Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[Brant Gaede]

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

Well, I suppose that's one issue: absolute yes or no, but it's kind of disinteresting to me, as with most so-called absolutes.

--Brant

[Selene]

"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.'"

You have a technical problem with the above "definition" as you cannot, as a rule, use the word you are defining in the definition. You need to substitute a concept word for the strike through.

At least we are making progress.

[George H. Smith]

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

What "nonsense definitions" would those be?

Rand never defended "absolute sovereignty" in regard to government. To have done so would have been to contradict the essentials of her moral and political philosophy. If Rand regarded any kind of sovereignty as "absolute," it would have been in regard to what she called the "the primacy and sovereignty of the individual."

Or were you thinking of a Rand other than Ayn Rand?

Ghs

[sjw]

"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.'"

You have a technical problem with the above "definition" as you cannot, as a rule, use the word you are defining in the definition. You need to substitute a concept word for the strike through.

At least we are making progress.

You're misapplying a rule. The definition is not circular: Government is the genus, and was defined earlier, "natural law government" is the new term. It could be rewritten X is a Y with Z, doesn't change anything just because X happens to include the *word* Y, because X is not the concept Y, it's brand new.

Shayne

[sjw]

What "nonsense definitions" would those be?

Rand never defended "absolute sovereignty" in regard to government. To have done so would have been to contradict the essentials of her moral and political philosophy. If Rand regarded any kind of sovereignty as "absolute," it would have been in regard to what she called the "the primacy and sovereignty of the individual."

Or were you thinking of a Rand other than Ayn Rand?

Ghs

So I gave you the definitions you asked for, now what?

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

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

Shayne

I'm a pet of reason.

--Brant

Actually, Shayne, I'm much more your pet here than George's. George is a prime representative of several hundred years of Lockean political philosophy involving major figures in its thought who gave it their all. By this I mean he represents them. You do not. Your objective virtue is staking out a primary Thomas Paine rights' orientation as a way to proceed into its sociological consequences--not philosophically per se but rights per se--and not your idea of government, whatever it might come to mean. With morality and rights as an integrated package deal, one doesn't need Objectivism to be effective. In fact, the effectiveness of Objectivism itself, as promulgated, is questionable, in that it eschews all who don't buy the whole package--the Ayn Rand package. It's too bad Nathaniel Branden didn't instead have the passion for political philosophy that he did for psychology. He might have better structured his BPOB course and impressed upon Rand the need to more emphasize rights as opposed to her philosophy overall and its ethics. There is great overlap right there in the Objectivist politics with Objectivist morality. That should have been her fortress. Rights' loving and and protecting libertarians and conservatives and such others could have found succor and allies there--and maybe even her Objectivism, eventually, instead of being abandoned to, say, William F. Buckley Jr. for the cons. Nope, not for her. That's plus fifty wasted years in that respect. So here comes you, an engineer, with a cheap and uninformed philosophy about government, and what have you, that's ironically illustrated this Objectivist problem because of your rights' orientation and so it's you, also ironically, that will be remembered historically, not George and maybe not me either, although I might yet do something significant still having the necessary amount of brain cells. You remind me of the hero in over his head who prevails in unexpected ways because of his refusal to not speak up.

--Brant

you need to drop that government stuff altogether--it's weak and distracting--and stick to human rights.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

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

Some brief questions. Simple yes or no answers will suffice, if you like.

According to your conception of government, do parents constitute a government in relation to their children?

Does a landowner constitute a government in relation to his tenants and others who occupy his land?

Does the owner of a business constitute a government in relation to his employees?

(The first two questions are based on comments you made earlier.)

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

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."

I said before that I regard the distinction Shayne is attempting to draw here as a distinction between two types of law, not as a distinction between two types of government. Shayne's bifurcation of governments is strained, unnecessary, and, in the final analysis, confusing. It is, in effect, a fuzzy version of the distinction in civil law between tort law and contract law.

Last night, while doing research for a book project, I was rereading parts of Richard Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. (This classic, written in the late 16th century, was quoted by Locke several times in his Second Treatise.) This line in particular caught my attention:

"In laws, that which is natural bindeth universally, that which is positive not so." Hooker goes on to say that men impose positive laws "upon themselves" via "contract with [other] men."

Hooker is here making the same distinction as Shayne between natural laws that morally "bind" every person, regardless of consent, and positive (man-made) laws that impose obligations only on those who consent to them via a contract of some kind. But neither Hooker nor any other political philosopher who drew this distinction would claim that these these two types of laws, natural and positive, give rise to two types of government.

In a libertarian context, as I indicated above, the distinction between natural law and positive law is essentially the same as the distinction between tort law and contract law. The wrongness of a tortious act, such as assault, does not depend on a prior agreement or contract between two or more parties. If Jack aggresses against Jill, this is a violation of Jill's natural rights, and it matters not in the least whether Jack previously agreed not to aggress against Jill. Jack has no more right to aggress against Jill than he does to aggress against any other person. Such rights-violating actions are universally prohibited by "natural law" (to use Shayne's terminology).

The same reasoning, of course, does not apply to particular contractual agreements. Contracts create special obligations that do not apply to people who are not parties to the contract in question. Nevertheless, I think even Shayne would agree that the general obligation to abide by a valid contract is part of "natural law." This general obligation is universal, even though the specific obligations generated by a particular contract are not.

This is why it is very misleading to draw a distinction between two types of government, based on the distinction between tortious acts and contract violations. A "natural law government" (again using Shayne's label) would concern itself with both torts and contract violations. Thus, if a homeowner violated the conditions of a valid contract with other homeowners, it would be the proper function of a "natural law government" to adjudicate and rectify this problem. There is absolutely no need to introduce another kind of government -- i.e., Shayne's "man made law government" -- to deal with contract violations.

From my reading of Shayne, he sometimes confuses different levels of government (e.g., federal versus municipal) with fundamentally different types of government. Even more significant is a point I raised in several previous posts, namely, that the specific provisions of private contracts (e.g., between landlords and tenants, or between landowners themselves) are not themselves "laws," nor should they be codified as laws with a special type of "government" to enforce them.

All that is needed here is Shayne's "natural law government" to enforce contracts. If I contract with the Ajax Company to perform a service on a regular basis, we don't need a specific "law" decreeing that the Ajax Company shall perform such-and-such a service on a certain schedule. All we need is a universal law that enables aggrieved parties to enforce valid contracts -- and this falls within the province of Shayne's "natural law government." The same reasoning applies to every kind of (valid) contract, including contracts involving landowners, landlords, and tenants.

Ghs

[sjw]

What a wonderful Sunday. I get to take my wife to the ball last night (Viennese Waltz is my favorite), Brant pays me the highest possible compliment, and George gives me reasonable and even polite feedback.

Thanks guys.

Shayne

[sjw]

Hooker is here making the same distinction as Shayne between natural laws that morally "bind" every person, regardless of consent, and positive (man-made) laws that impose obligations only on those who consent to them via a contract of some kind. But neither Hooker nor any other political philosopher who drew this distinction would claim that these these two types of laws, natural and positive, give rise to two types of government.

This is why it is very misleading to draw a distinction between two types of government, based on the distinction between tortious acts and contract violations. A "natural law government" (again using Shayne's label) would concern itself with both torts and contract violations. Thus, if a homeowner violated the conditions of a valid contract with other homeowners, it would be the proper function of a "natural law government" to adjudicate and rectify this problem. There is absolutely no need to introduce another kind of government -- i.e., Shayne's "man made law government" -- to deal with contract violations.

You have a point, but when you brought this up before, and my answer was that these are two different types of geographical jurisdiction. And they most definitely are. There is nothing "fuzzy" or "confusing" about this.

It's certainly true and important to underscore that in virtue of the fact that a contract is made via the natural right of consent, that it is thereby in principle subject to natural law adjudication. Indeed, instead of specifically creating a man-made law government, one might in principle avoid that and just call upon the most convenient natural law government, pointing them to the terms of the contract and how they were violated etc. And in any case, if there were a man-made law government and there was a dispute, then proper recourse would send the dispute for adjudication by the natural law government.

None of this overrides anything I've said concerning man-made law jurisdiction. There is really no per se theoretical import of it at all, it's an optional issue: would you like to create a local government, or not? It's up to you. And if you do create a local one, nothing stops it from implementing both natural and man-made law governance. And nothing stops people from calling upon the broader purely natural law government for help when needed, as a kind of "check and balance" (not unlike how State laws can be overridden as "unconstitutional". But in my system they would be overridden on the grounds that they violated natural rights).

You have a right to create a local government concerned with your local laws, but should you? It depends. If you're an anarchist living around other anarchists and and don't want to bother with man-made rules, then probably not. If you hate society and live off somewhere far away on your farm and just want to be left alone, maybe not. I think most city-dwellers would note that certain rules, while not part of natural law, are desirable anyway, or are an aid in preventing complex and expensive adjudication about whether some act violates natural law or not, and so they would mutually agree to this or that, as well as agreeing on a voting system for abridging them. More socialist-leaning cultures would have their government take on this or that social program, and no one should complain; Objectivists would be free to set up their Galt's Gulch elsewhere.

There are two reasons why I think the local man-made-law-specializing government is important. First, I think that for city-sized locales, it's going to be crucial to have your own local government that is expert at executing and adjudicating your man-made laws. Most of the time the adjudication will be local and work out. Rarely a case may need to be escalated to the higher-order natural law government, but it would be far more expensive to adjudicate because the natural law government would have to take time to learn the details of your law. And do you really want police, contracted from a government not of your own locale, implementing your laws? It is far better when policeman come from, are managed by, and paid for by your own local community. But if you want DHS policing your neighborhood, that should be your choice too. I wouldn't recommend it.

Second, and even more importantly, look at what has happened in our current system given a Federal Government that occupies itself with the minutia of countless man-made laws, rather than being focussed and specialized on natural law. The more time that goes on, the more the government loses track of any distinction between the two. Better to institutionalize the distinction such that it not ever be forgotten, for when it is, only tyranny can result.

Shayne

[sjw]

Some brief questions. Simple yes or no answers will suffice, if you like.

According to your conception of government, do parents constitute a government in relation to their children?

Children are a complex case and I think they should be left out of a discussion of the basic principles of government. I will say two things: 1. Children have natural rights and are not the property of the parent; 2) If your locale wanted certain rules of how children should be treated, and if those rules were decent and fair, then your locale will end up with better citizens in the long run and will prosper and become the norm for most other locales. This sort of "natural selection" concerning rules of government is impossible now because of the totalitarianism, but would become the norm under my system.

But if you ask instead: Is one's home a government in relation to one's guests? I would say yes, the guests should either obey the house rules or leave the house, but those rules cannot violate natural law (as has been discussed already).

Does a landowner constitute a government in relation to his tenants and others who occupy his land?

Whether or not such a situation is possible depends on what one means by "landowner". Historically and even to this day most "owners" of large tracts of land are actually land-grabbers, and this is and leads to tyranny. I think as long as land is acquired and owned according to a rational theory of property, no feudal situation can develop, and even starting with a feudal system, cannot be maintained once rational theory of property rights is instituted, even if one grants the land-grabber his unearned land.

Does the owner of a business constitute a government in relation to his employees?

When you are on someone's property, then you must obey their rules or leave. So yes, while the employee is on the businessman's property, but not when the employee goes home.

I do not think there would be nearly as many big business-employee situations if we eradicated bogus property rights theory (land grabbing, patent law, fiat money, etc.). I think what you'd see instead is vastly more small and independent businessman and a much more fluid economy, where people who wanted to do something else, easily could.

Shayne

[sjw]

you need to drop that government stuff altogether--it's weak and distracting--and stick to human rights.

I don't see how we can talk about rights in today's world without talking about "government stuff." Maybe that's not what you mean. Maybe you mean I shouldn't advocate for an idea on how to structure government? As in the natural law and man-made law jurisdictions? Do you disagree that natural law applies everywhere, and man-made law only applies through consent?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Does the owner of a business constitute a government in relation to his employees?

When you are on someone's property, then you must obey their rules or leave. So yes, while the employee is on the businessman's property, but not when the employee goes home.

Okay. So if a libertarian anarchist agrees with your remarks about an employer and his employees, does this mean that the anarchist is not really an anarchist because he believes in this kind of government?

Ghs

[sjw]

Okay. So if a libertarian anarchist agrees with your remarks about an employer and his employees, does this mean that the anarchist is not really an anarchist because he believes in this kind of government?

Ghs

An anarchist is not really an anarchist when he agrees that you can rightly create man-made laws on your own property, that you can rightly join with others to develop a town on the same principle, and that you can rightly form a specialized enforcement/adjudication system for these man-made laws. This is sufficient to not be an anarchist, but one other condition deeply cements the issue: that you can do all of this in such a way that under certain conditions, secession (by which I mean removing your land, not yourself, from the established jurisdiction) would in fact be a violation of the other members' natural rights.

That said, my system permits anarchists to be anarchists. They don't have to join a town that has these man-made laws. They just have to accept that governments can rightly be formed. Which seems to rule them out from actually being called anarchists. What's an anarchist if not a person who believes that government is illegitimate?

Shayne

Edited February 14, 2011 by sjw

[George H. Smith]

Okay. So if a libertarian anarchist agrees with your remarks about an employer and his employees, does this mean that the anarchist is not really an anarchist because he believes in this kind of government?

Ghs

An anarchist is not really an anarchist when he agrees that you can rightly create man-made laws on your own property, that you can rightly join with others to develop a town on the same principle, and that you can rightly form a specialized enforcement/adjudication system for these man-made laws. This is sufficient to not be an anarchist, but one other condition deeply cements the issue: that you can do all of this in such a way that under certain conditions, secession (by which I mean removing your land, not yourself, from the established jurisdiction) would in fact be a violation of the other members' natural rights.

That said, my system permits anarchists to be anarchists. They don't have to join a town that has these man-made laws. They just have to accept that governments can rightly be formed. Which seems to rule them out from actually being called anarchists. What's an anarchist if not a person who believes that government is illegitimate?

Shayne

So anyone who believes in property rights cannot be an anarchist, in your view. For to believe in property rights is to believe that an owner, whether of land or anything else, has the right to dictate the conditions and rules -- or "laws," as you call them -- for the use of his property. Is this what you mean to say?

At the very least, you clearly imply that anyone who believes in property rights in land cannot be an anarchist. Right?

Ghs

[sjw]

So anyone who believes in property rights cannot be an anarchist, in your view. For to believe in property rights is to believe that an owner, whether of land or anything else, has the right to set the conditions and rules -- or "laws," as you call them -- for the use of his property. Is this what you mean to say?

At the very least, you clearly imply that anyone who believes in property rights in land cannot be an anarchist. Right?

Ghs

One cannot reason sensibly about any of this without believing in every natural right. But if one believes in every natural right, and follows it through to the logical conclusions, then yes, I'm saying they are not an anarchist, and if they argue, then I am saying that they should not use the word "anarchist" to refer to what they refer to, that it is completely counter-productive and confusing terminology for what they mean.

Being merely a word choice, this last is of course a wholly separate point from the ones we've been discussing. In comparison it is a superficial point, but it's not a superficial issue when we're choosing between words that have opposite meanings. It would be far better to coin a neologism than appear to be choosing one or the other of false choices. I choose to use the word "government" because as I play the thought experiment of consensual political systems out in my mind, I see the landscape not appearing to change out from under everyone, except intellectually, I don't see a necessarily radical break from the past, but rather see a smooth transition from current political systems to reformed political systems. Since the present system is called "government", and I wish to see it change in degrees not in chaotic lurches, I think we should call it "government" the whole way through. Why create a problem of where we draw the line and call it one thing or the other? There are other considerations as well.

Shayne

Edited February 14, 2011 by sjw

[Brant Gaede]

you need to drop that government stuff altogether--it's weak and distracting--and stick to human rights.

I don't see how we can talk about rights in today's world without talking about "government stuff." Maybe that's not what you mean. Maybe you mean I shouldn't advocate for an idea on how to structure government? As in the natural law and man-made law jurisdictions? Do you disagree that natural law applies everywhere, and man-made law only applies through consent?

Shayne

If you talk about government violating rights stuff--okay. When you talk about government in the abstract--not okay.

I find "natural law" nomenclature to be confusing compared to morality and ethics. It implies a uniformity and conformity I do not like, sort of like being in a religious community--like living in a small town in Utah.

"Consent" is agreeing not to violate rights. It does not need to be from one and all but does appertain to properly setting up a government. If someone in the jurisdiction of that government violates rights than he'd be subject to retaliatory force under law regardless of anything he did or did not consent to.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

So anyone who believes in property rights cannot be an anarchist, in your view. For to believe in property rights is to believe that an owner, whether of land or anything else, has the right to set the conditions and rules -- or "laws," as you call them -- for the use of his property. Is this what you mean to say?

At the very least, you clearly imply that anyone who believes in property rights in land cannot be an anarchist. Right?

Ghs

One cannot reason sensibly about any of this without believing in every natural right. But if one believes in every natural right, and follows it through to the logical conclusions, then yes, I'm saying they are not an anarchist, and if they argue, then I am saying that they should not use the word "anarchist" to refer to what they refer to, that it is completely counter-productive and confusing terminology for what they mean.

Being merely a word choice, this last is of course a wholly separate point from the ones we've been discussing. In comparison it is a superficial point, but it's not a superficial issue when we're choosing between words that have opposite meanings. It would be far better to coin a neologism than appear to be choosing one or the other of false choices. I choose to use the word "government" because as I play the thought experiment of consensual political systems out in my mind, I see the landscape not appearing to change out from under everyone, except intellectually, I don't see a necessarily radical break from the past, but rather see a smooth transition from current political systems to reformed political systems. Since the present system is called "government", and I wish to see it change in degrees not in chaotic lurches, I think we should call it "government" the whole way through. Why create a problem of where we draw the line and call it one thing or the other? There are other considerations as well.

Shayne

I would appreciate it if you would address the two points in my post. There are quite simple.

I find your first paragraph incoherent. I have no idea what you were attempting to say, but, whatever it was, it appears to have nothing to do with my questions.

I will rephrase my basic point. Every property right entails the right of the owner to govern how his property shall be used. A landowner can establish rules for tenants, so he governs his land. A car rental agency can establish rules for renters, so it governs its cars. And so forth with every property right, for to "govern" one's property -- i.e., to determine who shall use it and under what conditions --is what it means to have a property right.

Thus if an anarchist defends any kind of property right, he is, by definition, defending the right of the owner to function as a government in regard to his own property, because this is what it means to have a property right in the first place. Therefore, the "anarchist" who defends property rights cannot really be an anarchist, because in defending property rights, he is defending a type of government.

Is this your basic argument?

Ghs

[sjw]

So anyone who believes in property rights cannot be an anarchist, in your view. For to believe in property rights is to believe that an owner, whether of land or anything else, has the right to set the conditions and rules -- or "laws," as you call them -- for the use of his property. Is this what you mean to say?

At the very least, you clearly imply that anyone who believes in property rights in land cannot be an anarchist. Right?

Ghs

One cannot reason sensibly about any of this without believing in every natural right. But if one believes in every natural right, and follows it through to the logical conclusions, then yes, I'm saying they are not an anarchist, and if they argue, then I am saying that they should not use the word "anarchist" to refer to what they refer to, that it is completely counter-productive and confusing terminology for what they mean.

Being merely a word choice, this last is of course a wholly separate point from the ones we've been discussing. In comparison it is a superficial point, but it's not a superficial issue when we're choosing between words that have opposite meanings. It would be far better to coin a neologism than appear to be choosing one or the other of false choices. I choose to use the word "government" because as I play the thought experiment of consensual political systems out in my mind, I see the landscape not appearing to change out from under everyone, except intellectually, I don't see a necessarily radical break from the past, but rather see a smooth transition from current political systems to reformed political systems. Since the present system is called "government", and I wish to see it change in degrees not in chaotic lurches, I think we should call it "government" the whole way through. Why create a problem of where we draw the line and call it one thing or the other? There are other considerations as well.

Shayne

I would appreciate it if you would address the two points in my post. There are quite simple.

I find your first paragraph incoherent. I have no idea what you were attempting to say, but, whatever it was, it appears to have nothing to do with my questions.

I will rephrase my basic point. Every property right entails the right of the owner to govern how his property shall be used. A landowner can establish rules for tenants, so he governs his land. A car rental agency can establish rules for renters, so it governs its cars. And so forth with every property right, for to "govern" one's property -- i.e., to determine who shall use it and under what conditions --is what it means to have a property right.

Thus if an anarchist defends any kind of property right, he is, by definition, defending the right of the owner to function as a government in regard to his own property, because this is what it means to have a property right in the first place. Therefore, the "anarchist" who defends property rights cannot really be an anarchist, because in defending property rights, he is defending a type of government.

Is this your basic argument?

Ghs

I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm trying to be accurate. I don't put property rights on a pedestal and I don't try to reduce everything to property rights. I hold six fundamental natural rights as crucial and inextricably interrelated, and every one of them necessary to this subject: self, property, medium, land, consent, justice. I realize some say "one has property in oneself", I do not like that formulation. I do not find it completely offensive but I'd never use it in a technical sense, if I were trying to be accurate. I find Rand's insertion of "property" into the definition of her political system, while leaving out other important individual rights as disastrously biasing.

Also I'm highly suspicious of a statement like "if an anarchist defends any kindof property right," since I would say that the anarchist must defend every kind of natural right in order to definitely yield the consequence of not actually being anarchist. The basic argument is this: if one accepts natural law (the natural rights I listed above) and all it entails, then one cannot be an anarchist.

In my opinion, you accept all of these rights (even if you do not organize them in this fashion) thus I would say that you are not anarchist. But I wouldn't hold that opinion for any anarchist, just ones with a strong natural rights position.

Shayne

[sjw]

you need to drop that government stuff altogether--it's weak and distracting--and stick to human rights.

I don't see how we can talk about rights in today's world without talking about "government stuff." Maybe that's not what you mean. Maybe you mean I shouldn't advocate for an idea on how to structure government? As in the natural law and man-made law jurisdictions? Do you disagree that natural law applies everywhere, and man-made law only applies through consent?

Shayne

If you talk about government violating rights stuff--okay. When you talk about government in the abstract--not okay.

I find "natural law" nomenclature to be confusing compared to morality and ethics. It implies a uniformity and conformity I do not like, sort of like being in a religious community--like living in a small town in Utah.

"Consent" is agreeing not to violate rights. It does not need to be from one and all but does appertain to properly setting up a government. If someone in the jurisdiction of that government violates rights than he'd be subject to retaliatory force under law regardless of anything he did or did not consent to.

--Brant

This may be one of those things where I can't follow you until you go there yourself. It sounds like you have an idea and should perhaps run with it.

I have no trouble with the idea of making natural law a "religion", at least in the sense that everyone has a deep reverence for it. It certainly would be a huge improvement over the deep reverence "it's the law!" people have for man-made rules coercively foisted on everyone, and indeed would cause people to regard that "what's legal is what's moral" position as the blasphemy that it is.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Also I'm highly suspicious of a statement like "if an anarchist defends any kindof property right," since I would say that the anarchist must defend every kind of natural right in order to definitely yield the consequence of not actually being anarchist. The basic argument is this: if one accepts natural law (the natural rights I listed above) and all it entails, then one cannot be an anarchist.

In my opinion, you accept all of these rights (even if you do not organize them in this fashion) thus I would say that you are not anarchist. But I wouldn't hold that opinion for any anarchist, just ones with a strong natural rights position.

You have made it very clear numerous times that a property right in land means that the owner constitutes a government in relation to those who use his land. This is so because the owner can set conditions and rules -- which you call "laws" -- for the use of his land. If someone doesn't like these "laws," then he can exit the land or never go on it in the first place.

Therefore, you must hold, at barest minimum, that an "anarchist" who believes in the private ownership of land cannot be really be an anarchist, because the ownership of land, by its very nature, entails a type of government.

But now you say that the "anarchist must defend every kind of natural right in order to definitely yield the consequence of not actually being anarchist."

So which is it? You cannot have it both ways.

Ghs

[sjw]

Also I'm highly suspicious of a statement like "if an anarchist defends any kindof property right," since I would say that the anarchist must defend every kind of natural right in order to definitely yield the consequence of not actually being anarchist. The basic argument is this: if one accepts natural law (the natural rights I listed above) and all it entails, then one cannot be an anarchist.

In my opinion, you accept all of these rights (even if you do not organize them in this fashion) thus I would say that you are not anarchist. But I wouldn't hold that opinion for any anarchist, just ones with a strong natural rights position.

You have made it very clear numerous times that a property right in land means that the owner constitutes a government in relation to those who use his land. This is so because the owner can set conditions and rules -- which you call "laws" -- for the use of his land. If someone doesn't like these "laws," then he can exit the land or never go on it in the first place.

Therefore, you must hold, at barest minimum, that an "anarchist" who believes in the private ownership of land cannot be really be an anarchist, because the ownership of land, by its very nature, entails a type of government.

But now you say that the "anarchist must defend every kind of natural right in order to definitely yield the consequence of not actually being anarchist."

So which is it? You cannot have it both ways.

Ghs

Not the whole story. I have also said that one's right to set rules is governed by the right of others to consent and justice. If you remember you were implying that my view would lead to things like punishment of execution for failing to take out the garbage, and I pointed out that the natural right of justice prohibits that remedy. This is an example of why I can't go with some simplistic idea that "property rights lead to government."

I don't know why you have heartburn on this, in any case, it's my view, so that's that, there's no more answer to give you but that I hold that it's natural law, accepted as a whole and without any exception or compromise, that leads to one not actually being an anarchist. If you chop natural law into bits then what results is a tyranny of one flavor or another, communism, fascism, feudalism, majoritarianism, etc.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Also I'm highly suspicious of a statement like "if an anarchist defends any kindof property right," since I would say that the anarchist must defend every kind of natural right in order to definitely yield the consequence of not actually being anarchist. The basic argument is this: if one accepts natural law (the natural rights I listed above) and all it entails, then one cannot be an anarchist.

In my opinion, you accept all of these rights (even if you do not organize them in this fashion) thus I would say that you are not anarchist. But I wouldn't hold that opinion for any anarchist, just ones with a strong natural rights position.

You have made it very clear numerous times that a property right in land means that the owner constitutes a government in relation to those who use his land. This is so because the owner can set conditions and rules -- which you call "laws" -- for the use of his land. If someone doesn't like these "laws," then he can exit the land or never go on it in the first place.

Therefore, you must hold, at barest minimum, that an "anarchist" who believes in the private ownership of land cannot be really be an anarchist, because the ownership of land, by its very nature, entails a type of government.

But now you say that the "anarchist must defend every kind of natural right in order to definitely yield the consequence of not actually being anarchist."

So which is it? You cannot have it both ways.

Ghs

Not the whole story. I have also said that one's right to set rules is governed by the right of others to consent and justice. If you remember you were implying that my view would lead to things like punishment of execution for failing to take out the garbage, and I pointed out that the natural right of justice prohibits that remedy. This is an example of why I can't go with some simplistic idea that "property rights lead to government."

I don't know why you have heartburn on this, in any case, it's my view, so that's that, there's no more answer to give you but that I hold that it's natural law, accepted as a whole and without any exception or compromise, that leads to one not actually being an anarchist. If you chop natural law into bits then what results is a tyranny of one flavor or another, communism, fascism, feudalism, majoritarianism, etc.

Shayne

I don't have heartburn about anything. I don't give a shit how you use the label "anarchist," especially given how slipshod you are with words.

I have been quizzing you about all this in an effort to focus attention on your notion of government by boiling it down to essentials. But all you have done is to slip and slide from one irrelevant issue to another without even addressing my questions, much less answering them. You didn't even answer my question about employer/employee relationships. Instead, you shifted the subject back to landownership, apparently unaware that a business owner need not own the land on which his business is located. Indeed, an employer/employee relationship can exist over the Internet alone, or through some other medium. Moreover, an employee can be on the road most of the time, in which case landownership is again irrelevant.

I give up. I made an honest effort today to deal seriously with your position, but I cannot even get you to be clear about what your position is. You are either dense, careless, or evasive -- or some combination thereof. I frankly don't care what the reason is. There is no point any longer in attempting to carry on a serious exploration of these issues with you. I'm outta here.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I am going to take a deep breath and try one last time to get some straightforward answers from Shayne. I will back up to the beginning and take it one question at a time.

Suppose that Jack owns a large apartment complex and the land on which it sits. And suppose that Jill wishes to rent an apartment. In a lease, Jack specifies conditions and rules for renters. Jill signs the lease and thereby agrees to abide by these conditions and rules. As the owner, Jack can enforce the terms of this lease. If Jill violates the terms of her lease, Jack can evict her from the apartment.

Do these facts alone mean that Jack is a government relative to Jill within the territory of the apartment complex? I am not talking about what Jack might decide to do with other landowners. I am talking only about Jack qua individual landowner.

Ghs

[sjw]

I am going to take a deep breath and try one last time to get some straightforward answers from Shayne. I will back up to the beginning and take it one question at a time.

Suppose that Jack owns a large apartment complex and the land on which it sits. And suppose that Jill wishes to rent an apartment. In a lease, Jack specifies conditions and rules for renters. Jill signs the lease and thereby agrees to abide by these conditions and rules. As the owner, Jack can enforce the terms of this lease. If Jill violates the terms of her lease, Jack can evict her from the apartment.

Do these facts alone mean that Jack is a government relative to Jill within the territory of the apartment complex? I am not talking about what Jack might decide to do with other landowners. I am talking only about Jack qua individual landowner.

Ghs

Jack can create, enforce, and adjudicate his own laws as he pleases, so long as he does not violate natural rights while doing so, and so long as he is not part of a jurisdiction that prohibits his action. This is not radical or new, it's what people already do now. All landlords create, enforce, and adjudicate rules, and then if the tenant disagrees, the problem is kicked up to the next higher level of government.

Jack could hire lawyers, security guards, and administrators to scale his operation up if he wants, or he could perform all these functions personally. He could also hire out to a third party firm for these functions (anarcho-capitalism). Or he could form a compact with the neighboring town and do things in a more traditional way, subscribing (aka taxes) to the surrounding system. I think this last would generally be the most efficient scheme and would prevail. In any case, all the powers of government flow from Jack qua individual landowner. (If the power were not there, then it certainly could not arise from two, ten or ten million people.)

Shayne