Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[sjw]

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

I defined my key terms, the only terms of interest are the natural law and man-made law governments.

Your epistemology is exactly backwards. We reason from concretes to universals, not the other way around. No wonder you have difficulties with simple concepts.

Edit: well the previous sentence isn't precisely true (applying universals to particulars is also reasoning), but the fact remains that an even more abstract concept of government is not relevant here at all. The two specific instances, which are well enough defined for our purposes, are all we need. If I mix all the different kinds of governments together into a broad abstraction that covers them all, it will be completely useless.

Shayne

Edited February 12, 2011 by sjw

[sjw]

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 think you're confused about something. The natural-law government is the first kind, the man-made law government is the second. Only the man-made law kind claims sovereignty, not the natural-law one. And the man-made law one isn't completely arbitrary, it is subject to natural law, it's just that through natural law, all sorts of other man-made laws can be created. The sovereignty naturally arises from ownership.

"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

You're so hasty at taking opportunities to insult that it oftentimes make you appear stupid. After fundamental concepts are sound, there's still reason to choose the most appropriate word. Yes, in principle any word should do, but we should pick a word that best conveys the concept in simple terms to new initiates to the ideas. "Positive law" doesn't convey what is important here to a newbie, "man-made" law does.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

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

I defined my key terms, the only terms of interest are the natural law and man-made law governments.

Your epistemology is exactly backwards. We reason from concretes to universals, not the other way around. No wonder you have difficulties with simple concepts.

Edit: well the previous sentence isn't precisely true (applying universals to particulars is also reasoning), but the fact remains that an even more abstract concept of government is not relevant here at all. The two specific instances, which are well enough defined for our purposes, are all we need. If I mix all the different kinds of governments together into a broad abstraction that covers them all, it will be completely useless.

Shayne

The unknowable destination? "Philosophy? I don't need no stinkin' philosophy!"

--Brant

[sjw]

The unknowable destination? "Philosophy? I don't need no stinkin' philosophy!"

--Brant

Epithets instead of arguments. Don't complain about loss of liberty Brant, by refusing to use reason, you're part of the problem.

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

I defined my key terms, the only terms of interest are the natural law and man-made law governments.

Your epistemology is exactly backwards. We reason from concretes to universals, not the other way around. No wonder you have difficulties with simple concepts.

Edit: well the previous sentence isn't precisely true (applying universals to particulars is also reasoning), but the fact remains that an even more abstract concept of government is not relevant here at all. The two specific instances, which are well enough defined for our purposes, are all we need. If I mix all the different kinds of governments together into a broad abstraction that covers them all, it will be completely useless.

Shayne

Okay, so you cannot define what you mean by "government." I didn't think you could, given the reckless abandon with which you throw around this word.

How about "sovereignty"? Can you define this word? Or is that top secret as well?

Btw, your excuses for not explaining the meanings of the words you use are truly idiotic, even by your standards.

And where did you get the bullshit about "our purposes"? One of my purposes is to figure out what you are talking about when you speak of "government." But if you don't know, which you obviously don't, then it comes as no surprise that much of what you write about "government" comes across as gibberish.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

The unknowable destination? "Philosophy? I don't need no stinkin' philosophy!"

--Brant

Epithets instead of arguments. Don't complain about loss of liberty Brant, by refusing to use reason, you're part of the problem.

Shayne

A philosophy of reason. Now we can start our engines. Let's define our terms.

--Brant

[sjw]

Okay, so you cannot define what you mean by "government." I didn't think you could, given the reckless abandon with which you throw around this word.

I can, but won't, because it's not relevant. When I say "natural law government", you aren't supposed to take some previously-existing idea of government, and then tack it on to some previously existing idea of "natural law", in order to deduce what is meant. Your method is totally wrong and backwards.

How about "sovereignty"? Can you define this word? Or is that top secret as well?

That term's relevant, I don't gather that you have any difficulty knowing what it means.

Btw, your excuses for not explaining the meanings of the words you use are truly idiotic, even by your standards.

And where did you get the bullshit about "our purposes"? One of my purposes is to figure out what you are talking about when you speak of "government." But if you don't know, which you obviously don't, then it comes as no surprise that much of what you write about "government" comes across as gibberish.

Ghs

Actually, part of why I don't define it is because I suspect you're playing a silly game with me. You'd never do that would you? You earnestly, in good faith, sincerely want to understand what I mean, and that's the only reason you ask. Yeah right. You're full of bullshit, and my BS detector is going off.

Shayne

[sjw]

The unknowable destination? "Philosophy? I don't need no stinkin' philosophy!"

--Brant

Epithets instead of arguments. Don't complain about loss of liberty Brant, by refusing to use reason, you're part of the problem.

Shayne

A philosophy of reason. Now we can start our engines. Let's define our terms.

--Brant

Stop being a hypocrite. Irrationalists don't deserve liberty, look in the mirror: all you and George are doing is whining at me to define, and when I say why I don't, you ignore my reasons and whine some more.

Shayne

[sjw]

Brant, why don't you stop acting like George's pet.

Shayne

[sjw]

Mr. Alpha Male says: "Define government." So the beta male Pavlovian response is to start yapping "define government, define government". Nobody ever says *why* government needs defining at this particular juncture, it just sounds like a nice thing to do.

My view is that every participant already has serviceable definitions of that term, it's the distinctive aspects of natural-law vs. man-made law government that need elaborating on. Since I see no *reason* why government needs defining, then I conclude that Mr. Alpha Male has some dirty trick up his sleeve, or wants to distract from previous issues I have addressed, just as he has done so often already.

Either stop yapping or give me a good reason why the definition of government is at issue here.

Shayne

[Selene]

FYI: Expert opinion

"The definition of terms is often an essential part of debate. In some instances, the opposing advocates will agree right away on the definition of terms, and the debate will move on to other issues. In other cases, the locus of the debate may be the definition of a key term or terms, and definitions become the "voting issue" that decides the debate.

Many intercollegiate debate propositions call for the "federal government" to adopt a certain policy. Often the term is self-evident in the context of the proposition, and no definition is necessary. In debates on the "mass media" proposition, the affirmative merely designates the appropriate federal agency to carry out its policy, and the debate moves on to other issues. However, sometimes other terms in the proposition become critical issues of the debate. Not infrequently the negative team will raise the issue of topicality and argue that the affirmative's plan is not the best definition of the proposition.

The terms of a debate proposition may be defined in a variety of ways. To make the basis of the argument explicit, advocates should choose the method or combination of methods best suited to the requirements of the proposition and to the interests of the audience. It is important to define terms carefully to ensure a profitable debate.

[excerpted from Austin J. Freely's 9th Edition of "Argumentation and Debate."

[sjw]

FYI: Expert opinion

"The definition of terms is often an essential part of debate. In some instances, the opposing advocates will agree right away on the definition of terms, and the debate will move on to other issues. In other cases, the locus of the debate may be the definition of a key term or terms, and definitions become the "voting issue" that decides the debate.

Many intercollegiate debate propositions call for the "federal government" to adopt a certain policy. Often the term is self-evident in the context of the proposition, and no definition is necessary. In debates on the "mass media" proposition, the affirmative merely designates the appropriate federal agency to carry out its policy, and the debate moves on to other issues. However, sometimes other terms in the proposition become critical issues of the debate. Not infrequently the negative team will raise the issue of topicality and argue that the affirmative's plan is not the best definition of the proposition.

The terms of a debate proposition may be defined in a variety of ways. To make the basis of the argument explicit, advocates should choose the method or combination of methods best suited to the requirements of the proposition and to the interests of the audience. It is important to define terms carefully to ensure a profitable debate.

[excerpted from Austin J. Freely's 9th Edition of "Argumentation and Debate."

Yap yap yap yap yap.

You define government. I'll probably agree and then we can move on.

Shayne

[sjw]

Ayn Rand: "A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area."

I disagree. Here is a serviceable modification: "A government is an institution that holds the power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area."

Natural law government: "A natural law government is a government that holds the power and prerogative to enforce individual rights in a given geographical area."

Man-made law government: "A man-made law government is a government that holds the power and prerogative to exclusively enforce arbitrary rules in a geographical area owned by those who consent to such rules, and so long as such enforcement does not violate natural law."

Totalitarian government: "A totalitarian government is government that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area not necessarily defined according to ownership." (Note the similarity to Rand's definition).

Shayne

Edited February 12, 2011 by sjw

[Brant Gaede]

Brant, why don't you stop acting like George's pet.

Shayne

I'm a pet of reason.

--Brant

[sjw]

Brant, why don't you stop acting like George's pet.

Shayne

I'm a pet of reason.

--Brant

This thread has been talking about "government" in some terms for hundreds of posts. And *now*, right on George's cue, you ask me to define it. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.

But there you go, I threw you some definitions. Definitions which could have been readily inferred from what I've been saying.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand: "A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area."

I disagree. Here is a serviceable modification: "A government is an institution that holds the power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area."

Natural law government: "A natural law government is a government that holds the power and prerogative to enforce individual rights in a given geographical area."

Here, of course, you deny governement a basic monoploy on the use of retaliatory force under formal law.

--Brant

[sjw]

Ayn Rand: "A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area."

I disagree. Here is a serviceable modification: "A government is an institution that holds the power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area."

Natural law government: "A natural law government is a government that holds the power and prerogative to enforce individual rights in a given geographical area."

Here, of course, you deny governement a basic monoploy on the use of retaliatory force under formal law.

--Brant

If you think government has a "monopoly" then I guess you think the whole world is just one big extension of the American government, because America seems just fine sending forces in here or there when it wants to.

There is no "monopoly." If you do things badly enough, another government's going to lean on you, and if that doesn't work, they'll come right in.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Brant, why don't you stop acting like George's pet.

Shayne

I'm a pet of reason.

--Brant

This thread has been talking about "government" in some terms for hundreds of posts. And *now*, right on George's cue, you ask me to define it. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.

But there you go, I threw you some definitions. Definitions which could have been readily inferred from what I've been saying.

Shayne

I suggest you stop asking me "Are you still beating your wife" questions. I read George. His request was reasonable. Now let's see what he does with your definitions.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand: "A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area."

I disagree. Here is a serviceable modification: "A government is an institution that holds the power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area."

Natural law government: "A natural law government is a government that holds the power and prerogative to enforce individual rights in a given geographical area."

Here, of course, you deny governement a basic monoploy on the use of retaliatory force under formal law.

--Brant

If you think government has a "monopoly" then I guess you think the whole world is just one big extension of the American government, because America seems just fine sending forces in here or there when it wants to.

There is no "monopoly." If you do things badly enough, another government's going to lean on you, and if that doesn't work, they'll come right in.

Shayne

Now you are dealing with issues of sovereignty.

--Brant

Edited February 13, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

Now you are dealing with issues of sovereignty.

--Brant

Absolute sovereignty is a fiction. No one has it, regardless of Rand's nonsense definitions. The best you get is "this is my property and unless I harm someone stay off."

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Okay, so you cannot define what you mean by "government." I didn't think you could, given the reckless abandon with which you throw around this word.

I can, but won't, because it's not relevant. When I say "natural law government", you aren't supposed to take some previously-existing idea of government, and then tack it on to some previously existing idea of "natural law", in order to deduce what is meant. Your method is totally wrong and backwards.

You can define "government," but you won't? LOL!

You have claimed to have refuted anarchism by showing how a government grounded in universal consent is possible. You have also claimed that libertarian anarchists are not really anarchists because their private protection agencies are really a type of government. You have also claimed that the "home" (or family or whatever) is a unit of government.

Then I ask the simple question of what you mean by "government," and you reply that you can define the word but won't, because your definition of "government" is not "relevant."

What a pathetic case you are.

Oh, wait! I just noticed that you appear to address this issue in a later post. I can hardly wait....

Ghs

[sjw]

You can define "government," but you won't? LOL!

My default position in every case is to distrust your motives. That is what you have taught me about George H. Smith. Don't now complain about it.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

You can define "government," but you won't? LOL!

My default position in every case is to distrust your motives. That is what you have taught me about George H. Smith. Don't now complain about it.

Shayne

I'm not complaining about anything. I am making fun of what a dope you are.

Ghs

[sjw]

You can define "government," but you won't? LOL!

My default position in every case is to distrust your motives. That is what you have taught me about George H. Smith. Don't now complain about it.

Shayne

I'm not complaining about anything. I am making fun of what a dope you are.

Ghs

That's how you complain. Don't expect me to take anything you say at face value. You don't know straightforward good-faith communication, all you know is subterfuge, manipulation, appealing to fools, ad hominem, etc. At heart, you're just like a politician.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

You can define "government," but you won't? LOL!

My default position in every case is to distrust your motives. That is what you have taught me about George H. Smith. Don't now complain about it.

Shayne

I'm not complaining about anything. I am making fun of what a dope you are.

Ghs

That's how you complain. Don't expect me to take anything you say at face value. You don't know straightforward good-faith communication, all you know is subterfuge, manipulation, appealing to fools, ad hominem, etc. At heart, you're just like a politician.

Shayne

Yeah, I know what you mean. I hate those politicians who ask people to define their terms.

Ghs