Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[George H. Smith]

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

It is in the same spirit that I object to calling an institution that fully and consistently respects natural rights "government." No government in history has ever fully and consistently respected natural rights, and I see no reason to expect that any ever will.

I'm glad we were able to clear this up.....

[Brant Gaede]

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

It is in the same spirit that I object to calling an institution that fully and consistently respects natural rights "government." No government in history has ever fully and consistently respected natural rights, and I see no reason to expect that any ever will.

I'm glad we were able to clear this up.....

I'm a minarchist, although I rather dislike the term. But as a practical matter government will always on some level violate rights with its taxation schemes and revenue necessities and lack of ideological rigor and the presence of a certain parasitic citizenry with mush for brains.

I don't worry about this lack of theoretical purity nearly so much as whether The Earth is going to be clobbered by a comet or an asteroid or buried under the ever increasing supply of celebrity poop, some of which masquerades as rational and knowledgeable social, scientific, political and moral commentary.

There is no stopping this country from going splat unless the Republicans in the House of Representatives manage something drastic soon. Prediction: they won't.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

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

It is in the same spirit that I object to calling an institution that fully and consistently respects natural rights "government." No government in history has ever fully and consistently respected natural rights, and I see no reason to expect that any ever will.

I'm glad we were able to clear this up.....

I'm a minarchist, although I rather dislike the term. But as a practical matter government will always on some level violate rights with its taxation schemes and revenue necessities and lack of ideological rigor and the presence of a certain parasitic citizenry with mush for brains.

I don't worry about this lack of theoretical purity nearly so much as whether The Earth is going to be clobbered by a comet or an asteroid or buried under the ever increasing supply of celebrity poop, some of which masquerades as rational and knowledgeable social, scientific, political and moral commentary.

There is no stopping this country from going splat unless the Republicans in the House of Representatives manage something drastic soon. Prediction: they won't.

--Brant

The practical consequences of the minarchist/anarchist debate are nil. (For one thing, we will never see either system implemented.) But the debate has considerable theoretical significance and has led to interesting articles and books about the nature and role of law, the possibility of legal pluralism, and so forth.

My recent exchanges with Shayne, though they have raised some interesting issues here and there, have nothing to do with the substance of the traditional anarchist/minarchist debate. The type of "government" Shayne has been defending is identical to the type of market institution that has been defended by anarchists at least since the late 19th century, e.g., in the voluminous writings of Benjamin R. Tucker and other "individualist anarchists." (Tucker was a disciple of the anarchist Proudhon in some respects, and Proudhonian anarchists typically called for voluntary, or "mutualist," institutions, instead of governments, to enforce the rules of justice.)

Such "protection agencies" or "justice agencies" have also been defended, sometimes in considerable detail, by modern anarchists, such as Murray Rothbard, Roy Childs, Randy Barnett, and Morris and Linda Tannehill in The Market for Liberty (1969). To my knowledge, the book by the Tannehills was the first book-length modern defense of anarcho-capitalism ever written. The Wiki article says of it:

The Market for Liberty is an anarcho-capitalist book written by Linda and Morris Tannehill, which according to Karl Hess has become "something of a classic."[1] It was preceded by the self-published Liberty via the Market in 1969. Mary Ruwart credits the Tannehills and their book with winning her over to anarcho-capitalism.[2] Doug Casey was also converted to anarcho-capitalism after reading the book at the behest of Jarret Wollstein. According to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, it was written just following a period of intense study of the writings of both Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard.[3] It was the first significant anarcho-capitalist work to hit the libertarian movement, coming into print a year before Rothbard's Power and Market although Rothbard's book had been written earlier.

Shayne is defending essentially the same position as these and other libertarian anarchists. The only significant difference is that he chooses to call his agencies "governments" -- a nomenclature that other anarchists have rejected, because a government, in their view, claims sovereign jurisdiction over a given territory, whereas the private agencies defended by anarchists make no such claims.

Thus, if we put labels aside and focus on substance, Shayne and I are arguing over some details of the same position.

Ghs

[Selene]

George:

That is the way I see your "debate" with Shayne.

And that is one of the reasons that I try to insist on defining the key terms before we begin the debate.

However, I have learned a lot and you have refreshed a lot. Tucker and Proudhon were folks that I studied in detail.

Your (George) input on the Scottish enlightenment was quite special and informative as I had only a cursory knowledge of the second and third level representatives of that period.

Thanks again.

Adam

[sjw]

Thanks the series of mostly on-point posts George. I'll answer them when I get some more time.

Brant: Ideas matter. Which is to say that consistency matters. If you don't think so, fine, but then it seems pointless to offer an argument for anything, including the position that ideas don't matter.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Of course ideas matter, Shayne. Water is wet. I was talking about a small slice of the pie. They'll matter most of all when they are needed the most and that day is soon coming. Will your particular ideas on governance be amongst those ideas that matter then? I can't say I know. I'm not worrying about that; I'm worrying about that "splat" so I can survive it--literally.

--Brant

Edited February 11, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[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.

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

"Traditional" is what we have now: a government implementing a mixture of natural and man-made law, but where it asserts the man-made law improperly, into jurisdictions and onto those who do not consent.

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

No, there's no need to work from anyplace else, my two kinds of government are where it's at.

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

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

Depends on the contract. But if they don't start obeying, then they get kicked out of the community after being justly compensated for their property.

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

They will submit and obey the rules that they themselves agreed to or they will have to go, but jail or outright confiscation would violate their natural rights. They would need to be justly compensated in some manner that should have been prescribed in the contract, e.g., by letting them sell their home within the next year (say). Is this much different from how homeowners associations work now? You don't get to flout all the rules, that's the whole point of a homeowners association. If you don't like that kind of arrangement, live someplace else.

Shayne

[sjw]

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

It is in the same spirit that I object to calling an institution that fully and consistently respects natural rights "government." No government in history has ever fully and consistently respected natural rights, and I see no reason to expect that any ever will.

I'm glad we were able to clear this up.....

Well this post is pure logical fallacy. Next...

Shayne

[sjw]

I don't worry about this lack of theoretical purity nearly so much as whether The Earth is going to be clobbered by a comet or an asteroid or buried under the ever increasing supply of celebrity poop, some of which masquerades as rational and knowledgeable social, scientific, political and moral commentary.

There is no stopping this country from going splat unless the Republicans in the House of Representatives manage something drastic soon. Prediction: they won't.

--Brant

I'm curious to hear more specifics on what doomsday scenario you think is coming. In the very long term (compared to the scale of a human life) I definitely would worry about severe natural disasters. Human beings have the capacity to deal with things like asteroids but we spend too much energy squabbling. Yellowstone is about due, not sure if it's within the human capacity to deal with that problem, but with nukes who knows, maybe we could defuse it.

Shayne

[sjw]

Shayne is defending essentially the same position as these and other libertarian anarchists. The only significant difference is that he chooses to call his agencies "governments" -- a nomenclature that other anarchists have rejected, because a government, in their view, claims sovereign jurisdiction over a given territory, whereas the private agencies defended by anarchists make no such claims.

Thus, if we put labels aside and focus on substance, Shayne and I are arguing over some details of the same position.

Ghs

No, I specify two kinds, the government of natural law and of man-made law. The man-made law one gets sovereign jurisdiction (subject to natural law governments, but that is no different in principle with how city/state/federal governments overlap).

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I don't worry about this lack of theoretical purity nearly so much as whether The Earth is going to be clobbered by a comet or an asteroid or buried under the ever increasing supply of celebrity poop, some of which masquerades as rational and knowledgeable social, scientific, political and moral commentary.

There is no stopping this country from going splat unless the Republicans in the House of Representatives manage something drastic soon. Prediction: they won't.

--Brant

I'm curious to hear more specifics on what doomsday scenario you think is coming. In the very long term (compared to the scale of a human life) I definitely would worry about severe natural disasters. Human beings have the capacity to deal with things like asteroids but we spend too much energy squabbling. Yellowstone is about due, not sure if it's within the human capacity to deal with that problem, but with nukes who knows, maybe we could defuse it.

Shayne

Yellowstone would be a good one, but all I'm really talking about is the financial and political destruction of this country, which isn't going to be stopped, that being the nature of politics. No one can stand the responsibility of the necessary pain in a democracy until the whole system freezes up and everybody's got pain--big time, anyway.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

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

It is in the same spirit that I object to calling an institution that fully and consistently respects natural rights "government." No government in history has ever fully and consistently respected natural rights, and I see no reason to expect that any ever will.

I'm glad we were able to clear this up.....

Well this post is pure logical fallacy. Next...

Shayne

What logical fallacy would that be?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Shayne is defending essentially the same position as these and other libertarian anarchists. The only significant difference is that he chooses to call his agencies "governments" -- a nomenclature that other anarchists have rejected, because a government, in their view, claims sovereign jurisdiction over a given territory, whereas the private agencies defended by anarchists make no such claims.

Thus, if we put labels aside and focus on substance, Shayne and I are arguing over some details of the same position.

Ghs

No, I specify two kinds, the government of natural law and of man-made law. The man-made law one gets sovereign jurisdiction (subject to natural law governments, but that is no different in principle with how city/state/federal governments overlap).

Shayne

I asked you earlier to define what you mean by "government." Why won't you do this?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

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

Depends on the contract. But if they don't start obeying, then they get kicked out of the community after being justly compensated for their property.

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

They will submit and obey the rules that they themselves agreed to or they will have to go, but jail or outright confiscation would violate their natural rights. They would need to be justly compensated in some manner that should have been prescribed in the contract, e.g., by letting them sell their home within the next year (say). Is this much different from how homeowners associations work now? You don't get to flout all the rules, that's the whole point of a homeowners association. If you don't like that kind of arrangement, live someplace else.

Now if we can only get everyone to agree on everything, and sign contracts to that effect, we can have one peachy government!

Ghs

[sjw]

Yellowstone would be a good one, but all I'm really talking about is the financial and political destruction of this country, which isn't going to be stopped, that being the nature of politics. No one can stand the responsibility of the necessary pain in a democracy until the whole system freezes up and everybody's got pain--big time, anyway.

--Brant

Your theory might be right but I'll go with Ayn Rand's: that as long as people have free will there's a chance.

Shayne

[sjw]

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

It is in the same spirit that I object to calling an institution that fully and consistently respects natural rights "government." No government in history has ever fully and consistently respected natural rights, and I see no reason to expect that any ever will.

I'm glad we were able to clear this up.....

Well this post is pure logical fallacy. Next...

Shayne

What logical fallacy would that be?

Ghs

Two. First, just because something's never been done before doesn't argue that it's not possible. Second, just because you are ignorant about how it could work doesn't mean it's not possible. To cite a stereotype, these are typical cynical old man fallacies.

Shayne

[sjw]

Shayne is defending essentially the same position as these and other libertarian anarchists. The only significant difference is that he chooses to call his agencies "governments" -- a nomenclature that other anarchists have rejected, because a government, in their view, claims sovereign jurisdiction over a given territory, whereas the private agencies defended by anarchists make no such claims.

Thus, if we put labels aside and focus on substance, Shayne and I are arguing over some details of the same position.

Ghs

No, I specify two kinds, the government of natural law and of man-made law. The man-made law one gets sovereign jurisdiction (subject to natural law governments, but that is no different in principle with how city/state/federal governments overlap).

Shayne

I asked you earlier to define what you mean by "government." Why won't you do this?

Ghs

Not relevant. I already defined the two major types I think should exist. I don't need to create a definition to cover all the other types, those are beside the point here.

Shayne

[sjw]

Now if we can only get everyone to agree on everything, and sign contracts to that effect, we can have one peachy government!

Ghs

The first order of business is theoretical correctness, purity, lack of contradiction. If one holds the premise that people are decent, then such a theory has a better chance than one that is ill-defined or contradictory. Which is why I am attacking anarchism. I think if you take natural rights theory as your premise, you end up with government of these two essential kinds, not anarchy. Granted that the first kind doesn't have inherent sovereignty, but its jurisdiction is defined by what the constituents want. What do you think most American constituents would want? Sure, they might let some petty natural law governments "compete", but I doubt they would have practical effect on a continental scale. If they did have a positive effect, so much the better, but "competing governments" is not a goal to strive for. But the second kind clearly does have sovereignty, and that totally rules out anarchy.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

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

It is in the same spirit that I object to calling an institution that fully and consistently respects natural rights "government." No government in history has ever fully and consistently respected natural rights, and I see no reason to expect that any ever will.

I'm glad we were able to clear this up.....

Well this post is pure logical fallacy. Next...

Shayne

What logical fallacy would that be?

Ghs

Two. First, just because something's never been done before doesn't argue that it's not possible. Second, just because you are ignorant about how it could work doesn't mean it's not possible. To cite a stereotype, these are typical cynical old man fallacies.

Shayne

Ah, yes -- the dreaded Cynical Old Man Fallacies!

Unfortunately for you, I didn't make either argument that you mentioned. In fact, I didn't present any argument of any kind; I merely expressed an opinion. If I committed any fallacy, it was the "Assume Shayne Knows How to Read Fallacy."

Speaking of age, what do you plan to be when you grow up?

Ghs

[sjw]

The way I think my system would work out in practice: most activities of the Federal government that have nothing to do with upholding rights would shift to the localities. Other than that it would remain intact. The localities would vary amongst themselves depending on what they wanted, and if you didn't like living in a socialist city, you could move to a capitalist city, or vice versa, or found your own city in the wild with you and your cohorts.

I think most people would "subscribe" to the Federal Government because their protection would be too important and inexpensive to not obtain, but one could add additional natural law services at the outskirts of one's own land/city if desired.

Immigration would not be an issue, because if you wanted to live in an immigrant-free-zone, there'd probably be a city for that.

In the long run, arguments about how to run a city would be settled by success and failure. It is not my position that pure laissez-faire as normally understood would necessarily win out; I am not inherently opposed to government-run services of various kinds so long as they are consensual, which means, performed by localities that you have the liberty of leaving.

So I think this is fundamentally very much an American style of governance, the only difference being an amplified array of choices at the local level, and less liberty of government officials to choose for us at the Federal level. I think it follows from natural law principles, and I also think it's a much easier "sell" than "anarcho-capitalism".

Shayne

Edited February 12, 2011 by sjw

[George H. Smith]

Now if we can only get everyone to agree on everything, and sign contracts to that effect, we can have one peachy government!

Ghs

The first order of business is theoretical correctness, purity, lack of contradiction. If one holds the premise that people are decent, then such a theory has a better chance than one that is ill-defined or contradictory. Which is why I am attacking anarchism. I think if you take natural rights theory as your premise, you end up with government of these two essential kinds, not anarchy. Granted that the first kind doesn't have inherent sovereignty, but its jurisdiction is defined by what the constituents want. What do you think most American constituents would want? Sure, they might let some petty natural law governments "compete", but I doubt they would have practical effect on a continental scale. If they did have a positive effect, so much the better, but "competing governments" is not a goal to strive for. But the second kind clearly does have sovereignty, and that totally rules out anarchy.

Shayne

You have merely rejected the label "anarchism," which is your prerogative. You have not refuted any anarchistic arguments; on the contrary, with the exception of your confusion about the nature of law and government, you agree with those arguments in substance.

A rose by any other other name....

I suppose it would be asking too much for you to define what you mean by "sovereignty." Does your "second kind of government" -- you know, the "natural law" one that claims sovereignty -- claim sovereign jurisdiction over people without their consent? If not, if universal consent is required for this kind of government as well, then how does this universal consent manifest itself? Is it explicit or tacit?

I know this remark will go right past you, but you are not actually defending two types of government. Instead, you are attempting to distinguish between two types of law. There is a long history to the distinction between natural law and positive law in libertarian thought. You have the right general idea, but you have taken some truly fucked-up turns your effort to make a similar distinction.

Ghs

[sjw]

You have merely rejected the label "anarchism," which is your prerogative. You have not refuted any anarchistic arguments; on the contrary, with the exception of your confusion about the nature of law and government, you agree with those arguments in substance.

A rose by any other other name....

... is still a government.

I suppose it would be asking too much for you to define what you mean by "sovereignty." Does your "second kind of government" -- you know, the "natural law" one that claims sovereignty -- claim sovereign jurisdiction over people without their consent? If not, if universal consent is required for this kind of government as well, then how does this universal consent manifest itself? Is it explicit or tacit?

Explicit. No it cannot claim anything without explicit consent to the rules of governance insofar as those rules go beyond natural law.

I know this remark will go right past you, but you are not actually defending two types of government. Instead, you are attempting to distinguish between two types of law. There is a long history to the distinction between natural law and positive law in libertarian thought. You have the right general idea, but you have taken some truly fucked-up turns your effort to make a similar distinction.

Ghs

No, it's about jurisdictions. The right idea is "Federal government" vs. "City government", which of course has a relation to "Federal law" and "City law", but the primary distinction is jurisdictional.

I think calling it "man-made law" is a better phrase when contrasted with "natural law." It underscores the arbitrariness in man-made law, in contrast to the absolute truth of natural law. Also, positive sounds like positivism which denies natural law. So I like my phrase better.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I asked you earlier to define what you mean by "government." Why won't you do this?

Ghs

Not relevant. I already defined the two major types I think should exist. I don't need to create a definition to cover all the other types, those are beside the point here.

Shayne

To talk about two types of X is meaningless unless we first know what X is. When a person refuses to define his key terms, the reasonable assumption is that he doesn't know what the hell he talking about.

Bingo!

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I suppose it would be asking too much for you to define what you mean by "sovereignty." Does your "second kind of government" -- you know, the "natural law" one that claims sovereignty -- claim sovereign jurisdiction over people without their consent? If not, if universal consent is required for this kind of government as well, then how does this universal consent manifest itself? Is it explicit or tacit?

Explicit. No it cannot claim anything without explicit consent to the rules of governance insofar as those rules go beyond natural law.

I referred specifically to your "natural law" government. If I take your reply literally, it means that your "natural law" government goes beyond natural law in some respects. Is this what you meant to say?

I know this remark will go right past you, but you are not actually defending two types of government. Instead, you are attempting to distinguish between two types of law. There is a long history to the distinction between natural law and positive law in libertarian thought. You have the right general idea, but you have taken some truly fucked-up turns your effort to make a similar distinction.

Ghs

I think calling it "man-made law" is a better phrase when contrasted with "natural law." It underscores the arbitrariness in man-made law, in contrast to the absolute truth of natural law. Also, positive sounds like positivism which denies natural law. So I like my phrase better.

"Positive law" means "man-made law." But if how a word sounds generates random associations in your mind, then by all means don't use it. We wouldn't want to confuse you any more than you already are.

Ghs