Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[sjw]

Instead, he drifts off into his own dream world that has no relevance to this venerable and very significant debate.

Ghs

Wow, that's a keeper.

Shayne

-Patiently and expectantly waiting on the sidelines for George's knock-down argument.

[George H. Smith]

Instead, he drifts off into his own dream world that has no relevance to this venerable and very significant debate.

Ghs

Wow, that's a keeper.

Shayne

-Patiently and expectantly waiting on the sidelines for George's knock-down argument.

Patience, my little ignoramus. When I cut, I like to cut through the bone, and this can take a little longer than inflicting superficial wounds.

Ghs

[Bosco]

Okay. Now where is The Law in all this?

--Brant

Randy Barnett had an interesting take on what happens to "law" in an anarchist society, in "Fuller, Law and Anarchism". He argues that law is not something that is manufactured but something that emerges from social norms and mutual expectations. He winds up making the point that a government, by its nature, must violate it's own rules and therefore subverts the whole purpose and character of law, properly understood. Where does that leave us? The implication is that it is only in a stateless society that law is possible. It's not a matter of whether law would fare better under minarchism vs anarchism.

Tim

[Brant Gaede]

Instead, he drifts off into his own dream world that has no relevance to this venerable and very significant debate.

Ghs

Wow, that's a keeper.

Shayne

-Patiently and expectantly waiting on the sidelines for George's knock-down argument.

Patience, my little ignoramus. When I cut, I like to cut through the bone, and this can take a little longer than inflicting superficial wounds.

Ghs

Obviously you've never heard of the "death of a thousand cuts."

--Brant

[sjw]

Patience, my little ignoramus. When I cut, I like to cut through the bone, and this can take a little longer than inflicting superficial wounds.

Ghs

It will be a pleasant surprise. I am so looking forward to this, please don't disappoint me George.

Shayne

[sjw]

Obviously you've never heard of the "death of a thousand cuts."

--Brant

We should probably stop disturbing the master while he's working.

Shayne

-I'm so excited!

[Brant Gaede]

The argument--my argument--for monopoly in law which is monopoly in government is out of the right philosophy you can make right law and that shouldn't be changed arbitrarily or at whim or easily. You should be able to do all sorts of things under the law such as guard agencies, security patrols, arbitration of contracts, etc. Since I first take things as they are, I am not concerned with the ultimate legitimacy of minarchy only how do we improve the overall situation enough to get to the point where that might be a practical problem? Then our descendants will discover that that really isn't the problem. Their problem will be dealing with take-it-for-granted complacency because things are so good that the matter seems petty and arcane. Things going bad, slowly at first--that will be their problem.

What is law, but philosophy with a gun? No matter how much plurality of laws you have all will have guns. One law, one gun. Monopoly in law chokes down the amount of extant physical force respecting rights bouncing around society and ricocheting off its walls hitting the guilty and innocent--the good and the bad--alike.

If the ideal government has as a scientific analogue the achievement of absolute zero, be assured that "You can't there from here."

--Brant

[Bosco]

The argument--my argument--for monopoly in law which is monopoly in government is out of the right philosophy you can make right law and that shouldn't be changed arbitrarily or at whim or easily. You should be able to do all sorts of things under the law such as guard agencies, security patrols, arbitration of contracts, etc. Since I first take things as they are, I am not concerned with the ultimate legitimacy of minarchy only how do we improve the overall situation enough to get to the point where that might be a practical problem? Then our descendants will discover that that really isn't the problem. Their problem will be dealing with take-it-for-granted complacency because things are so good that the matter seems petty and arcane. Things going bad, slowly at first--that will be their problem.

What is law, but philosophy with a gun? No matter how much plurality of laws you have all will have guns. One law, one gun. Monopoly in law chokes down the amount of extant physical force respecting rights bouncing around society and ricocheting off its walls hitting the guilty and innocent--the good and the bad--alike.

If the ideal government has as a scientific analogue the achievement of absolute zero, be assured that "You can't there from here."

--Brant

What about the "plurality" of nations ("competing governments"), and even various, conflicting levels of judicial authorities within the same geographic region that often contradict and overturn one anthers decisions? In order to truly have legitimate force concentrated in one central power, one would need one world government, with a single supreme court, no appeals and no intermediate levels. Now there's a fantasy

Tim

[sjw]

The argument--my argument--for monopoly in law which is monopoly in government is out of the right philosophy you can make right law and that shouldn't be changed arbitrarily or at whim or easily. You should be able to do all sorts of things under the law such as guard agencies, security patrols, arbitration of contracts, etc. Since I first take things as they are, I am not concerned with the ultimate legitimacy of minarchy only how do we improve the overall situation enough to get to the point where that might be a practical problem? Then our descendants will discover that that really isn't the problem. Their problem will be dealing with take-it-for-granted complacency because things are so good that the matter seems petty and arcane. Things going bad, slowly at first--that will be their problem.

What is law, but philosophy with a gun? No matter how much plurality of laws you have all will have guns. One law, one gun. Monopoly in law chokes down the amount of extant physical force respecting rights bouncing around society and ricocheting off its walls hitting the guilty and innocent--the good and the bad--alike.

If the ideal government has as a scientific analogue the achievement of absolute zero, be assured that "You can't there from here."

--Brant

First, there are two kinds of laws, Natural Law (by which I mean the law that says one must respect the individual rights of every individual, their "Natural Rights") and man-made law. Natural Law has the property you're ascribing to "The Law", that it's a constant everywhere. But this very law prescribes no precedence of a single individual or group over the other. You indeed "can't get there from here" concerning the creation of a nationalistic monopoly government, where you are subject to whomever was placed above you, without your explicit consent, by vote or appointment.

Man-made law (by which I mean, approximately, rules one might agree to as being part of (say) a homeowners association) on the other hand can be highly variable, there's no constancy at all to it but that is agreed on for the convenience of the (say) home owners. It is still "The Law", because via Natural Law, you consented to its jurisdiction. This is the only manner in which monopoly Natural Law or man-made law governance can be created -- through the consent of land owners, only on their land, and only to the extent that they do not themselves violate Natural Law.

Shayne

Edited February 7, 2011 by sjw

[Brant Gaede]

The argument--my argument--for monopoly in law which is monopoly in government is out of the right philosophy you can make right law and that shouldn't be changed arbitrarily or at whim or easily. You should be able to do all sorts of things under the law such as guard agencies, security patrols, arbitration of contracts, etc. Since I first take things as they are, I am not concerned with the ultimate legitimacy of minarchy only how do we improve the overall situation enough to get to the point where that might be a practical problem? Then our descendants will discover that that really isn't the problem. Their problem will be dealing with take-it-for-granted complacency because things are so good that the matter seems petty and arcane. Things going bad, slowly at first--that will be their problem.

What is law, but philosophy with a gun? No matter how much plurality of laws you have all will have guns. One law, one gun. Monopoly in law chokes down the amount of extant physical force respecting rights bouncing around society and ricocheting off its walls hitting the guilty and innocent--the good and the bad--alike.

If the ideal government has as a scientific analogue the achievement of absolute zero, be assured that "You can't there from here."

--Brant

What about the "plurality" of nations ("competing governments"), and even various, conflicting levels of judicial authorities within the same geographic region that often contradict and overturn one anthers decisions? In order to truly have legitimate force concentrated in one central power, one would need one world government, with a single supreme court, no appeals and no intermediate levels. Now there's a fantasy

Tim

These competing governments exist. They help assuage tyranny in that sometimes you can go from a bad country to a better one. Conflicting levels of judicial authorities merely means a higher court telling a lower it made a wrong decision. Implicit in these discussions is making the U.S. Federal system a primary locus of consideration with explicit acknowledgement of a certain British tradition. Now, please stop trying to gobbledygook me with this non-sequitur one-worldism.

--Brant

Edited February 7, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Well, Shayne, it would seem your "Natural Law" is merely one aspect of morality. Codified, it's then law.

--Brant

[sjw]

Well, Shayne, it would seem your "Natural Law" is merely one aspect of morality. Codified, it's then law.

--Brant

As I have noted elsewhere, Natural Law is a subset of moral law. Specifically, it is the subset that other men have the prerogative to force you into compliance with. The other parts of moral law they do not.

Shayne

Edited February 7, 2011 by sjw

[Brant Gaede]

Arguing about "consent" is like living in Afghanistan and complaining about not consenting to the bombs being dropped on you when you should be duck and covering.

--Brant

[sjw]

Arguing about "consent" is like living in Afghanistan and complaining about not consenting to the bombs being dropped on you when you should be duck and covering.

--Brant

The purpose is to attempt to form a coherent theory of rights and government, and the reason to have a coherent theory is that an incoherent one is guaranteed to be divisive, whereas a coherent theory has a chance of unifying rational people, and when that happens, anything is possible.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Well, Shayne, it would seem your "Natural Law" is merely one aspect of morality. Codified, it's then law.

--Brant

As I have noted elsewhere, Natural Law is a subset of moral law. Specifically, it is the subset that other men have the prerogative to force you into compliance with. The other parts of moral law they do not.

Shayne

Isn't this the cart before the horse? If YOU aren't violating anyone's rights who has any right ("prerogative") to force you to do anything you don't want to do?

You'll have to take up Filmer with George.

--Brant

[sjw]

Isn't this the cart before the horse? If YOU aren't violating anyone's rights who has any right ("prerogative") to force you to do anything you don't want to do?

?

Moral law is precisely what morality dictates one should do. It's the broadest possible category. A subset of what you should do is NOT violate anyone's rights -- this is Natural Law. And you agree with me that when men violate rights then they deserve force as an answer.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Arguing about "consent" is like living in Afghanistan and complaining about not consenting to the bombs being dropped on you when you should be duck and covering.

--Brant

The purpose is to attempt to form a coherent theory of rights and government, and the reason to have a coherent theory is that an incoherent one is guaranteed to be divisive, whereas a coherent theory has a chance of unifying rational people, and when that happens, anything is possible.

Shayne

If they don't see the coherence they aren't rational? Look, worry about rights. When people get coherent about rights they'll go to Washington with torches and pitchforks, metamorphically speaking.

--Brant

the other meta too

[sjw]

If they don't see the coherence they aren't rational?

Not what I said...

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Isn't this the cart before the horse? If YOU aren't violating anyone's rights who has any right ("prerogative") to force you to do anything you don't want to do?

?

Moral law is precisely what morality dictates one should do. It's the broadest possible category. A subset of what you should do is NOT violate anyone's rights -- this is Natural Law. And you agree with me that when men violate rights then they deserve force as an answer.

Shayne

Sorry. I'm not going to now accept a category of "moral law." I don't like the over-lapping. It's morality and it's morality put into law. Not exactly the same thing to say the least. You won't believe the creatures that will follow you through that door.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

If they don't see the coherence they aren't rational?

Not what I said...

Shayne

True. I'm indicating a possible consequence.

--Brant

bedtime--yawn

Edited February 7, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

Sorry. I'm not going to now accept a category of "moral law." I don't like the over-lapping. It's morality and it's morality put into law. Not exactly the same thing to say the least. You won't believe the creatures that will follow you through that door.

--Brant

Wow. You're totally misconstruing because I used some word that was evidently magic to you. No it's not put into law because I said it wasn't. Those are *my* words and *my* meaning, not yours. "Moral law" as I described it above is nothing more than morality as such, approximately the Objectivist morality if you like.

Shayne

[sjw]

What really gets me Brant is that I know you agree with me. I know that you know that there's such a thing as morality, and I know that you know that it specifies broadly what people should do, and I know that you know that one thing they should do is NOT violate rights, I know you agree that if someone violates rights then force can be justly used on them to extract justice (assuming they don't provide it without the force), and I know you know how to look at a wider category and a narrower category. But then I put *labels* on these truths we agree on and now you're making wild statements having nothing to do with what I mean or said.

I mean seriously, WTF Brant?

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry. I'm not going to now accept a category of "moral law." I don't like the over-lapping. It's morality and it's morality put into law. Not exactly the same thing to say the least. You won't believe the creatures that will follow you through that door.

--Brant

Wow. You're totally misconstruing because I used some word that was evidently magic to you. No it's not put into law because I said it wasn't. Those are *my* words and *my* meaning, not yours. "Moral law" as I described it above is nothing more than morality as such, approximately the Objectivist morality if you like.

Shayne

Moral law put into law concerns the NIOF principle only. Morality as such is much broader. Most of this is semantics. It's clear in my mind with the way I use words and I don't like these special, unnecessary categories. Law is the use of force against the bad guys by a third party. Putting it into morality as such strikes me as a very bad idea. If that's not your intention it may be someone else's.

--Brant

Edited February 7, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

Well, Shayne, it would seem your "Natural Law" is merely one aspect of morality. Codified, it's then law.

--Brant

As I have noted elsewhere, Natural Law is a subset of moral law. Specifically, it is the subset that other men have the prerogative to force you into compliance with. The other parts of moral law they do not.

Shayne

Readers need to keep in mind that Shayne makes this stuff up as he goes along. His taxonomy (above) is so topsy-turvy as to flatly contradict the taxonomy used by every natural law philosopher in history, including natural rights philosophers, classical liberals, and libertarians.

Of course, Shayne has no interest in or knowledge of historical artifacts like this. He is blazing new trails with his confusing terminology, going where no man with common sense and a clear head would ever choose to go. So if Shayne feels like calling natural law "Armenian String Cheese," then natural law will become Armenian String Cheese, and that will be that.

Term-shifting is a defining characteristic of intellectual quacks. Readers of Old Atlantis will recall that the late Jason Alexander did the same thing as Shayne, claiming credit for intellectual innovations when all he was really doing was shifting the meanings of words. I should note, however, that the level of quackery achieved by Jason, owing to his fondness for neologisms, makes Shayne look like a novice quack.

"Quack" is a label that I use with some precision. Other than Shayne and Jason, I have encountered only one or two authentic quacks on elists over the past 11 years. Dedicated quacks are relatively rare, because few people are willing to invest the time needed to become a full-fledged quack. In this respect at least, Shayne is to be commended for his commitment to quackery.

Ghs

[sjw]

Moral law put into law concerns the NIOF principle only. Morality as such is much broader. Most of this is semantics.

All of it is pure semantics. You're being obtuse. You have no disagreement with me on this whatever, you just want to disagree and are flailing around at stuff to be disagreeable about.

It's clear in my mind with the way I use words and I don't like these special, unnecessary categories. Law is the use of force against the bad guys by a third party. Putting it into morality as such strikes me as a very bad idea. If that's not your intention it may be someone else's.

--Brant

There are no other categories in what I said besides the ones you already know about and agree with. I used the phrase "moral law" in this context simply for parallelism. You think it's a dumb word choice because to the monkeys it might look like I'm trying to legislate morality, fine, I get it. But I don't care if it's called "morality" or "moral law" or even "peanut butter" as long as in the current context it's understood what is meant.

Shayne