Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[sjw]

Despite my disagreements with you, Shayne, I thought you understood Locke better than this.

Ghs

We're talking about the very foundation here George. Locke begins with the Bible.

I don't have fundamental disagreements with Locke's conception of rights.

Shayne

[sjw]

So far I think you are both using and abusing the Lockean tradition respecting rights.

You don't get to toss this in without backing it up. I totally disagree.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Incidentally, I don't view my position on rights as contrary to Locke's. I do think that some people read in a very concrete-bound way, and, unable to grasp the abstractions, see a fundamental difference where there is really just a difference in details and perspective.

Shayne

A lot of this is semantical. People don't give up their semantics easily; you, me or George. They are not unimportant, especially after decades upon decades of using them. It'd be like switching a language without increasing understanding but certainly increasing potential for confusion.

--Brant

have to take a break here

[Brant Gaede]

So far I think you are both using and abusing the Lockean tradition respecting rights.

You don't get to toss this in without backing it up. I totally disagree.

Shayne

It's what George mentioned when he discussed Robert Filmer, comparing him to you. Filmer was pre-Lockean.

--Brant

[sjw]

Incidentally, I don't view my position on rights as contrary to Locke's. I do think that some people read in a very concrete-bound way, and, unable to grasp the abstractions, see a fundamental difference where there is really just a difference in details and perspective.

Shayne

A lot of this is semantical. People don't give up their semantics easily; you, me or George. They are not unimportant, especially after decades upon decades of using them. It'd be like switching a language without increasing understanding but certainly increasing potential for confusion.

--Brant

have to take a break here

Yep.

Shayne

[sjw]

So far I think you are both using and abusing the Lockean tradition respecting rights.

You don't get to toss this in without backing it up. I totally disagree.

Shayne

It's what George mentioned when he discussed Robert Filmer, comparing him to you. Filmer was pre-Lockean.

--Brant

Since you and I read George radically differently, referring to something he wrote isn't good enough.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

If I want you to play a game with me, and that game includes physical "interference", then there's no interference in the sense I mean. My goal and action is precisely to play a game with you, which includes "interference."

I.e., you're equivocating between two senses of "interference."

Then again, maybe "interference" isn't the best word to use in this context. It is very imprecise. If you are about to cross a busy street and I yell, "Stop! You will get hit by that car!" then I may be said to be interfering with your plan to cross the street. But I am certainly not using force against you or violating any of your rights.

In short, it is coercive interference (of a certain type) that you object to, not merely "interference." Rand was much more precise when she spoke of the initiation of physical force. You could do a lot worse than to follow her example in this regard, even though her formulation has some problems of its own.

Ghs

[sjw]

Then again, maybe "interference" isn't the best word to use in this context. It is very imprecise.

Words are as precise or imprecise as the mind that confers them meaning. Speak for yourself if you don't know what it means, I know precisely what I mean in this context.

The real issue here is that words have different senses, and it is important to stick with the right sense.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Then again, maybe "interference" isn't the best word to use in this context. It is very imprecise.

Words are as precise or imprecise as the mind that confers them meaning. Speak for yourself if you don't know what it means, I know precisely what I mean in this context.

The real issue here is that words have different senses, and it is important to stick with the right sense.

Shayne

Whatever you say, Humpty Dumpty.

As long as you understand what you mean to say, what does it matter if no one else does?

Ghs

[sjw]

Then again, maybe "interference" isn't the best word to use in this context. It is very imprecise.

Words are as precise or imprecise as the mind that confers them meaning. Speak for yourself if you don't know what it means, I know precisely what I mean in this context.

The real issue here is that words have different senses, and it is important to stick with the right sense.

Shayne

Whatever you say, Humpty Dumpty.

I agree with Humpty Dumpty.

As long as you understand what you mean to say, what does it matter if no one else does?

Ghs

Since your purpose isn't to understand you're not really in on that anyway, your opinion here doesn't matter.

Shayne

If people

[George H. Smith]

Then again, maybe "interference" isn't the best word to use in this context. It is very imprecise.

Words are as precise or imprecise as the mind that confers them meaning. Speak for yourself if you don't know what it means, I know precisely what I mean in this context.

The real issue here is that words have different senses, and it is important to stick with the right sense.

Shayne

Whatever you say, Humpty Dumpty.

I agree with Humpty Dumpty.

As long as you understand what you mean to say, what does it matter if no one else does?

Ghs

Since your purpose isn't to understand you're not really in on that anyway, your opinion here doesn't matter.

Shayne

I understand your "interference" principle very well. What you have done is taken Spencer's principle of equal freedom -- or, what amounts to the same thing, Rand's noninitiation of force principle -- and reworded it in vague and ambiguous language.

Ghs

[sjw]

I understand your "interference" principle very well. What you have done is taken Spencer's principle of equal freedom -- or, what amounts to the same thing, Rand's noninitiation of force principle

Ghs

Fine. In fact I referred to Spencer's principle when defining my meaning. (A footnote in Chapter 1).

-- and reworded it in vague and ambiguous language.

Pure intrinsicist drivel. There is no such thing as "ambiguous language", there's just you not understanding what I mean, and then once you do, complaining at me for not using your system.

Shayne

Edited February 10, 2011 by sjw

[jriggenbach]

There is no such thing as "ambiguous language", there's just you not understanding what I mean . . . .

I agree. That's one of the reasons writing is so effortlessly easy - you never need to worry about making yourself clear. If your readers don't understand what you meant, it's their fault, not yours. It's also their loss. I mean, what do you need readers for, anyway? All they do is incessantly bitch and whine about how you haven't made your meaning comprehensible. The hell with them, I say.

There's glory for you!

JR

[sjw]

There is no such thing as "ambiguous language", there's just you not understanding what I mean . . . .

I agree. That's one of the reasons writing is so effortlessly easy - you never need to worry about making yourself clear. If your readers don't understand what you meant, it's their fault, not yours. It's also their loss. I mean, what do you need readers for, anyway? All they do is incessantly bitch and whine about how you haven't made your meaning comprehensible. The hell with them, I say.

There's glory for you!

JR

What is up with the tradition of dishonesty among you people? Clearly there's such a thing as *ambiguous communication*, but that's not what George is complaining about, he's complaining about a *word*, and without even bothering to ask me why I selected that particular word, as if he can just divine "hey doesn't fit in my head so it must be wrong, don't need to ask why."

If you were honest, then there could be honest confusion about what I mean, and then when I clarify the sense in which I mean "interference" that would be that, but you're not honest, so you just look for opportunities to snipe at me. I mean that is just totally warped and deranged. With "leadership" like you running the libertarian show, it's no wonder the movement has failed to get cultural traction. You people are just too fucking dishonest to be able to do anything positive.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

So far I think you are both using and abusing the Lockean tradition respecting rights.

You don't get to toss this in without backing it up. I totally disagree.

Shayne

It's what George mentioned when he discussed Robert Filmer, comparing him to you. Filmer was pre-Lockean.

--Brant

Since you and I read George radically differently, referring to something he wrote isn't good enough.

Shayne

So, you haven't been referring to what George wrote when you've been replying to him?

--Brant

[sjw]

So, you haven't been referring to what George wrote when you've been replying to him?

--Brant

Which reply?

Shayne

[sjw]

There is no such thing as "ambiguous language", there's just you not understanding what I mean . . . .

I agree. That's one of the reasons writing is so effortlessly easy - you never need to worry about making yourself clear. If your readers don't understand what you meant, it's their fault, not yours. It's also their loss. I mean, what do you need readers for, anyway? All they do is incessantly bitch and whine about how you haven't made your meaning comprehensible. The hell with them, I say.

There's glory for you!

JR

What is up with the tradition of dishonesty among you people? Clearly there's such a thing as *ambiguous communication*, but that's not what George is complaining about, he's complaining about a *word*, and without even bothering to ask me why I selected that particular word, as if he can just divine "hey doesn't fit in my head so it must be wrong, don't need to ask why."

If you were honest, then there could be honest confusion about what I mean, and then when I clarify the sense in which I mean "interference" that would be that, but you're not honest, so you just look for opportunities to snipe at me. I mean that is just totally warped and deranged. With "leadership" like you running the libertarian show, it's no wonder the movement has failed to get cultural traction. You people are just too fucking dishonest to be able to do anything positive.

Shayne

Speaking of fucking crazy dishonest weird behavior, just look at the latest revelations of GHS concerning Kinsella and McElroy. So we have one leader of the libertarian movement allegedly suing over IP when he doesn't agree with IP, and another one allegedly doing even more bizarre and dishonest things, and on top of that, GHS was intimate friends with one of them. And then there was the whole fiasco with Branden and Rand. And then Rothbard and Rand. And who knows how many other schisms and attacks based on some leader doing something that is just pure crazy.

What kind of a crazy insane world is the libertarian movement anyway? You guys should be in a soap opera not leaders of a movement having anything to do with an ethical principle let alone being founded upon one.

The best value of Ayn Rand's was holding reason as an absolute -- and her followers promptly threw that one out the window.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

There is no such thing as "ambiguous language", there's just you not understanding what I mean . . . .

I agree. That's one of the reasons writing is so effortlessly easy - you never need to worry about making yourself clear. If your readers don't understand what you meant, it's their fault, not yours. It's also their loss. I mean, what do you need readers for, anyway? All they do is incessantly bitch and whine about how you haven't made your meaning comprehensible. The hell with them, I say.

There's glory for you!

JR

What is up with the tradition of dishonesty among you people? Clearly there's such a thing as *ambiguous communication*, but that's not what George is complaining about, he's complaining about a *word*, and without even bothering to ask me why I selected that particular word, as if he can just divine "hey doesn't fit in my head so it must be wrong, don't need to ask why."

If you were honest, then there could be honest confusion about what I mean, and then when I clarify the sense in which I mean "interference" that would be that, but you're not honest, so you just look for opportunities to snipe at me. I mean that is just totally warped and deranged. With "leadership" like you running the libertarian show, it's no wonder the movement has failed to get cultural traction. You people are just too fucking dishonest to be able to do anything positive.

Shayne

When you choose an unsuitable word to signify a concept, then it is up to you to explain why you chose that word. I don't give a rat's ass why you chose the word "interference." It does not convey the meaning that you wish to convey. Your communication skills are on the level on a child.

And your assertion that there is "no such thing as ambiguous language" is just plain wacko.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

There is no such thing as "ambiguous language", there's just you not understanding what I mean . . . .

I agree. That's one of the reasons writing is so effortlessly easy - you never need to worry about making yourself clear. If your readers don't understand what you meant, it's their fault, not yours. It's also their loss. I mean, what do you need readers for, anyway? All they do is incessantly bitch and whine about how you haven't made your meaning comprehensible. The hell with them, I say.

There's glory for you!

JR

What is up with the tradition of dishonesty among you people? Clearly there's such a thing as *ambiguous communication*, but that's not what George is complaining about, he's complaining about a *word*, and without even bothering to ask me why I selected that particular word, as if he can just divine "hey doesn't fit in my head so it must be wrong, don't need to ask why."

If you were honest, then there could be honest confusion about what I mean, and then when I clarify the sense in which I mean "interference" that would be that, but you're not honest, so you just look for opportunities to snipe at me. I mean that is just totally warped and deranged. With "leadership" like you running the libertarian show, it's no wonder the movement has failed to get cultural traction. You people are just too fucking dishonest to be able to do anything positive.

Shayne

Speaking of fucking crazy dishonest weird behavior, just look at the latest revelations of GHS concerning Kinsella and McElroy. So we have one leader of the libertarian movement allegedly suing over IP when he doesn't agree with IP, and another one allegedly doing even more bizarre and dishonest things, and on top of that, GHS was intimate friends with one of them. And then there was the whole fiasco with Branden and Rand. And then Rothbard and Rand. And who knows how many other schisms and attacks based on some leader doing something that is just pure crazy.

What kind of a crazy insane world is the libertarian movement anyway? You guys should be in a soap opera not leaders of a movement having anything to do with an ethical principle let alone being founded upon one.

The best value of Ayn Rand's was holding reason as an absolute -- and her followers promptly threw that one out the window.

Shayne

Is it just me, or has Shayne become increasingly unhinged over the past few days? I had Shayne pegged as an eccentric quack who was attempting to make a name for himself, but it has recently become clear that this guy is a real nut-case.

I may have a few more things to say about rights on this thread, after which I will head for greener pastures. But unless Shayne trips up and says something reasonable, I doubt if I will be responding to any more of his posts.

Ghs

[sjw]

When you choose an unsuitable word to signify a concept, then it is up to you to explain why you chose that word. I don't give a rat's ass why you chose the word "interference." It does not convey the meaning that you wish to convey. Your communication skills are on the level on a child.

And your assertion that there is "no such thing as ambiguous language" is just plain wacko.

Ghs

You don't get it George. We who make the world go 'round don't do it this way. If we did, it wouldn't go 'round. It'd be like this silly mess of a thread.

I'm not talking about the fact that you're an asshole. I'm talking about the fact that you don't know how to have a productive conversation with someone. In the real world, while we do care about whether there's a better way to express something, we don't get wrapped around the axle about it. We are constantly trying, in good faith, to understand each other's meaning, however poorly we might initially express ourselves. Ultimately this normally results in a mutual understanding. Since we're all focussed on the reality of getting things done, we can communicate.

You're not focussed on reality it all or on working productively with ideas and other people. And I think that is probably how you guys do it. I've talked to Kinsella, you, and enough others in your orbit to know. You are not involved in something productive, but rather in some kind of little tribal dance of words where you try to get acolytes or something.

It's really time for the engineers and other productive people to pick up the ball, you yahoos don't know what you're doing, you don't know how to get anything done.

Shayne

Edited February 11, 2011 by sjw

[Selene]

Today the schematic...

Tomorrow THE VORLD!

[George H. Smith]

When you choose an unsuitable word to signify a concept, then it is up to you to explain why you chose that word. I don't give a rat's ass why you chose the word "interference." It does not convey the meaning that you wish to convey. Your communication skills are on the level on a child.

And your assertion that there is "no such thing as ambiguous language" is just plain wacko.

Ghs

You don't get it George. We who make the world go 'round don't do it this way. If we did, it wouldn't go 'round. It'd be like this silly mess of a thread.

I'm not talking about the fact that you're an asshole. I'm talking about the fact that you don't know how to have a productive conversation with someone. In the real world, while we do care about whether there's a better way to express something, we don't get wrapped around the axle about it. We are constantly trying, in good faith, to understand each other's meaning, however poorly we might initially express ourselves. Ultimately this normally results in a mutual understanding. Since we're all focussed on the reality of getting things done, we can communicate.

You're not focussed on reality it all or on working productively with ideas and other people. And I think that is probably how you guys do it. I've talked to Kinsella, you, and enough others in your orbit to know. You are not involved in something productive, but rather in some kind of little tribal dance of words where you try to get acolytes or something.

It's really time for the engineers and other productive people to pick up the ball, you yahoos don't know what you're doing, you don't know how to get anything done.

Shayne

Take your meds and get some rest, Shayne. There will be plenty of time tomorrow for you to make the world go 'round.

Ghs

[sjw]

Is it just me, or has Shayne become increasingly unhinged over the past few days?

No reasonable person would be ever try to have a reasonable conversation with you. Ergo, I'm most definitely unhinged.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

When you choose an unsuitable word to signify a concept, then it is up to you to explain why you chose that word. I don't give a rat's ass why you chose the word "interference." It does not convey the meaning that you wish to convey. Your communication skills are on the level on a child.

And your assertion that there is "no such thing as ambiguous language" is just plain wacko.

Ghs

You don't get it George. We who make the world go 'round don't do it this way. If we did, it wouldn't go 'round. It'd be like this silly mess of a thread.

I'm not talking about the fact that you're an asshole. I'm talking about the fact that you don't know how to have a productive conversation with someone. In the real world, while we do care about whether there's a better way to express something, we don't get wrapped around the axle about it. We are constantly trying, in good faith, to understand each other's meaning, however poorly we might initially express ourselves. Ultimately this normally results in a mutual understanding. Since we're all focussed on the reality of getting things done, we can communicate.

You're not focussed on reality it all or on working productively with ideas and other people. And I think that is probably how you guys do it. I've talked to Kinsella, you, and enough others in your orbit to know. You are not involved in something productive, but rather in some kind of little tribal dance of words where you try to get acolytes or something.

It's really time for the engineers and other productive people to pick up the ball, you yahoos don't know what you're doing, you don't know how to get anything done.

Shayne

I remember this. It's the rule by the airmen in "Things to Come."

--Brant

[Selene]