The fact is that men have a Natural Right to form government. Fundamentally then, to be an anarchist is to be one who rejects Natural Rights.

This is unquestionably the most bizarre "refutation" of anarchism that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of the old philosophic quip, "We could have a ham sandwich, if we only had some ham."

Fully to appreciate the peculiar nature of Shayne's argument, we first need to understand the "specter of anarchy argument" (a label I coined in the late 1970s) that was used for centuries against the Lockean conception of limited government, one supposedly based on consent. Indeed, the specter of anarchy argument was first clearly formulated by Sir Robert Filmer during the 1640s, decades before Locke penned his Two Treatises of Government -- a book that was specifically designed to rebut Filmer's arguments, including his claim that a consent theory of government, if consistently applied, will logically land us in anarchy. And in the 17th century, as well as for a long time thereafter, to demonstrate that the political theory of one's opponents logically entails anarchy was regarded as the most decisive refutation possible.

In my forthcoming Cambridge book, Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, I discuss the historical dimensions of this controversy in a chapter titled "The Anarchy Game." Most of this chapter discusses how Locke responded to the specter of anarchy argument in the Second Treatise, but I also include a summary of Filmer's approach. I will therefore quote my section on Filmer to get the ball rolling. Not everything in this section is directly relevant to the general points I will be making in my next post, but quoting this excerpt from Themes is much easier than rewriting the essential points over again.

Of course, given Shayne's disdain for "historical artifacts," he will find nothing relevant here, so he needn't read any of this. In fact, I strongly advise that he not read this excerpt, because it will only confuse him further.

For the sake of convenience, I post this passage without footnotes and other formatting, such as some italics. In addition, you should keep in mind that this section is preceded by a section in which I explain the specter of anarchy argument in general terms and trace its historical influence (which was immense).

[Passage from "The Anarchy Game," a chapter in Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, by George H. Smith. Forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. This is an uncorrected draft, so there are doubtless some typos.]
II
If scholars were asked to compile a list of the most influential western political thinkers of the modern era, the name of Sir Robert Filmer (1588-1653) would not likely be included. A prosperous Kentish squire who defended monarchical absolutism against parliamentarians and others who sought to limit the power of the Stuart kings, Filmers writings didnt exert much influence until a quarter-century after his death, and even this vogue was short-lived. Today Filmer is viewed by many intellectual historians as a mediocre thinker who would deserve little attention had not John Locke devoted his First Treatise of Government to refuting Filmers arguments. And even this indication of Filmers significance is commonly passed over, as Lockes First Treatise is dismissed as a period piece whose importance cannot compare to the Second Treatise, which is one of the most important works on political theory ever written.
Moreover, Filmers case for patriarchalism, (a popular method of defending the divine right of kings, based on the natural authority of fathers over their children) was not very persuasive, even to many seventeenth-century readers who were sympathetic to biblical arguments. In short, Filmer was not a first-rate political philosopher, and his positive theories were soon dismissed as a historical curiosity.
But there was a more impressive aspect to Filmer, namely, his criticism of the notion that a legitimate government must be based on the consent of the governed, a theory that was grounded in a premise that Filmer characterized as the natural liberty and equality of mankind. Although this nascent libertarian doctrine had roots in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy (especially Stoicism) and had survived in the writings of various Catholic philosophers, its explosive potential was not fully realized until after the Reformation, when both Catholics and Protestants searched for a rationale to strip heretical or tyrannical princes of their legitimacy and thereby justify the rights of resistance and revolution.
According to Filmer, the "supposed natural equality and freedom of mankind is a desperate assertion, whereby kings are made subject to the censures and deprivations of their subjects. If this first erroneous principle is refuted and exposed for the sham it is, the whole fabric of this vast engine of popular sedition would drop down of itself.
This is the primary critical task that Filmer undertook in Patriarcha and other tracts. In the process he articulated arguments against a consent theory of government (especially against social contract theory which is the traditional form in which consent theory has manifested itself) that would later be repeated by a host of more famous philosophers, such as David Hume, Edmund Burke, and Jeremy Bentham.
It is scarcely coincidental that two of the most influential libertarian works of the seventeenth century Algernon Sidneys Discourses Concerning Government and John Lockes Two Treatises of Government specifically targeted Filmer as their primary opponent. Although both writers criticized Filmers patriarchalism in detail, both also appreciated the devastating implications of Filmers attack on the consent theory of government. It was not enough merely to demolish Filmers positive theory; more important was to rebut his negative arguments by demonstrating the logical force and coherence of consent as the moral basis for political obligation. The former task was not difficult, but the latter task has proved to be one of the most controversial and intractable problems in the history of political philosophy.
Although some version of the Anarchy Game had been played for centuries, Filmer deserves primary credit for using this game against the Lockean paradigm, and his method of play was imitated well into the nineteenth century. The Anarchy Game is a variant of a tactic known to logicians as the reductio ad absurdum. This is where you refute an argument by reducing it to an absurdity. If you can show that the premises employed by your opponent logically entail a conclusion that even he would reject as absurd, then you have delivered a powerful, and perhaps decisive, blow to his position.
In this context, the absurd conclusion was anarchy, or society without government. No prominent thinker in the seventeenth century (or for a long time thereafter) viewed anarchy as a respectable philosophical position. Hence if Filmer could show that the premises employed by his opponents would logically end in anarchy, then those premises, as well as any arguments based upon them, would lack credibility.
Filmer challenged consent theorists to show how any sovereign government can be justified if we begin with the supposition that people are naturally free and equal. He repeatedly asserted that the doctrine of natural liberty and equality, which was commonly called upon to limit the powers of government, actually destroys the foundation of government itself and will land us in anarchy instead. Those who begin their political reasoning with a state of nature -- a society without political authority or dominion in which every person enjoys equal rights -- are logically doomed to remain in that anarchistic condition.
Filmers criticism of consent theory raises the obvious historical point that no government was ever established with the unanimous consent of the governed, but his criticism reaches deeper than this. His principal objection (which he presents in a couple of tracts) pertains to how separate and sovereign commonwealths can legitimately be formed if the entire multitude or whole people have originally by nature power to choose a king. All the people in the world, according to the premises of consent theory, are born equally free from political subjection, so it follows that a joint consent of the whole people of the world would be required to establish a government, and there cannot be any one man chosen a king without the universal consent of all the people of the world at one instant.
Defenders of consent theory, such as the Jesuit philosopher Suarez, had considered this problem, and they replied that it was inexpedient for every person in the world to come together in one community. It was therefore necessary for people to separate into separate commonwealths, each with the power to choose its own ruler.
This is the concession that Filmer needed to raise his specter of anarchy. If different people somehow acquired the right to break away from the community of all mankind and form separate political societies on their own accord, then what is to prevent even smaller groups of people -- say, a single family -- from likewise seceding from the larger group and forming its own little commonwealth? Indeed, no valid objection could be raised if each individual were to decide to be his own king, which is the essence of anarchy. And thereby a gap is opened for every petty factious multitude to raise a new commonwealth, and to make more commonweals than there be families in the world. Here is Filmers most complete statement of this argument:
Since nature hath not distinguished the habitable world in kingdoms, nor determined what part of a people shall belong to one kingdom and what to another, it follows that the original freedom of mankind being supposed, every man is at liberty to be of what kingdom he please. And every petty company hath a right to make a kingdom by itself; and not only every city but every village and every family, nay, and every particular man, a liberty to choose himself to be his own king if he please. And he were a madman that being by nature free would choose any man but himself to be his own governor. Thus to avoid the having but of one king of the whole world, we shall run into a liberty as having as many kings as there be men in the world, which upon the matter is to have no king at all, but to leave all men to their natural liberty [i.e., in a condition of anarchy] -- which is the mischief the pleaders for natural liberty do pretend they would most avoid.
Filmer examines various ways to get around this kind of problem, including the appeal to tacit consent that would later be used by John Locke. Filmers remarks in this area are quite perceptive, and later critics of consent theory did little to improve upon them.
If it is said that the minority tacitly consents to abide by the will of the majority, then Filmer demands to know when and in what manner the minority agreed to this arrangement. In addition, if it is argued that silent acceptation of a governor by part of the people constitutes tacit consent by those people, then Filmer points out that this would effectively mean that every government in the history of the world has ruled with the consent of the governed -- an inference, he adds, that is too ridiculous to be taken seriously.
Thus, according to Filmer, a specter of anarchy haunts every attempt to justify government by appealing to the consent of the governed. This version of the Anarchy Game became the most formidable objection to consent theory, one that would be repeated many times by more illustrious critics of the social contract (some of whom acknowledged their debt to Filmer). On this basis alone a case can be made for including Sir Robert Filmer on a list of the most influential political philosophers of the modern era. He formulated a key problem that captured the attention of every major political philosopher for over two centuries, a problem that has not been satisfactorily resolved to this day.

I will tie this historical material to the theoretical issues in my next post.

Ghs

Brant Gaede · February 6, 2011

You can read a lot about these fellows in my favorite book by my grandfather, Irving Brant, available on Questia.com, The Bill of Rights: Its Origin and Meaning. He has a nice tie-in with Filmer and Sidney and how taking on Filmer pretty much did Sidney in. (pp. 156-157)

"'He cannot comprehend that magistrates are for and by the people, but makes this conclusion, as if nations were created by or for the glory or pleasure of magistrates, and affects such a piece of nonsense; it ought not to be thought strange, if he represents as an absurd thing, that the heedless multitude may shake off the yoke when they please. But I would know how the multitude comes under the yoke, it is a badge of slavery.'

"Again Sidney wrote:

"'The general revolt of a nation from its own magistrates, can never be called rebellion.'"

--Brant

Edited February 6, 2011 by Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede · February 6, 2011

Consent of the governed: If the government doesn't violate rights, what is there to object to if it effectively and efficiently deals with rights' violators under the law?

If the government does violate this or that right then one can say, "I didn't consent to these rights' violations." This in itself doesn't necessarily delegitimize a government except, perhaps, if there's something practical and better available, and only to that extent--it may be total repudiation, but probably not out of such a context.

There is no philosophy to clean up all the messiness of human social existence. Consent by the good guys actually never really applies to a government per se but to a government that mostly protects instead of violates rights and is dedicated to less rights' violations and more freedom and doesn't exist to benefit a governing class--i.e., the state.

Remember that when you spill "the blood of tyrants" you're going to be spilling a lot of non-tyrants' blood too. Going around complaining about your lack of consent to the government you live under is hardly enough reason to break out the guns.

--Brant

Edited February 6, 2011 by Brant Gaede

sjw · February 6, 2011

Consent of the governed: If the government doesn't violate rights, what is there to object to if it effectively and efficiently deals with rights' violators under the law?

The first right violated is usually the right to form alternate governments. So the way all modern governments are constituted brings this immediate objection. (See the history of various microstates for example).

There is no philosophy to clean up all the messiness of human social existence. Consent by the good guys actually never really applies to a government per se but to a government that mostly protects instead of violates rights and is dedicated to less rights' violations and more freedom and doesn't exist to benefit a governing class--i.e., the state.
Remember that when you spill "the blood of tyrants" you're going to be spilling a lot of non-tyrants' blood too. Going around complaining about your lack of consent to the government you live under is hardly enough reason to break out the guns.

The primary reason to complain about rights violations is to identify what ought to be changed, and to what. Then you hope that you get enough agreement to actually make positive changes. In many areas of human life things aren't perfect, but they evolve and improve toward the good over time (so long as government isn't intensively regulating it). Government should be subject to the same kind of evolutionary improvement, but it's not because of the monopoly tactics.

Shayne

skrzprst · February 7, 2011

Shayne,

1. Your use of "government" faces a certain demarcation problem. What is the "government" that anarchists uniformly oppose? As for anarchism being incoherent, here's my definition: one who opposes centralized, hierarchical authority. Thus, all anarchists are anti-statists, but one can be an anti-statist without being fully anarchist.

2. Yes, I'm a teenager. However, that doesn't make my argument any less valid. To say otherwise is a blatant ad hominem.

sjw · February 7, 2011

1. Your use of "government" faces a certain demarcation problem. What is the "government" that anarchists uniformly oppose? As for anarchism being incoherent, here's my definition: one who opposes centralized, hierarchical authority. Thus, all anarchists are anti-statists, but one can be an anti-statist without being fully anarchist.

"Centralized, hierarchical authority" is ambiguous. Most businesses with at least one employee can be said to be a centralized hierarchical authority. So, your definition fails to define. Try again?

2. Yes, I'm a teenager.

Then I think you need to be cut a little slack when you don't make sense. I'll try to do that in the future. Call that ad hominem if you want.

Shayne

George H. Smith · February 7, 2011

Consent of the governed: If the government doesn't violate rights, what is there to object to if it effectively and efficiently deals with rights' violators under the law?

If a government doesn't violate any rights, then there is no problem.

The problem arises when a government claims the sole right to dispense justice and when it forcibly prohibits other agencies from providing the same services that it does. This coercive monopoly -- or what has traditionally been called the right of sovereignty -- is what anarchists primarily object to, because no privileged claim like this can be enforced without a violation of rights.

If I choose to do business with a private justice agency, and if this justice agency provides the same services as the government but does so, say, more efficiently or for a cheaper price than the government, then whose rights have I violated by taking my business to the private agency? And by what legitimate standard can the government forcibly interfere with this market transaction? To do so would be to violate my rights and the rights of the private justice agency.

If you say that the government has no such right, then you have conceded the moral legitimacy of the "private protection agencies" defended by Rothbard and other modern anarchists. You have defended anarchism, in effect, because you have denied the sovereign right of any particular agency --including the one that calls itself the government -- to claim and enforce a coercive monopoly within a given geographical area.

Of course, Shayne gives no consideration at all to this core argument in his "refutation" of anarchism. It flies over his head, as he "refutes" a position that anarchists have never held. Then he does a victory dance, as bystanders scratch their heads, wondering what all the hoopla is about.

Ghs

Brant Gaede · February 7, 2011

Consent of the governed: If the government doesn't violate rights, what is there to object to if it effectively and efficiently deals with rights' violators under the law?
If a government doesn't violate any rights, then there is no problem.
The problem arises when a government claims the sole right to dispense justice and when it forcibly prohibits other agencies from providing the same services that it does. This coercive monopoly -- or what has traditionally been called the right of sovereignty -- is what anarchists primarily object to, because no privileged claim like this can be enforced without a violation of rights.
If I choose to do business with a private justice agency, and if this justice agency provides the same services as the government but does so, say, more efficiently or for a cheaper price than the government, then whose rights have I violated by taking my business to the private agency? And by what legitimate standard can the government forcibly interfere with this market transaction? To do so would be to violate my rights and the rights of the private justice agency.
If you say that the government has no such right, then you have conceded the moral legitimacy of the "private protection agencies" defended by Rothbard and other modern anarchists. You have defended anarchism, in effect, because you have denied the sovereign right of any particular agency --including the one that calls itself the government -- to claim and enforce a coercive monopoly within a given geographical area.
Of course, Shayne gives no consideration at all to this core argument in his "refutation" of anarchism. It flies over his head, as he "refutes" a position that anarchists have never held. Then he does a victory dance, as bystanders scratch their heads, wondering what all the hoopla is about.
Ghs

Okay. Now where is The Law in all this?

--Brant

George H. Smith · February 7, 2011

Consent of the governed: If the government doesn't violate rights, what is there to object to if it effectively and efficiently deals with rights' violators under the law?
If a government doesn't violate any rights, then there is no problem.
The problem arises when a government claims the sole right to dispense justice and when it forcibly prohibits other agencies from providing the same services that it does. This coercive monopoly -- or what has traditionally been called the right of sovereignty -- is what anarchists primarily object to, because no privileged claim like this can be enforced without a violation of rights.
If I choose to do business with a private justice agency, and if this justice agency provides the same services as the government but does so, say, more efficiently or for a cheaper price than the government, then whose rights have I violated by taking my business to the private agency? And by what legitimate standard can the government forcibly interfere with this market transaction? To do so would be to violate my rights and the rights of the private justice agency.
If you say that the government has no such right, then you have conceded the moral legitimacy of the "private protection agencies" defended by Rothbard and other modern anarchists. You have defended anarchism, in effect, because you have denied the sovereign right of any particular agency --including the one that calls itself the government -- to claim and enforce a coercive monopoly within a given geographical area.
Of course, Shayne gives no consideration at all to this core argument in his "refutation" of anarchism. It flies over his head, as he "refutes" a position that anarchists have never held. Then he does a victory dance, as bystanders scratch their heads, wondering what all the hoopla is about.
Ghs
Okay. Now where is The Law in all this?
--Brant

You have nicely summarized the crux of the problem, for O'ist minarchists have typically argued, with some justification, that law is not an ordinary commodity that should be bought and sold in the market. Rather, law establishes a framework in which freedom and competition are possible, so the law itself must be determined and (ultimately) enforced by a single monopolistic institution, i.e., a sovereign government.

This is the sort of problem that I dealt with in my articles on Justice Entrepreneurship many years ago in JLS. It is also the sort of problem that law professor Randy Barnett addresses in detail in his excellent book, The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law. Randy argues for "legal pluralism" -- a euphemism, in effect, for anarchism.

I don't want to get into this subject on this thread, however. My objective here is to show how Shayne completely misses the boat -- two boats, in fact, for he understands neither the key arguments for anarchism nor the key arguments for minarchism. Instead, he drifts off into his own dream world that has no relevance to this venerable and very significant debate.

Ghs

Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in