Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[sjw]

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.

Does it make you feel better to attack me every so often?

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.

So, if I qualify and try to be precise, then I'm being evasive, but when I don't, then I'm "apparently unaware" of some qualification. On the contrary, I'm fully aware that a business owner need not own the property, that scenario had nothing to do with the thrust of your questions, and in any case my answer was fully correct: while on the owner's property, you must follow his rules. Why? Because you agreed to. Do you have to follow his rules at other times? Well what did you agree to? Seriously George, what a stupid question, and what a stupid criticism.

Shayne

[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

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

You still didn't answer my question, -- so here it is again.

Under the conditions I specified, would it be proper to call Landord Jack a "government"? Yes or no.

I don't need a digression about the rights of landlords. That is not an issue here. Nor do I need to be reminded that the legitimate powers of government flow from individuals. That is also not an issue here.

To repeat, what I want to know -- and all I want to know for now -- is this: In the simple scenario I sketched, does Landlord Jack himself constitute a government in relation to Tenant Jill, so long as she is on his land?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

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.

Does it make you feel better to attack me every so often?

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.

So, if I qualify and try to be precise, then I'm being evasive, but when I don't, then I'm "apparently unaware" of some qualification. On the contrary, I'm fully aware that a business owner need not own the property, that scenario had nothing to do with the thrust of your questions, and in any case my answer was fully correct: while on the owner's property, you must follow his rules. Why? Because you agreed to. Do you have to follow his rules at other times? Well what did you agree to? Seriously George, what a stupid question, and what a stupid criticism.

Shayne

You have been wandering all over the place. I have been attempting to stop you long enough to figure out where you are and where you are headed, but you keep wandering.

My question about whether the relationship between employers and employees is a type of governmental relationship is so "stupid" that John Locke discussed it at some length in his Second Treatise . It is a very important question when one wishes to differentiate governmental rights and powers from other kinds of rights and powers.

You of course avoided the question altogether and answered a question I didn't even ask.

Ghs

[sjw]

You still didn't answer my question, -- so here it is again.

Under the conditions I specified, would it be proper to call Landord Jack a "government"? Yes or no.

I don't need a digression about the rights of landlords. That is not an issue here. Nor do I need to be reminded that the legitimate powers of government flow from individuals. That is also not an issue here.

To repeat, what I want to know -- and all I want to know for now -- is this: In the simple scenario I sketched, does Landlord Jack himself constitute a government in relation to Tenant Jill, so long as she is on his land?

Ghs

You are asking two questions here, first whether it would be proper to call Jack a government, and second whether Jack actually constitutes a government. <Insert a very useful and productive GHS rant about the opponent being incompetent at speaking clearly, how one can't demand to know the answer when one can't frame the question, etc. etc. etc.>.

Under the right conditions, then yes, Jack himself constitutes a government whose jurisdiction is his property. But he is also subject to natural law jurisdiction of higher level governments, and possibly also the laws of man-made laws governing the local jurisdiction which he may be part of. I don't know why you're asking this because I've covered this many times before.

Shayne

[sjw]

You have been wandering all over the place. I have been attempting to stop you long enough to figure out where you are and where you are headed, but you keep wandering.

I've been in pretty much the same place from the start of this thread. I don't know what you find to be confusing.

My question about whether the relationship between employers and employees is a type of governmental relationship is so "stupid" that John Locke devoted an entire chapter to this very issue in his Second Treatise . It is a very important question when one wishes to differentiate governmental rights and powers from other kinds of rights and powers.

A nearby topic might be the alienable/unalienable distinction which I disagree with. Obviously there's some kind of distinction behind your position that I reject and is causing communication problems, you probably take some premise as obvious that I don't agree with.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

It's fascinating all the energy that's being generated by a thread that started out ad hominem and has pretty much stayed that way.

--Brant

I wish I were an "overgrown teenager"

[sjw]

It's fascinating all the energy that's being generated by a thread that started out ad hominem and has pretty much stayed that way.

--Brant

I wish I were an "overgrown teenager"

I wish I hadn't started off with the insult, on the other hand that is no excuse for a litany of incessant ad hominem in return.

I wish I would have titled the thread: Are anarchists really anarchists?

Shayne

[sjw]

I'm not one to carry around a grudge from someone having insulted me, but I should remember that there are many who do carry around these grudges end up wasting a lot of time when they then prosecute their grudge over and over and over ad nauseam. I won't name names, it's better when these touchy people just keep their mouths shut.

George isn't one to hold grudges either I don't think, I think instead he just has no patience for my method of communication here. I find it very natural to take a broad statement, and then go back and forth iterating, adding qualifications and elaborations as necessary for the other person, until both parties are satisfied that there is a mutual understanding.

He seems to prefer looking at history to define the context, and if one doesn't take into account what everyone who ever lived said, then he takes that to be a fault. This method of course rules out anyone from thinking for themselves without also learning this history. I think there is value in looking at history, but it is optional, and there's an occupational hazard in spending so much energy understanding the past that one has little left for imagining what the future should look like.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

You still didn't answer my question, -- so here it is again.

Under the conditions I specified, would it be proper to call Landlord Jack a "government"? Yes or no.

I don't need a digression about the rights of landlords. That is not an issue here. Nor do I need to be reminded that the legitimate powers of government flow from individuals. That is also not an issue here.

To repeat, what I want to know -- and all I want to know for now -- is this: In the simple scenario I sketched, does Landlord Jack himself constitute a government in relation to Tenant Jill, so long as she is on his land?

Ghs

You are asking two questions here, first whether it would be proper to call Jack a government, and second whether Jack actually constitutes a government. <Insert a very useful and productive GHS rant about the opponent being incompetent at speaking clearly, how one can't demand to know the answer when one can't frame the question, etc. etc. etc.>.

Under the right conditions, then yes, Jack himself constitutes a government whose jurisdiction is his property. But he is also subject to natural law jurisdiction of higher level governments, and possibly also the laws of man-made laws governing the local jurisdiction which he may be part of. I don't know why you're asking this because I've covered this many times before.

Shayne

I asked only one question, since it would be proper to call Jack a "government" only if he actually constitutes a government.

I don't know why you keep dragging in this stuff about limitations imposed by natural law. I never denied this. My initial scenario specified that Jack has the right to evict Jill if she violates the terms of her lease, nothing else. It now appears that you regard this power of eviction as sufficient for Jack to qualify as a government.

You say you have covered this many times before. Yes, indeed you have. But you proceeded to contradict what you have said many times before when I asked you another question, to wit:

Since Landlord Jack, with the right to evict lease-breaking tenants, constitutes a government, this means that any "anarchist" who upholds this right is not really an anarchist at all. Why? Because this "anarchist," in defending the right of eviction by landowners, is in fact defending a type of government.

In fact, Landlord Jack could never be a real anarchist, because he constitutes a government himself, in relation to his own land. And, as you have said, anarchists regard all governments as illegitimate. So unless Jack views himself, qua government, as illegitimate, he cannot be an anarchist (or at least not a consistent one).

After I raised this very obvious point on at least two occasions, you replied, no, only a person who accepts all types of natural rights, not merely the natural right to own land, cannot be an anarchist. But this makes no sense. If an "anarchist" defends even one government as legitimate --in this case, the government of the landowner -- then he is not a real anarchist.

I dread raising this topic again, lest you go wandering off in another maze of irrelevancies, so you need not pay any attention this time to this issue. I have more important questions to ask, and I will pose some of these in later posts.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I'm not one to carry around a grudge from someone having insulted me, but I should remember that there are many who do carry around these grudges end up wasting a lot of time when they then prosecute their grudge over and over and over ad nauseam. I won't name names, it's better when these touchy people just keep their mouths shut.

George isn't one to hold grudges either I don't think, I think instead he just has no patience for my method of communication here. I find it very natural to take a broad statement, and then go back and forth iterating, adding qualifications and elaborations as necessary for the other person, until both parties are satisfied that there is a mutual understanding.

He seems to prefer looking at history to define the context, and if one doesn't take into account what everyone who ever lived said, then he takes that to be a fault. This method of course rules out anyone from thinking for themselves without also learning this history. I think there is value in looking at history, but it is optional, and there's an occupational hazard in spending so much energy understanding the past that one has little left for imagining what the future should look like.

Shayne

History has nothing whatever to do with my present line of questioning.

As for your alternative thread title (mentioned in a separate post not quoted here), "Are Anarchists Really Anarchists?" -- the line of questioning in my last post, which merely repeats what I said in some previous posts, was designed to show that your basic argument, when stripped to its essentials, has little to do with the right of landowners to form restrictive covenants or proprietary communities among themselves. This is not the the origin of your man-made government, as you yourself admitted when you said that Landlord Jack is a government, qua individual landowner, over his own land.

Thus, in your scheme, agreements and contracts among landowners are not essential to the formation of a government, because each landowner is already a government (over his own land) before he enters into any such arrangements. In other words, landownership, in and of itself, is a sufficient condition for the existence of a government.

In short: According to your reasoning, if you are a landowner, you are also a government, period. This argument is substantially different than the one you originally presented.

[sjw]

After I raised this very obvious point on at least two occasions, you replied, no, only a person who accepts all types of natural rights, not merely the natural right to own land, cannot be an anarchist.

Point of fact: this is not what I said. I said that only an anarchist who embraces natural law consistently can definitively be said to not be an anarchist. When people cut this or that natural right out arbitrarily then one can't say what the results will be.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Okay, on to my next question. I have a number of questions, but I will ask them one at a time. These are not idle questions, nor are they intended to trip you up in some way. I have good theoretical reasons for asking them, which will become clear as we go along.

Regarding your definition of "government," you wrote:

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." (My italics)

In response to my last question, you conceded that Landlord Jack, qua individual, constitutes a government over his own land -- within the restictions of natural law, of course. (In the future, this qualification should be taken as a given. I don't want to restate it every time.)

My question is a very simple one: If, as stipulated in your definition, a government is an institution, then in what sense is the individual human being named Jack an "institution"? How can an individual acting on his own discretion over his own land be an institution? What do you mean by "institution"?

A short and easy way out of this problem would be for you to amend your definition of "government" to read;

"A government is an institution or an individual that holds the power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area."

Would you like to make this change? If so, I will move on to another question. If not, I will proceed with an explanation of the relevance of my question.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

After I raised this very obvious point on at least two occasions, you replied, no, only a person who accepts all types of natural rights, not merely the natural right to own land, cannot be an anarchist.

Point of fact: this is not what I said. I said that only an anarchist who embraces natural law consistently can definitively be said to not be an anarchist. When people cut this or that natural right out arbitrarily then one can't say what the results will be.

Shayne

Can an anarchist consistently defend the private ownership of land? Yes or no?

Ghs

[sjw]

Thus, in your scheme, agreements and contracts among landowners are not essential to the formation of a government, because each landowner is already a government (over his own land) before he enters into any such arrangements. In other words, landownership, in and of itself, is a sufficient condition for the existence of a government.

In short: According to your reasoning, if you are a landowner, you are also a government, period. This argument is substantially different than the one you originally presented.

First of all, having two different arguments for the same thing is not in and of itself contradictory, it only is if the arguments contradict each other. This happens in math and science all the time. It so happens that there can be multiple ways to approach a problem.

My original argument remains valid: people have a right to form a government, whether it be of a natural law or man-made law jurisdiction.

But as you indicate we can scale this argument down to a single individual.

People have a right to be superheroes: they can defend others if they want, they can be a natural law "government" unto themselves. They can also rightly govern their own property. Obviously if you are taking matters into your own hands then that can create problems for you that are readily dealt with by creating formal governments, so while the power of government resides in the individual, we gain advantage by forming institutions.

Should we actually call it "government" when it's only the individual? I'm in favor of this if only on the grounds of cementing the idea that "consent of the governed" is not optional.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Thus, in your scheme, agreements and contracts among landowners are not essential to the formation of a government, because each landowner is already a government (over his own land) before he enters into any such arrangements. In other words, landownership, in and of itself, is a sufficient condition for the existence of a government.

In short: According to your reasoning, if you are a landowner, you are also a government, period. This argument is substantially different than the one you originally presented.

First of all, having two different arguments for the same thing is not in and of itself contradictory, it only is if the arguments contradict each other. This happens in math and science all the time. It so happens that there can be multiple ways to approach a problem.

I did not say that your two arguments are contradictory. I said that they are "substantially different," which they are. My formulation of your argument is more fundamental than your initial presentation, and that is what I have been trying to get at here.

My original argument remains valid: people have a right to form a government, whether it be of a natural law or man-made law jurisdiction.

Your fundamental argument, as I have shown, is this: People have a right to own land. And since the owner of land is also the government of his land, anyone who defends landownership must also defend government.

This is much more precise than your formulation.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

It's fascinating all the energy that's being generated by a thread that started out ad hominem and has pretty much stayed that way.

--Brant

I wish I were an "overgrown teenager"

I wish I hadn't started off with the insult, on the other hand that is no excuse for a litany of incessant ad hominem in return.

I wish I would have titled the thread: Are anarchists really anarchists?

Shayne

Absent insults, George hangs in there with the substantive discussion, if there be one. It's just the way he does business and has for many years on the Internet. I speculate it's his way for blowing off steam until the wheels start turning again. If the wheels aren't turning he'll happily trade insults even with friends. At the end of the day, so to say, it's Miller time! If you want some rest and relaxation try trading "Your Mother . . ." one liners with him--or some such.

--Brant

to get it going: Your Mother is so ugly you fainted when you were born!

[George H. Smith]

to get it going: Your Mother is so ugly you fainted when you were born!

Your mother is so ugly that she hired my mother as her beauty consultant!

Ghs

[sjw]

"A government is an institution or an individual that holds the power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area."

Would you like to make this change? If so, I will move on to another question. If not, I will proceed with an explanation of the relevance of my question.

Ghs

All the just powers of government derive from the natural rights of the individual. If he has no right to form an entity having the same kinds of powers as government then neither does any group. I have no problem with the word "government" being reserved for actual institutions so long as the foregoing is not forgotten.

For a purpose of the discussion of the principles involved here, it makes no difference whether you make this change or not. At every step we are always and only talking about the rights of individuals.

Shayne

[sjw]

Can an anarchist consistently defend the private ownership of land? Yes or no?

Ghs

An anarchist such as yourself, yes. Any old anarchist, not necessarily.

Private ownership is an issue of natural rights. This is a more fundamental issue than that of anarchy/government. One can certainly be 100% correct on the fundamentals and then make an error or create a pointless semantic issue later on.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

to get it going: Your Mother is so ugly you fainted when you were born!

Your mother is so ugly that she hired my mother as her beauty consultant!

Ghs

Your Mother is so ugly Frankenstein's monster proposed to her!

--Brant

[sjw]

I did not say that your two arguments are contradictory. I said that they are "substantially different," which they are. My formulation of your argument is more fundamental than your initial presentation, and that is what I have been trying to get at here.

Agreed, but that is actually how I argue for the "less" fundamental point. It's always rooted in natural rights.

Your fundamental argument, as I have shown, is this: People have a right to own land. And since the owner of land is also the government of his land, anyone who defends landownership must also defend government.

This is much more precise than your formulation.

Ghs

I would not frame the argument this way but I don't have a serious objection to your framing it this way. (But see my recent post about whether to call this "government" or not).

Shayne

[PDS]

to get it going: Your Mother is so ugly you fainted when you were born!

Your mother is so ugly that she hired my mother as her beauty consultant!

Ghs

Finally, something on this thread that I can state with confidence: George, you mother is uglier than the back of my balls. If that doesn't end this debate, nothing will.

[caroljane]

to get it going: Your Mother is so ugly you fainted when you were born!

Your mother is so ugly that she hired my mother as her beauty consultant!

Ghs

Finally, something on this thread that I can state with confidence: George, you mother is uglier than the back of my balls. If that doesn't end this debate, nothing will.

I understand that mothers have been mentioned.

I trust they shall not be mentioned again.

There is such a thing as Inner Beauty, you know.

Edited February 14, 2011 by daunce lynam

[sjw]

I would not frame the argument this way but I don't have a serious objection to your framing it this way. (But see my recent post about whether to call this "government" or not).

I would frame it such that people can see how the institutions they are familiar with can emerge, largely intact, from natural rights, first because scaring them with pointlessly foreign concepts is foolish, and second because I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think there are valuable things to preserve in the American tradition of government, I think that evolution is preferable to revolution.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

to get it going: Your Mother is so ugly you fainted when you were born!

Your mother is so ugly that she hired my mother as her beauty consultant!

Ghs

Finally, something on this thread that I can state with confidence: George, you mother is uglier than the back of my balls. If that doesn't end this debate, nothing will.

I understand that mothers have been mentioned.

I trust they shall not be mentioned again.

There is such a thing as Inner Beauty, you know.

Besides, he led with the nuclear option.

--Brant

I do have two toppers, the least of which is Your Mother is uglier than SOLOP.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Brant Gaede