Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[sjw]

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

--Brant

Don't know about that one, is it good?

There's also "Flight of the Phoenix":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059183

Highly recommended if you're a "doer". If you're not you'll be insulted, as you should be.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

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

--Brant

Don't know about that one, is it good?

There's also "Flight of the Phoenix":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059183

Highly recommended if you're a "doer". If you're not you'll be insulted, as you should be.

Shayne

It's very good 1930s stuff.

Do you know why in the final Flight of the Phoenix the plane doesn't land? It had crashed, killing the pilot, during the movie production.

In 1965 I went into one of those old movie palaces in San Antonio, Texas to see what I don't remember. The theater was almost empty. Lo and behold, Jimmy Stewart himself in the flesh walked out onto the stage to talk about various things and this new movie of his, The Flight of the Phoenix. He was on a publcity tour and doing a favor to the theater owner who apparently was some kind of friend of his.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

You're sure quick, Adam.

--Brant

[sjw]

At every key juncture in the actual debate here, George, the master at creating appearance without substance, has kicked dust into the air by cowardly changing the subject.

Contrary to the last bit of dust he's kicked into the air, this thread is not about my theory of rights. Everyone here has the same basic view of rights, their technical/theoretical justification and the particular way we each think about rights is wholly beside the point here. George knows this quite well, but he also knows that the technical, historical, and personal aspects of rights are controversial enough to create the distraction he so cowardly seeks. And this last little round of his cowardice I participated in, but only because I take Brant to be operating on good faith, so I wanted to address him, but I should have asked him to start another thread.

If you are going to debate with someone as cowardly as George, you have to be tightly disciplined and not permit him to change the subject. Unfortunately I have not been. I've allowed him to get away with too much (and I'm not the only one). Who would be willing to read through this entire thread in order to find where the original question had been dealt with? Not me. I'm willing only to go back a few dozen posts to the last time he cowardly ran off (I'll repost in my next post). So nice work George, mission accomplished. You are the master of deception.

Shayne

[sjw]

Previous relevant posts:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9765&view=findpost&p=124253 (post 335)

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9765&view=findpost&p=124386 (post 377)

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9765&view=findpost&p=124392 (post 380)

My previous post was 454, which means that it has been over a hundred posts of distraction to my 3 posts of relevance. Such is the measure of George's little "achievement" here.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Previous relevant posts:

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=124253 (post 335)

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=124386 (post 377)

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=124392 (post 380)

My previous post was 454, which means that it has been over a hundred posts of distraction to my 3 posts of relevance. Such is the measure of George's little "achievement" here.

Shayne

Giving these a quick read through, I'm having trouble accepting the homeowners' association model as the basic heart of a government. I'll reread later when I have more time. This approach does seem to replace law with contract (then calling it law?). Strikes as cart before the horse, if there be a horse.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

A few more points about inalienable rights. I have mentioned some of these points before, but they may have gotten lost in all the noise.

For the purpose of his discussion, it helps to think of a "right" as a justified claim of ownership, i.e., as a "title." Most libertarian thinkers have subscribed to some version of a title-transfer theory of contracts. This approach distinguishes between the thing that is owned and the title to that thing. It is therefore possible to transfer the title to something one owns before one actually relinquishes physical possession of the thing itself, etc.

As everyone on this list probably knows, social contract theory was a popular way of explaining political obligation during the 17th and 18th centuries. There were many variations of social contract theory; even absolutists, such as Thomas Hobbes, employed it to support their cause.

Some political philosophers, such as the immensely influential Hugo Grotius, raised the question of whether an entire people could voluntarily place themselves in a condition of political slavery. Would it be possible, via an irrevocable social contract with a ruler, for an entire people to transfer all their rights to a ruler, after which those people would be the slaves, in effect, of that ruler? Thomas Hobbes came close to defending this position, though even he maintained that the basic right of self-preservation could never be surrendered or transferred, even with a person's consent.

Few philosophers regarded the social contract as a historical event. Rather, the social contract was often viewed as a tacit, ongoing agreement between people and their sovereign. The people tacitly agreed to delegate certain of their natural rights to a sovereign, in exchange for which the sovereign agreed to dispense justice and perform other services.

In some versions of social contract theory, such as that defended by John Locke, the sovereign is not actually a party to the social contract per se. The people themselves agree to abide by the will of the majority -- this is the social contract per se --after which the majority determines the form of government they wish to live under. Governmental authority is then delegated to rulers in the form of a trust. In this Lockean approach, rulers are agents of the subjects, acting by their authority in their behalf, not co-equal parties to a contract.

This sketch of social contract theory, which is greatly simplified, will help to explain the significance of the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights. The basic problem was this: Exactly which rights were transferred {i.e., alienated) by the people to the sovereign in the social contract, and what were the precise conditions of this transfer?

These problems generated a hornet's nest of controversy throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. A entire book could easily be written about such controversies, so I cannot hope to cover them here. Suffice it to say that most Americans during the revolutionary era, including most loyalists who opposed independence, embraced social contract theory in some form. Here is some background from my forthcoming book, Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism:

It should be kept in mind that the Declaration did not actually “declare” the independence of the American colonies from Great Britain; this occurred on July 2, 1776 (two days before the Declaration was approved by the Second Continental Congress), following a resolution by Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee. It fell to Jefferson, as part of a five-man committee, to explain and justify this momentous decision, and this was his purpose in writing the Declaration. It declares, not the political separation per se, but “the causes which impel” Americans to make the separation.

Jefferson’s use of the word “impel” is significant, as is his use of “necessary.” Jefferson didn’t feel the need to justify the Lockean paradigm, since he believed it was already the prevailing ideology in America, but many Americans were either undecided about independence or opposed it outright. The Declaration was addressed as much to these people as it was to “mankind” at large. Jefferson wished to convince fence sitters and skeptics that, contrary to assertions of critics, independence was not a reckless scheme hatched by hotheaded, seditious radicals who were eager to grab power for themselves, but was rendered necessary by the despotic actions of the British government.

This was not an easy case to make. Jefferson was writing a century after Locke had written his Second Treatise; and though Locke believed that revolution is theoretically warranted against any form of government that had degenerated into tyranny, his primary target was Sir Robert Filmer and other champions of absolute monarchy. Jefferson faced a different situation. Theories of absolute monarchy were a spent force in Britain after the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688, and they were never popular in the colonies. Even the most radical of American revolutionaries didn’t claim that Britain was an absolute monarchy; on the contrary, in the years leading up to independence, their complaints were directed against the British Parliament, not against the King, and they frequently petitioned the King to protect them against a corrupt and predatory Parliament.

Because the British government was a constitutional monarchy of the sort that Locke himself had defended (the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was sometimes hailed as a triumph of Lockean principles), Jefferson had to adapt the Lockean paradigm accordingly. He needed to demonstrate that “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” Jefferson speaks of absolute tyranny, not of absolute monarchy -- thereby stressing a point that Locke had also made but not emphasized, namely, that the people may overthrow “any Form of Government” that has lapsed into tyranny.

This is why the most relevant part of the Declaration, so far as Jefferson’s contemporaries were concerned, was not the second paragraph that commands our attention today, but rather the list of grievances. The Lockean paradigm was widely accepted in both America and Britain, so Jefferson (unlike Locke) didn’t need to mount a philosophical defense of its principles. But even those who work within the same theoretical paradigm will often disagree about how its principles should be applied to a concrete problem. This was the most serious problem that Jefferson faced. Unlike Locke, he didn’t need to convince his readers that revolution is justifiable in principle; instead, Jefferson needed to show that the relationship between America and Britain had degenerated to the point where a revolution was justified -- indeed, necessary -- in this particular case, according to criteria spelled out in the Lockean Paradigm.

I will pick this story up in my next post.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Previous relevant posts:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9765&view=findpost&p=124253 (post 335)

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9765&view=findpost&p=124386 (post 377)

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9765&view=findpost&p=124392 (post 380)

My previous post was 454, which means that it has been over a hundred posts of distraction to my 3 posts of relevance. Such is the measure of George's little "achievement" here.

Shayne

None of Shayne's posts linked above deals with any of my questions or criticisms. Shayne merely repeats his original points over and over again. For example, in the third linked post, he goes on once again about the rights of landowners. Fine, but that is not the issue here.

The crux of the matter is this: Landownership does not confer a type of governmental power upon the landowner. The private contracts between landowners and tenants, or between landowners themselves, do not differ from any other kind of contract. And though it is the business of government to enforce private contracts, it is not the business of government to codify into law the specific provisions of private contracts.

In other words, just because a landlord may demand, as part of a lease agreement, that no pets are allowed in his apartments, this does not mean that a government may enact a law stating that no pets are permitted in any apartment within its jurisdiction.

Such a law is completely impermissible, by libertarian standards, even if all landlords in the same jurisdiction include the same "no pets" provision in their leases. The same reasoning applies to provisions about taking out the garbage, noise, etc., etc. Here is how I put this matter in an earlier post:

In the situation under consideration here, the most a government can do is to enforce specific contracts between a landowner and his tenants. If a particular contract includes a provision to take out the garbage on a regular basis, then a government may enforce this contract by authorizing eviction of the nonconforming tenant. But this is a far cry from a government itself passing laws about garbage, noise, and everything else under the sun that a landlord might require.

A government, on whatever level, has no business passing such laws. This is a private matter between landlords and their tenants. For a government to enforce a contract is one thing, but for a government to enact into law the conditions specified in a private contract is another thing entirely. The latter is wholly impermissible for a limited government.

Ghs

Shayne's enormous confusion on this matter stems from his failure to distinguish between the legitimate rights and powers of a government and the legitimate rights and powers of landowners. His entire analysis is vitiated by his sloppy thinking on this fundamental level.

Ghs

[sjw]

Giving these a quick read through, I'm having trouble accepting the homeowners' association model as the basic heart of a government. I'll reread later when I have more time. This approach does seem to replace law with contract (then calling it law?). Strikes as cart before the horse, if there be a horse.

--Brant

The homeowners association is not per se the model, it's an instance. Also, there are two kinds of government I have been talking about, the government of natural laws, and that of man-made laws. Regarding the latter, there is only one manner in which they can be rightly created: contracts.

To take an example: traffic laws. Driving a car can touch on both areas of law. For instance, reckless driving is a violation of natural law. If you drive so fast that you objectively endanger others, then it doesn't matter what the local laws and regulations are, the government rightly can come after you for it (even if the speed limit is 55 but the conditions don't safely permit 55, they'll rightly ticket you for reckless driving). However, if you're driving 75 in a 65 zone, with no one anywhere in sight and no possibility of harming anyone, that's merely a violation of a man-made speed limit law, and this law rightly exists only on the basis of contract.

There's no "cart before the horse" here, there's just the simple observation that the vast majority of laws, such as speeding laws, can only rightly exist with the consent of both parties. If you don't want to call man-made laws "law", fine, but that's just semantics. I call such contracts "law" because that's the convention.

Shayne

[sjw]

None of Shayne's posts linked above deals with any of my questions or criticisms. Shayne merely repeats his original points over and over again. For example, in the third linked post, he goes on once again about the rights of landowners. Fine, but that is not the issue here.

The crux of the matter is this: Landownership does not confer a type of governmental power upon the landowner.

Is George a. confused; b. dishonest; c. stupid? Going by the history of this thread, I'd say it has to be b, and that he expects the reader to be c.

*Only* land ownership confers the right to make up arbitrary rules like speed limits. That's the whole point. And when a land owner specifies the law of his land, such as "no driving faster than 15mph", and you go on his land and speed, then by virtue of you being on *his* property, a natural law is thus violated, and that is what permits any government to come to his aid.

Shayne

Edited February 11, 2011 by sjw

[George H. Smith]

None of Shayne's posts linked above deals with any of my questions or criticisms. Shayne merely repeats his original points over and over again. For example, in the third linked post, he goes on once again about the rights of landowners. Fine, but that is not the issue here.

The crux of the matter is this: Landownership does not confer a type of governmental power upon the landowner.

Is George a. confused; b. dishonest; c. stupid? Going by the history of this thread, I'd say it has to be b, and that he expects the reader to be c.

*Only* land ownership confers the right to make up arbitrary rules like speed limits. That's the whole point. And when a land owner specifies the law of his land, such as "no driving faster than 15mph", and you go on his land and speed, then by virtue of you being on *his* property, a natural law is thus violated, and that is what permits any government to come to his aid.

Shayne

Feel free to address the points I raised in my post, if the mood should ever strike you.

Ghs

[sjw]

Feel free to address the points I raised in my post, if the mood should ever strike you.

Ghs

You mean nonsense like this? "In other words, just because a landlord may demand, as part of a lease agreement, that no pets are allowed in his apartments, this does not mean that a government may enact a law stating that no pets are permitted in any apartment within its jurisdiction."

What would be the point of addressing where you utterly evade the point? I never said that another party could enact laws upon you, I said *you* get to make the laws on your own property. A third party (like a government) can come to your defense if someone violates your property rights (such as violating the terms in which you permit him to be there), but he can't make the laws of your land.

Shayne

[PDS]

None of Shayne's posts linked above deals with any of my questions or criticisms. Shayne merely repeats his original points over and over again. For example, in the third linked post, he goes on once again about the rights of landowners. Fine, but that is not the issue here.

The crux of the matter is this: Landownership does not confer a type of governmental power upon the landowner.

Is George a. confused; b. dishonest; c. stupid? Going by the history of this thread, I'd say it has to be b, and that he expects the reader to be c.

*Only* land ownership confers the right to make up arbitrary rules like speed limits. That's the whole point. And when a land owner specifies the law of his land, such as "no driving faster than 15mph", and you go on his land and speed, then by virtue of you being on *his* property, a natural law is thus violated, and that is what permits any government to come to his aid.

Shayne

Is it the speeding or the trespass that violates "natural law" in your example above?

[sjw]

Is it the speeding or the trespass that violates "natural law" in your example above?

It would be trespass or contract violation, depending on how you came to be on his property.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Feel free to address the points I raised in my post, if the mood should ever strike you.

Ghs

You mean nonsense like this? "In other words, just because a landlord may demand, as part of a lease agreement, that no pets are allowed in his apartments, this does not mean that a government may enact a law stating that no pets are permitted in any apartment within its jurisdiction."

What would be the point of addressing where you utterly evade the point? I never said that another party could enact laws upon you, I said *you* get to make the laws on your own property. A third party (like a government) can come to your defense if someone violates your property rights (such as violating the terms in which you permit him to be there), but he can't make the laws of your land.

Shayne

You conveniently neglected to quote the next part of my post, where I stipulate that all landowners in a given jurisdiction agree not to permit pets in their apartments. I wrote:

Such a law is completely impermissible, by libertarian standards, even if all landlords in the same jurisdiction include the same "no pets" provision in their leases. The same reasoning applies to provisions about taking out the garbage, noise, etc., etc.

According to your basic argument, as articulated in your headline post, if every landowner agrees on certain provisions, then those provisions may become the law of the land. Here is what you said:

But a wide range of local laws and regulations are clearly defensible. For example: no loud noises after 10pm, no making a mess of the kitchen without cleaning up, taking out the garbage, etc. are all fair game, even though they have no basis in Natural Law but the fact that there is the proposition "take my rules or leave the house" -- the natural right of consent -- standing behind them. (My italics.)

My "no pets" example is no different than your examples of laws concerning noise, clean kitchens, etc. If you have no problem, in theory, with a legal system that mandates clean kitchens, I cannot imagine why, using the same reasoning, you would have a problem with a law that stipulates no pets -- so long as all the landowners agree to this provision.

You have also raised the subject of speed limits. Suppose that all private owners of freeways within a given jurisdiction agree to a maximum speed limit of 70 mph. Fine, but it does not follow from this that a government has the right to mandate this maximum. A limited government may not pass a law stating that no privately owned freeway shall permit a maximum speed limit greater or less than 70 mph, even if every freeway owner agrees to such a law. If a freeway owner later decides to raise his maximum to 80 mph, that is his business.

There are some technical issues here relating to supposedly irrevocable agreements, such as racial covenants that specify that the purchaser of a house may not in turn sell or rent that house to a certain racial minority, but these problems have no bearing on the issue we are discussing.

My point is a simple one, to wit: Although a limited government should enforce (valid) private contracts, it may not codify into law the specific provisions of particular contracts. Thus, contrary to your assertions, a government may not pass laws regarding noise, clean kitchens, garbage, pets, etc. -- even if all the landowners in its jurisdiction wish it to.

Savvy?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Those who would like to read a competent exposition of the type of "proprietary community" that Shayne is fumbling with should get a copy of The Art of Community, by the anthropologist and libertarian Spencer Heath MacCallum. I believe this excellent book is out of print, but you might be able to locate a used copy.

From the Wiki article on Spencer:

MacCallum shared his grandfather's interest in multi-tenant properties where developers lease properties and are responsible for providing community services, thereby replacing the functions of the state.[1] He details these ideas in his 1970 booklet "The Art of Community"; his 2003 articles "The Enterprise of Community: Market Competition, Land, and Environment" and "Looking Back and Forward" (which describes the influence of his grandfather); and his 2005 article on stateless social organization "From Upstate New York to the Horn of Africa". He edited and published the book "The Law of the Somalis" by Michael van Notten which deals with the foundations of private law as it was in Somalia (see History of Somalia (1991-2006)).

Unlike our resident bumbling advocate of proprietary communities, who sees government everywhere, even in family relationships, Spencer understands that proprietary communities are stateless societies.

I saw a lot of Spencer during my earlier years in Los Angeles, and I last saw him at an ISIL convention several years ago. He has a very sharp and innovative mind. I highly recommend his writings.

Ghs

[sjw]

You conveniently neglected to quote the next part of my post, where I stipulate that all landowners in a given jurisdiction agree not to permit pets in their apartments. I wrote:

I missed that inadvertently.

Such a law is completely impermissible, by libertarian standards, even if all landlords in the same jurisdiction include the same "no pets" provision in their leases. The same reasoning applies to provisions about taking out the garbage, noise, etc., etc.

It may not be "libertarian", but that's kind of my point. Not everyone wants to live in a libertarian community, and that should be fine with you so long as you're not forced to live there.

According to your basic argument, as articulated in your headline post, if every landowner agrees on certain provisions, then those provisions may become the law of the land. Here is what you said:

Actually what I say is that the law of the land is what the individual property owner makes it be. Out of this can arise wider jurisdictions of man made laws. Maybe that's a quibble maybe not, I'm not sure what your argument is.

My "no pets" example is no different than your examples of laws concerning noise, clean kitchens, etc. If you have no problem, in theory, with a legal system that mandates clean kitchens, I cannot imagine why, using the same reasoning, you would have a problem with a law that stipulates no pets -- so long as all the landowners agree to this provision.

I have no problem with the people over there yonder, in the next town, having that legal system, I wouldn't want to participate.

You have also raised the subject of speed limits. Suppose that all private owners of freeways within a given jurisdiction agree to a maximum speed limit of 70 mph. Fine, but it does not follow from this that a government has the right to mandate this maximum. A limited government may not pass a law stating that no privately owned freeway shall permit a maximum speed limit greater or less than 70 mph, even if every freeway owner agrees to such a law. If a freeway owner later decides to raise his maximum to 80 mph, that is his business.

There are some technical issues here relating to supposedly irrevocable agreements, such as racial covenants that specify that the the purchaser of a house may not in turn sell or rent that house to a certain racial minority, but these problems have no bearing on the issue we are discussing.

My point is a simple one, to wit: Although a limited government should enforce (valid) private contracts, it may not codify into law the specific provisions of particular contracts. Thus, contrary to your assertions, a government may not pass laws regarding noise, clean kitchens, garbage, pets, etc. -- even if all the landowners in its jurisdiction wish it to.

Savvy?

Ghs

We're having a discussion and we're near to the center of the disagreement.

When I say "limited government", I mean limited in one of two ways: 1. Limited to natural law (which is really in essence just the traditional concept of limited government, but I accept competing governments on this level); 2. limited by the extent of property ownership, a government of arbitrary man-made laws but subject to natural law (consent must be involved, powers of enforcement are limited by natural law), but unlimited otherwise (competing man-made governments can be banned). I see both as kinds of government.

So yes, I accept a concept of government, of the second limited kind, that says "no pit bulls allowed in this jurisdiction" or "no banned drugs." Clearly you object to this but I do not know what your grounds are. I don't know if you merely have a semantic problem with me calling it "government", or whether you have some deeper philosophic objection.

Shayne

[sjw]

Those who would like to read a competent exposition of the type of "proprietary community" that Shayne is fumbling with should get a copy of The Art of Community, by the anthropologist and libertarian Spencer Heath MacCallum. I believe this excellent book is out of print, but you might be able to locate a used copy.

Unlike our resident bumbling advocate of proprietary communities, who sees government everywhere, even in family relationships, Spencer understands that proprietary communities are stateless societies.

It is perfectly silly to not call what I'm talking about "government," but I ordered a copy anyway.

Speaking of people who have had similar thoughts as me, I recently came up on this reference to Paul Beaird:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/4_3/4_3_7.pdf

His idea is not exactly the same as mine but is definitely in the vicinity.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

When I say "limited government", I mean limited in one of two ways: 1. Limited to natural law (which is really in essence just the traditional concept of limited government, but I accept competing governments on this level); 2. limited by the extent of property ownership, a government of arbitrary man-made laws but subject to natural law (consent must be involved, powers of enforcement are limited by natural law), but unlimited otherwise (competing man-made governments can be banned). I see both as kinds of government.

So yes, I accept a concept of government, of the second limited kind, that says "no pit bulls allowed in this jurisdiction" or "no banned drugs." Clearly you object to this but I do not know what your grounds are. I don't know if you merely have a semantic problem with me calling it "government", or whether you have some deeper philosophic objection.

Your basic problem, to repeat, is that you do not understand the essential difference between the rules that parents set for children, or the rules that landlords specify for their tenants, and governmental laws. Parents do not "govern" their children, and landlords do not "govern" their tenants in the same sense that a state governs its citizens. It is only by blending these different kinds of relationships into one nebulous notion -- "government" -- that you are able to slide from what parents and landowners may do to the laws that a government may pass.

Government, properly considered, is not the enforcement arm of landowners, and it is not the a proper function of government to pass into law every whim that a landlord may wish to impose on his tenants.

My position, which is the standard approach to limited government, seems to puzzle you. You do not see why the unanimous consent of landowners would not justify "arbitrary" laws, no matter how paternalistic, that "natural law" would not.

Well, let's consider another hypothetical scenario. Imagine a country in which racists have pooled their resources to purchase all the land in a province they call Caucasia. These racists landowners will only permit "Aryans" (as they define the term) on their land. No Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, etc., are allowed.

This racial exclusion, as distasteful or morally repugnant as we may find it, would be permissible in a free society. But does this mean that the laws of this country should ban non-Aryans from entering the province of Caucasia? No, of course not.

Similarly, suppose Christians purchased all the land in Rhode Island and barred all atheists from trespassing upon their land. Again, this would be their right as private citizens, but does this mean that we should have a law (in a libertarian U.S.) that declares, "No atheist shall be permitted to enter the state of Rhode Island"? Again, no.

So why not? In a nutshell, the reason is that it is not a proper function of law to tell people where they can and cannot go. The desires and whims of landlords are no more significant in this regard that the desires and whims of other people. A labor union, with the agreement of its members, may stipulate a minimum wage for its members, but the union may not get a law enacted which decrees that no member of that union shall accept a job for less than the minimum.

In short, proper governmental laws must be universal and impartial. They cannot specify that certain people shall be treated in one way and other people in another way. The latter are matters to be decided by the voluntary agreements of individuals. Thus, as I said before, although a government may enforce valid contracts, it may not codify into law specific provisions of contractual relationships.

If landowners in a certain town agree to exclude atheists, then they won't rent to atheists. But if one landowner sells his land, the next owner may not agree to this restriction, in which case he is free to rent to whomever he likes. But if a local law has been previously passed against renting to atheists, then this landowner would be violating the law -- a law that should never have been passed in the first place. The same problem applies to people who inherit land, to landowners who change their minds, etc.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Those who would like to read a competent exposition of the type of "proprietary community" that Shayne is fumbling with should get a copy of The Art of Community, by the anthropologist and libertarian Spencer Heath MacCallum. I believe this excellent book is out of print, but you might be able to locate a used copy.

Unlike our resident bumbling advocate of proprietary communities, who sees government everywhere, even in family relationships, Spencer understands that proprietary communities are stateless societies.

It is perfectly silly to not call what I'm talking about "government," but I ordered a copy anyway.

Speaking of people who have had similar thoughts as me, I recently came up on this reference to Paul Beaird:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/4_3/4_3_7.pdf

His idea is not exactly the same as mine but is definitely in the vicinity.

Shayne

You need to jump off your hobby horse about the meaning of "government." Spencer speaks of stateless societies, but I don't recall if he distinguishes between "state" and "government." It is by no means unusual for anthropologists to distinguish between these two terms for technical reasons. You may not be concerned about precision in language, but other people are.

Btw, given that you agree with Humpty Dumpty (i.e., that a word means precisely what you want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less), then why do you deny this privilege to others? Why, when an anarchist says that by "government" he means X, is he not permitted to play Humpty Dumpty as well? Why are you permitted to use terms that others may find confusing or inappropriate, such as "interference," so long as you are clear about what you you mean, but anarchists are not permitted to use "government" in a manner you may find confusing or inappropriate, even if they are clear about what they mean?

Why the linguistic double-standard? Do you have a monopoly on the role of Humpty Dumpty?

<a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/humpty dumpty/lakins_bucket/humpty-dumpty.gif?o=15" target="_blank"><img src="http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w317/lakins_bucket/humpty-dumpty.gif" border="0"></a>

Ghs

[sjw]

Your basic problem, to repeat, is that you do not understand the essential difference between the rules that parents set for children, or the rules that landlords specify for their tenants, and governmental laws. Parents do not "govern" their children, and landlords do not "govern" their tenants in the same sense that a state governs its citizens. It is only by blending these different kinds of relationships into one nebulous notion -- "government" -- that you are able to slide from what parents and landowners may do to the laws that a government may pass.

On the contrary, your basic problem is that you do not see the difference between specifying what your objection actually is (I still don't know) and insulting me.

Further, I am not the one "blending" concepts of government, rather I do the opposite, I separate the traditional concept into two basic types of limited government: one rooted in natural law (which is essentially your approach to limited government, it does NOT "puzzle" me), and one rooted in ownership.

You have written a lot of words there talking about what government isn't, but it's all question begging. You assume a certain kind of government and then observe that, according to your arbitrary fiat, the second type I specify isn't one. And yet, if we run a little thought experiment of people doing what they want with their land, building a town etc., then it's easy to see that they can write arbitrary laws have a local policeman and judge back them up so long as he does not cross the line of violating natural law, so long as everything is based on consent.

"But if one landowner sells his land, the next owner may not agree to this restriction,"

Is this your only objection? I already addressed this point earlier in the thread, and I disagree. If I have a homeowner's association that says "no trashing your home, keep it looking nice", then one of the members can't sell to someone who breaks the rules and trashes his house.

Shayne

[sjw]

Btw, given that you agree with Humpty Dumpty (i.e., that a word means precisely what you want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less), then why do you deny this privilege to others? Why, when an anarchist says that by "government" he means X, is he not permitted to play Humpty Dumpty as well? Why are you permitted to use terms that others may find confusing or inappropriate, such as "interference," so long as you are clear about what you you mean, but anarchists are not permitted to use "government" in a manner you may find confusing or inappropriate, even if they are clear about what they mean?

Why the linguistic double-standard? Do you have a monopoly on the role of Humpty Dumpty?

For the purposes of ad hoc communication, I do permit them that right. E.g., you could sort of call my conception of natural law government "anarcho-capitalism", the concepts are approximately the same. (I don't see a comparable concept in their terminology to my concept of a local government though.)

I think when people are trying to have meeting of the minds they need to let each other be Humpty Dumpty. But, once that is done, then I would advocate trying to find the best terms. It is in that spirit that I object to calling a system that fully and consistently respects natural rights "anarchism."

Shayne

[sjw]

"But if one landowner sells his land, the next owner may not agree to this restriction,"

Is this your only objection? I already addressed this point earlier in the thread, and I disagree. If I have a homeowner's association that says "no trashing your home, keep it looking nice", then one of the members can't sell to someone who breaks the rules and trashes his house.

Let me clarify: there are conditions on which total secession is permissible, but there are also conditions where it is not. A homeowners association is an example where it very likely would be impermissible, and I mean that it would violate natural law.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Your basic problem, to repeat, is that you do not understand the essential difference between the rules that parents set for children, or the rules that landlords specify for their tenants, and governmental laws. Parents do not "govern" their children, and landlords do not "govern" their tenants in the same sense that a state governs its citizens. It is only by blending these different kinds of relationships into one nebulous notion -- "government" -- that you are able to slide from what parents and landowners may do to the laws that a government may pass.

On the contrary, your basic problem is that you do not see the difference between specifying what your objection actually is (I still don't know) and insulting me.

Further, I am not the one "blending" concepts of government, rather I do the opposite, I separate the traditional concept into two basic types of limited government: one rooted in natural law (which is essentially your approach to limited government, it does NOT "puzzle" me), and one rooted in ownership.

What "traditional concept" of government would that be? As advocated by whom?

Let's cut to the chase: Give us a definition of what you mean by "government," and we will work from there. Then, after presenting this defintion, please specify whether you would define "state" in the same way.

What saith Humpty Dumpty?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

"But if one landowner sells his land, the next owner may not agree to this restriction,"

Is this your only objection? I already addressed this point earlier in the thread, and I disagree. If I have a homeowner's association that says "no trashing your home, keep it looking nice", then one of the members can't sell to someone who breaks the rules and trashes his house.

Let me clarify: there are conditions on which total secession is permissible, but there are also conditions where it is not. A homeowners association is an example where it very likely would be impermissible, and I mean that it would violate natural law.

Shayne

So what would your Homeowners Association do if one or more owners decided to renege on their agreement, say, about clean kitchens? Fine them?

Okay, suppose the disobedient owners refuse to pay the fine. What would the Homeowners Association do then? Put the criminals on trial with other members of the Association acting as judge and jury? Confiscate their land? Imprison them in a Homeowners Association jail? What, exactly?

Ghs