Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[George H. Smith]

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

You still don't understand my point. It is very simple.

If, as you claimed previously, private landownership is necessarily a type of government (since every owner is the government of his own land), then how can I or any other anarchist consistently defend the ownership of land without also defending a type of government?

If the private ownership of land logically entails a type of government (in the person of the owner), then anyone who defends the former must necessarily defend the latter as well. Right? Or have you changed your mind about this? Do you now wish to say that the owner of land is not the (man-made) government of his own land?

Ghs

[sjw]

You still don't understand my point. It is very simple.

If, as you claimed previously, private landownership is necessarily a type of government (since every owner is the government of his own land), then how can I or any other anarchist consistently defend the ownership of land without also defending a type of government?

If the private ownership of land logically entails a type of government (in the person of the owner), then anyone who defends the former must necessarily defend the latter as well. Right? Or have you changed your mind about this? Do you now wish to say that the owner of land is not the (man-made) government of his own land?

Ghs

My point is simple. The issue seems to be that you want to get me to assent to your specific wordings without qualification, that seems unreasonable to me. If I don't fully agree with your wording then I should be free to reword, and then you can either revise or object to something about my wording.

My very simple point is that the principle upon which would defend property rights is the same principle upon which government (of either definition that you gave above) emerges. So, to defend a right to land is, implicitly, to defend a right to government, and as it happens, is also to defend all natural rights, because you can't be for rights without being for all of them, and among them is the right to take the actions of creating a non-rights-violating government.

Now I sense this won't satisfy you, but I think rather than complain that I won't dutifully fall in line and answer yes or no, you should tell me why I must, and what is wrong with how I am putting it.

Shayne

[sjw]

You still don't understand my point. It is very simple.

If, as you claimed previously, private landownership is necessarily a type of government (since every owner is the government of his own land), then how can I or any other anarchist consistently defend the ownership of land without also defending a type of government?

If the private ownership of land logically entails a type of government (in the person of the owner), then anyone who defends the former must necessarily defend the latter as well. Right? Or have you changed your mind about this? Do you now wish to say that the owner of land is not the (man-made) government of his own land?

Ghs

My point is simple. The issue seems to be that you want to get me to assent to your specific wordings without qualification, that seems unreasonable to me. If I don't fully agree with your wording then I should be free to reword, and then you can either revise or object to something about my wording.

My very simple point is that the principle upon which would defend property rights is the same principle upon which government (of either definition that you gave above) emerges. So, to defend a right to land is, implicitly, to defend a right to government, and as it happens, is also to defend all natural rights, because you can't be for rights without being for all of them, and among them is the right to take the actions of creating a non-rights-violating government.

Now I sense this won't satisfy you, but I think rather than complain that I won't dutifully fall in line and answer yes or no, you should tell me why I must, and what is wrong with how I am putting it.

Shayne

As George H. Smith writes:

"I defend anarchism, or society without the State, because I believe that innocent people cannot be forced to surrender any of their natural rights. Those who wish to delegate some of their rights to a government are free to do so, provided they do not violate the rights of dissenters who choose not to endorse their government."

Perhaps George H. Smith should be arguing with George H. Smith.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

"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

I am not attempting to elicit a discussion of general principles, so drop the mantra about all rights being "the rights of individuals." That has nothing to do with my question. I am trying to get you to be specific about what a government is and what a government is not. And you keep waffling.

Earlier you seemed quite certain that an individual landowner, since he can formulate and enforce conditions and rules (which you call "laws) over his own land, qualifies as a government over that territory.

But you now say that you have "no problem with the word "government" being reserved for actual institutions." Well, you should have a problem with this, because individuals are not institutions. Thus if only institutions can be governments, then individuals cannot be governments -- and this conflicts with what you said earlier.

I don't care in the least what you think we should call something. The only thing that concerns me here is whether you are being consistent. And you are not being consistent. I wish you would make up your mind and stick with a position. My need to cover the same shifting ground with you again and again is very annoying.

So which is it? Can an individual landowner be a government or not? Or must he be affiliated with some institution called "government"? This is a very important point, and I would appreciate a simple, direct answer.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

You still don't understand my point. It is very simple.

If, as you claimed previously, private landownership is necessarily a type of government (since every owner is the government of his own land), then how can I or any other anarchist consistently defend the ownership of land without also defending a type of government?

If the private ownership of land logically entails a type of government (in the person of the owner), then anyone who defends the former must necessarily defend the latter as well. Right? Or have you changed your mind about this? Do you now wish to say that the owner of land is not the (man-made) government of his own land?

Ghs

My point is simple. The issue seems to be that you want to get me to assent to your specific wordings without qualification, that seems unreasonable to me. If I don't fully agree with your wording then I should be free to reword, and then you can either revise or object to something about my wording.

My very simple point is that the principle upon which would defend property rights is the same principle upon which government (of either definition that you gave above) emerges. So, to defend a right to land is, implicitly, to defend a right to government, and as it happens, is also to defend all natural rights, because you can't be for rights without being for all of them, and among them is the right to take the actions of creating a non-rights-violating government.

Now I sense this won't satisfy you, but I think rather than complain that I won't dutifully fall in line and answer yes or no, you should tell me why I must, and what is wrong with how I am putting it.

Shayne

As George H. Smith writes:

"I defend anarchism, or society without the State, because I believe that innocent people cannot be forced to surrender any of their natural rights. Those who wish to delegate some of their rights to a government are free to do so, provided they do not violate the rights of dissenters who choose not to endorse their government."

Perhaps George H. Smith should be arguing with George H. Smith.

It would be a much better argument if I did argue with myself. But I have not deviated from the passage you quoted, so there would be no argument.

The rest of your post consists of nothing more than excuses of why you won't answer my direct questions. You continuously retreat into glittering generalities and refuse to deal with specifics. You might as well answer all my questions with the comment, "I believe in natural rights, Mom, and apple pie."

Btw, you are not "free," logically speaking, to reword some issues in order to avoid the censure of inconsistency. And this is all you have been doing. I have been using your definition of "government," and your ideas about landownership and government, in order to explore some of their implications. But every time you feel yourself backed into a corner, you attempt to wiggle free by saying, in effect, that you don't need to accept my wording of the problem. But it is not my wording that is causing your problems. Your own failure -- and, as indicated in your recent posts, refusal -- to think through the implications of your own theories are the source of your problem.

Ghs

[sjw]

I am not attempting to elicit a discussion of general principles, so drop the mantra about all rights being "the rights of individuals." That has nothing to do with my question. I am trying to get you to be specific about what a government is and what a government is not. And you keep waffling.

What you perceive as "waffling" is the mental flexibility of one who is not an intrinsicist. Words aren't magical George, and in any given instance of communication can have a different contextual meaning than in another. That's why I keep referring back to the principles, because those are the solid ground, the only way to actually comprehend the intended meaning of the word in a given context.

I really don't care what a given land owner calls his powers. He can call it "government" if he wants. It's his property. I may or may not accept that word use depending on the context. I certainly could have a conversation with him and let him freely use the word, know what he meant by it, and not get confused or argumentative.

So which is it? Can an individual landowner be a government or not? Or must he be affiliated with some institution called "government"? This is a very important point, and I would appreciate a simple, direct answer.

You will have to identify exactly why this is allegedly so important to this particular discussion. I see no consequence. Whether you call it "government" only in the institutional context or also in the individual context makes no difference whatsoever in regards to whether one has a right to form the entities being referred to by the words.

You're the one making a big deal out of this, the burden is on you to explain why, it's not on me to fall in line with your evidently intrinsicist approach.

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne:

And you wonder why I want to start any discussion, debate or communication with you with solid, hard denotative definitions?

Adam

admiring the wonderful futility of situational definitions as an "objective" standard for communications

[George H. Smith]

I am not attempting to elicit a discussion of general principles, so drop the mantra about all rights being "the rights of individuals." That has nothing to do with my question. I am trying to get you to be specific about what a government is and what a government is not. And you keep waffling.

What you perceive as "waffling" is the mental flexibility of one who is not an intrinsicist. Words aren't magical George, and in any given instance of communication can have a different contextual meaning than in another. That's why I keep referring back to the principles, because those are the solid ground, the only way to actually comprehend the intended meaning of the word in a given context.

I really don't care what a given land owner calls his powers. He can call it "government" if he wants. It's his property. I may or may not accept that word use depending on the context. I certainly could have a conversation with him and let him freely use the word, know what he meant by it, and not get confused or argumentative.

So which is it? Can an individual landowner be a government or not? Or must he be affiliated with some institution called "government"? This is a very important point, and I would appreciate a simple, direct answer.

You will have to identify exactly why this is allegedly so important to this particular discussion. I see no consequence. Whether you call it "government" only in the institutional context or also in the individual context makes no difference whatsoever in regards to whether one has a right to form the entities being referred to by the words.

You're the one making a big deal out of this, the burden is on you to explain why, it's not on me to fall in line with your evidently intrinsicist approach.

Shayne

Should you ever decide to answer my question, let me know, and I will continue this exchange. Meanwhile, find someone else to play your childish games with.

Ghs

[sjw]

It would be a much better argument if I did argue with myself. But I have not deviated from the passage you quoted, so there would be no argument.

The rest of your post consists of nothing more than excuses of why you won't answer my direct questions. You continuously retreat into glittering generalities and refuse to deal with specifics. You might as well answer all my questions with the comment, "I believe in natural rights, Mom, and apple pie."

From this way may thus define excuse: A principle George H. Smith doesn't comprehend.

Btw, you are not "free," logically speaking, to reword some issues in order to avoid the censure of inconsistency. And this is all you have been doing. I have been using your definition of "government," and your ideas about landownership and government, in order to explore some of their implications. But every time you feel yourself backed into a corner, you attempt to wiggle free by saying, in effect, that you don't need to accept my wording of the problem. But it is not my wording that is causing your problems. Your own failure -- and, as indicated in your recent posts, refusal -- to think through the implications of your own theories are the source of your problem.

Ghs

Speaking of "glittering generalities", you have not pointed out a single contradiction or problem in my view. You have only pointed out superficial issues and you have usually been wrong about those.

Shayne

[sjw]

You're the one making a big deal out of this, the burden is on you to explain why, it's not on me to fall in line with your evidently intrinsicist approach.

Shayne

Should you ever decide to answer my question, let me know, and I will continue this exchange. Meanwhile, find someone else to play your childish games with.

Ghs

So, you can't provide a logical argument for your strongly-held beliefs. As I said, you're an intrinsicist.

Shayne

[sjw]

Shayne:

And you wonder why I want to start any discussion, debate or communication with you with solid, hard denotative definitions?

No, in fact I never wondered why I never wanted to entertain a debate with you, you're even more concrete-bound than George is.

The burden of proof principle definitively falls on you and George to specify why in a particular case what you are commanding me to do must be done. It's not my task to just fall in line with your religious commands.

So George has definitively lost this debate.

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne:

And you wonder why I want to start any discussion, debate or communication with you with solid, hard denotative definitions?

No, in fact I never wondered why I never wanted to entertain a debate with you, you're even more concrete-bound than George is.

The burden of proof principle definitively falls on you and George to specify why in a particular case what you are commanding me to do must be done. It's not my task to just fall in line with your religious commands.

So George has definitively lost this debate.

Shayne

Shayne:

There has never been a debate.

Secondly, since you posited the original "proposition" by starting the post, the burden of proof has always been yours.

Shall I cite the rules of debate? Or, is that also a contextual use of the word "debate?" Or, does it refer back to the original principles of debate?

Adam

[sjw]

Shayne:

And you wonder why I want to start any discussion, debate or communication with you with solid, hard denotative definitions?

No, in fact I never wondered why I never wanted to entertain a debate with you, you're even more concrete-bound than George is.

The burden of proof principle definitively falls on you and George to specify why in a particular case what you are commanding me to do must be done. It's not my task to just fall in line with your religious commands.

So George has definitively lost this debate.

Shayne

Shayne:

There has never been a debate.

Secondly, since you posited the original "proposition" by starting the post, the burden of proof has always been yours.

Shall I cite the rules of debate? Or, is that also a contextual use of the word "debate?" Or, does it refer back to the original principles of debate?

Adam

You're 100% pure vulture. You only come in when you think I've lost on on some point. You never square off on any issue on your own. The trouble is you're too incompetent to tell whether I've lost.

The burden of proof is on whoever makes a positive assertion. You and George think I didn't do such and such, the burden of proof is on you to name the such and such I didn't do, and then if I answer why I did not, to defend your position against my argument, not to flounce off pretending you won when in fact by all the rules of logic, you shamefully lost.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Shayne:

And you wonder why I want to start any discussion, debate or communication with you with solid, hard denotative definitions?

No, in fact I never wondered why I never wanted to entertain a debate with you, you're even more concrete-bound than George is.

The burden of proof principle definitively falls on you and George to specify why in a particular case what you are commanding me to do must be done. It's not my task to just fall in line with your religious commands.

So George has definitively lost this debate.

Shayne

All I did was ask some specific questions about your own views. If you didn't want to answer my questions, then you should have said, "I don't want to answer your questions," and that would have been that. But instead you darted all over the place, while demanding to know my reasons for asking the questions.

Your ideas are an absolute mess. You should clean them up before you take them out in public.

Ghs

[caroljane]

Shayne:

And you wonder why I want to start any discussion, debate or communication with you with solid, hard denotative definitions?

No, in fact I never wondered why I never wanted to entertain a debate with you, you're even more concrete-bound than George is.

The burden of proof principle definitively falls on you and George to specify why in a particular case what you are commanding me to do must be done. It's not my task to just fall in line with your religious commands.

So George has definitively lost this debate.

Shayne

All I did was ask some specific questions about your own views. If you didn't want to answer my questions, then you should have said, "I don't want to answer your questions," and that would have been that. But instead you darted all over the place, while demanding to know my reasons for asking the questions.

Your ideas are an absolute mess. You should clean them up before you take them out in public.

Ghs

free washing is available on LOL thread

[sjw]

You're 100% pure vulture. You only come in when you think I've lost on on some point. You never square off on any issue on your own. The trouble is you're too incompetent to tell whether I've lost.

The burden of proof is on whoever makes a positive assertion. You and George think I didn't do such and such, the burden of proof is on you to name the such and such I didn't do, and then if I answer why I did not, to defend your position against my argument, not to flounce off pretending you won when in fact by all the rules of logic, you shamefully lost.

Shayne

And speaking of your incompetence, you come in claiming I violated some rules of definition but you were horribly wrong, and now you claim the burden is on me throughout a debate just because I started it, which is also entirely wrong. All the while you claim to be an "expert" at debate. You are ridiculous.

Shayne

[sjw]

All I did was ask some specific questions about your own views. If you didn't want to answer my questions, then you should have said, "I don't want to answer your questions," and that would have been that. But instead you darted all over the place, while demanding to know my reasons for asking the questions.

Tell me something George, is it that you think world chock full of morons like Selene, and that's why you pander to their stupidity? Or do you really believe this BS?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Shayne:

And you wonder why I want to start any discussion, debate or communication with you with solid, hard denotative definitions?

No, in fact I never wondered why I never wanted to entertain a debate with you, you're even more concrete-bound than George is.

The burden of proof principle definitively falls on you and George to specify why in a particular case what you are commanding me to do must be done. It's not my task to just fall in line with your religious commands.

So George has definitively lost this debate.

Shayne

Shayne:

There has never been a debate.

Secondly, since you posited the original "proposition" by starting the post, the burden of proof has always been yours.

Shall I cite the rules of debate? Or, is that also a contextual use of the word "debate?" Or, does it refer back to the original principles of debate?

Adam

You're 100% pure vulture. You only come in when you think I've lost on on some point. You never square off on any issue on your own. The trouble is you're too incompetent to tell whether I've lost.

The burden of proof is on whoever makes a positive assertion. You and George think I didn't do such and such, the burden of proof is on you to name the such and such I didn't do, and then if I answer why I did not, to defend your position against my argument, not to flounce off pretending you won when in fact by all the rules of logic, you shamefully lost.

Shayne

This was never a debate at all, because I could never get any clarity from you about what your position is. Whenever I attempted to get you to be more specific, you typically responded with a "maybe yes, maybe no." Then if I criticized the "maybe yes" side, you responded, "But I also said maybe no." And if I criticized the "maybe no" side, you predictably responded, "But I also said maybe yes."

There is no way to debate someone who does not even know, or cannot express, his own position.

Ghs

[Selene]

You're 100% pure vulture. You only come in when you think I've lost on on some point. You never square off on any issue on your own. The trouble is you're too incompetent to tell whether I've lost.

The burden of proof is on whoever makes a positive assertion. You and George think I didn't do such and such, the burden of proof is on you to name the such and such I didn't do, and then if I answer why I did not, to defend your position against my argument, not to flounce off pretending you won when in fact by all the rules of logic, you shamefully lost.

Shayne

And speaking of your incompetence, you come in claiming I violated some rules of definition but you were horribly wrong, and now you claim the burden is on me throughout a debate just because I started it, which is also entirely wrong. All the while you claim to be an "expert" at debate. You are ridiculous.

Shayne

Shayne:

First, you are stating in your original assertion that anarchists are overgrown teenagers and that that is the status quo.

True or false?

Second, I did not continue the discussion as to whether a definition of a term can include the term itself. You stated your position and I stated mine. If you would care to give the parameters of definition that we are discussing I might continue.

Here is a reference link:

"Genuine and Verbal Disputes

We've seen that sloppy or misleading use of ordinary language can seriously limit our ability to create and communicate correct reasoning. As philosopher John Locke pointed out three centuries ago, the achievement of human knowledge is often hampered by the use of words without fixed signification. Needless controversy is sometimes produced and perpetuated by an unacknowledged ambiguity in the application of key terms. We can distinguish disputes of three sorts:

• Genuine disputes involve disagreement about whether or not some specific proposition is true. Since the people engaged in a genuine dispute agree on the meaning of the words by means of which they convey their respective positions, each of them can propose and assess logical arguments that might eventually lead to a resolution of their differences.
• Merely verbal disputes, on the other hand, arise entirely from ambiguities in the language used to express the positions of the disputants. A verbal dispute disappears entirely once the people involved arrive at an agreement on the meaning of their terms, since doing so reveals their underlying agreement in belief.
• Apparently verbal but really genuine disputes can also occur, of course. In cases of this sort, the resolution of every ambiguity only reveals an underlying genuine dispute. Once that's been discovered, it can be addressed fruitfully by appropriate methods of reasoning.

We can save a lot of time, sharpen our reasoning abilities, and communicate with each other more effectively if we watch for disagreements about the meaning of words and try to resolve them whenever we can."

Definition and Meaning Britannica Philosophy Pages

Thanks.

Adam

[sjw]

So which is it? Can an individual landowner be a government or not? Or must he be affiliated with some institution called "government"? This is a very important point, and I would appreciate a simple, direct answer.

You will have to identify exactly why this is allegedly so important to this particular discussion. I see no consequence. Whether you call it "government" only in the institutional context or also in the individual context makes no difference whatsoever in regards to whether one has a right to form the entities being referred to by the words.

George asks: Is it A or B? My answer: It can be A or B, take your pick, it won't change the argument in any significant way. Instead of picking a way and showing me how I'm wrong, he uses this as an opportunity to weasel out of the debate.

"This is a very important point" -- I ask why, then "blank out" is the only answer. If he actually had a real point, he'd say "Aha, you think it doesn't matter, but here's why it matters: ..."

Instead he uses this gutter approach of appealing to the lowest common denominator in the forum, Selene.

Shayne

[sjw]

This was never a debate at all, because I could never get any clarity from you about what your position is. Whenever I attempted to get you to be more specific, you typically responded with a "maybe yes, maybe no." Then if I criticized the "maybe yes" side, you responded, "But I also said maybe no." And if I criticized the "maybe no" side, you predictably responded, "But I also said maybe yes."

Pure fabrication. You wanted me to say "property rights say X", and I'd formulate as "natural rights say X". I didn't say "maybe natural rights say X."

But regardless, we're now on comfortable turf for you, because you can take full liberty to lie and misrepresent what was said, and then we can endlessly wrangle about who really said what ad infinitium. This is all about George H. Smith pathetically losing the debate and changing the subject again. So predictable.

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne:

Vultures circle over dead meat...

they also keep the environment from diseases.

Thanks for the compliment.

Adam

circling ever circling

[sjw]

Second, I did not continue the discussion as to whether a definition of a term can include the term itself. You stated your position and I stated mine. If you would care to give the parameters of definition that we are discussing I might continue.

The answer is that it can't and that I didn't do that. The real trouble is that you don't know what a "term" is, you think a "word" is a "term" but you're wrong. I doubt even George would back you up on that one, but he is still pleased to have vultures coming in to provide him moral support when he takes dishonest turns.

Shayne

[sjw]

Shayne:

Vultures circle over dead meat...

they also keep the environment from diseases.

Thanks for the compliment.

Adam

circling ever circling

You're a vulture with very poor eyesight.

Shayne

[sjw]

deleted by author.

Edited February 15, 2011 by sjw