Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[Brant Gaede]

Concerning man-made law (or rules, same thing here), it is definitely true that if you borrow my bike, I get to set the rules, if you step onto my land, I get to set the rules. Same concept. Very confusing to an anarchist, but simple nonetheless.

-----

If you want to be a hillbilly, you should be free to do that. But the rest of us should be free from having you as a neighbor, given that we had created such a possibility consensually. We don't need the Beverly Hillbillies coming in and ruining our property values. This is just one consideration of course. We could go on and on speculating about how this or that man-made rule might improve human life in a given area for this particular personality type or that particular geographic zone. What would come from this is not a boring uniformity, but an incredible variety of different kinds of cities, each one designed to suit their local populace, where everyone has the liberty to found a new kind of city with their cohorts. You wouldn't have to go halfway around the world to experience vibrantly different culture, you could ride your bike 20 miles to the next town.

Shayne

We already have that, Shayne, and the Beverly Hillbillies were multi-millionaires.

--Brant

There you go. I think you pulled the trigger too fast.

--Brant

We don't have the first paragraph or the second. No one gets to define the man-made laws of their land, they are subject to the laws of the existing governments. Seriously Brant, WTF are you smoking?

Shayne

I didn't say THE first paragraph, I said the first paragraph I quoted, which is why I quoted it. I'm not going to have a connect-the-dots conversation with you, so let's move on. Thank you.

--Brant

[sjw]

I didn't say THE first paragraph, I said the first paragraph I quoted, which is why I quoted it. I'm not going to have a connect-the-dots conversation with you, so let's move on. Thank you.

--Brant

No one gets to specify the rules on their land Brant. They are permitted to set some rules, but only those the government permits.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

My serious interest is human rights and their moral foundation, not government, not now. Maybe if I were 40 years younger . . . ? So that's the end of me on this thread.

--Brant

[sjw]

My serious interest is human rights and their moral foundation, not government, not now. Maybe if I were 40 years younger . . . ? So that's the end of me on this thread.

--Brant

You shouldn't let a little thing like not having hope get in the way of having heart.

I myself don't see how one can have a serious interest in rights without being serious about matters of government as well.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

My serious interest is human rights and their moral foundation, not government, not now. Maybe if I were 40 years younger . . . ? So that's the end of me on this thread.

--Brant

You shouldn't let a little thing like not having hope get in the way of having heart.

I myself don't see how one can have a serious interest in rights without being serious about matters of government as well.

Shayne

For the record I have all kinds of hope, but humans aren't smart enough to learn much except by bumping into things, especially through the slaughter fests we call "war." I have no hope for the present-day American political structure, imploding mostly for gross financial reasons but onerous entitlements, bank bailouts, taxes, rules and regulations as well. The U.S. is exporting a lot of this with its corrupt currency. Now I really must leave this thread. It has completely stopped engaging me.

--Brant

extremely angry about the world of . . .

[sjw]

For the record I have all kinds of hope, but humans aren't smart enough to learn much except by bumping into things, especially through the slaughter fests we call "war."

Obviously not all humans are like that.

Is it as Albert Jay Nock says, that there are really two species of human, the ones who can think and be moral and the ones who not only won't but inherently can't? Or is it as Ayn Rand says? I think we should go with Ayn Rand and say that the vast majority of humans have the capacity to reason until and unless we obtain definitive proof to the contrary.

I have no hope for the present-day American political structure, imploding mostly for gross financial reasons but onerous entitlements, bank bailouts, taxes, rules and regulations as well. The U.S. is exporting a lot of this with its corrupt currency. Now I really must leave this thread. It has completely stopped engaging me.

--Brant

extremely angry about the world of . . .

The basic structure itself isn't the problem, the problem is the ignorance and moral degeneracy of the people at large. It's just as Jefferson said: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Shayne

[sjw]

Observe the lesson that Brant learns from George's petty and divisive antics. Here are two people that on some level Brant regards as reasonable and intelligent, and George spends his mental energies painting a crystal clear vision of eternal hostility and petty warfare between them. No wonder Brant has had it visionary thinking. And this is not just about George, this is a perfect description of most of the Old Guard libertarians (see the article of George's I posted yesterday).

What George could do, if he wanted, is to observe that my intentions are pure, and if he sees a weak spot, to try to help correct it. Or if, as is more likely, he doesn't see a weak spot, there are plenty of other ways to productively engage. Instead he sees me as some kind of prey to stalk, and when he kills his prey he gets some kind of badge of honor. Or maybe he thinks, as Brant supposes he does, that since I contradict him I'm a threat. If so then that shows just how petty he is, because we should be on the same side for liberty and individual rights, if one of us is wrong about some detail, it's a small thing in comparison.

Perhaps only George can tell us why George acts as he does, whether this is new behavior for him or not (perhaps he thought Rothbard succeeded at these Leninist tactics and is now trying it himself). But it is quite unsurprising that when libertarian leaders act as they do, they reap the expected consequences: failure.

Shayne

[sjw]

Rothbard unjustly skewers GHS:

http://www.voluntaryist.com/backissues/005.pdf

If it were me George, I wouldn't have put Rothbard on a pedestal, I would have nailed him to the wall for being a sick, dishonest, creepy, unjust bastard. But then, I wouldn't take up tactics that resemble Rothbard's either. Only a total commitment to truth, reason, and what is right gives the ideas of liberty any kind of a chance.

Shayne

As always, I treasure Shayne's opinions on subjects he knows nothing about.

Rothbard, for all his eccentricities, was a brilliant theoretician, historian, and writer whose contributions to the modern libertarian movement were immense. Shayne, in contrast, is a third-rate hack. Shayne is not fit to lick Rothbard's boots.

Ghs

What George succeeded in documenting but failed to observe was that Rothbard was an amoral powerlusting creep. We tend to become what we idolize.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

While I don't find your philosophy of government very coherent, Shayne, I've never found much coherence in anarcho-capitalism either. That's why I tend to lump you with George, believe it or not.

--Brant

What a cruel blow this was!

Actually, if you have no serious problem with the O'ist notion of a government without the power to tax, then you shouldn't have a serious problem with Rothbardian anarchism. The transition from the former to the latter is fairly minor. The real sticking point, in practical terms, is with the idea of financing a government voluntarily. Once this point is conceded, the theoretical Rubicon has been crossed, and the rest is a matter of detail.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Rothbard unjustly skewers GHS:

http://www.voluntaryist.com/backissues/005.pdf

If it were me George, I wouldn't have put Rothbard on a pedestal, I would have nailed him to the wall for being a sick, dishonest, creepy, unjust bastard. But then, I wouldn't take up tactics that resemble Rothbard's either. Only a total commitment to truth, reason, and what is right gives the ideas of liberty any kind of a chance.

Shayne

As always, I treasure Shayne's opinions on subjects he knows nothing about.

Rothbard, for all his eccentricities, was a brilliant theoretician, historian, and writer whose contributions to the modern libertarian movement were immense. Shayne, in contrast, is a third-rate hack. Shayne is not fit to lick Rothbard's boots.

Ghs

What George succeeded in documenting but failed to observe was that Rothbard was an amoral powerlusting creep. We tend to become what we idolize.

Shayne

Envy is a ugly emotion, Shayne; you should try to keep on a lid on yours. Just because Murray's work will be remembered, while yours will never be read, much less remembered, is no reason to call him names.

Ghs

[sjw]

Envy is a ugly emotion, Shayne; you should try to keep on a lid on yours. Just because Murray's work will be remembered, while yours will never be read, much less remembered, is no reason to call him names.

Ghs

All the honest reader need do is read your own documentation of his antics to observe that my statement is driven by the facts at hand.

I don't envy you or Rothbard, I'm just an engineer who wants the boot of my neck and you guys have done an absolutely horrible job, not because you aren't intelligent, but because you aren't ethical. This "envy" epithet you hurl, with fake posturing of certainty, is yet another demonstration of your lack of moral scruples.

Indeed, this faking of certainty is a pattern I have observed in preachers of every stripe. I remember it well as a young man, when, having been raised religious, the much older men around me would feign certainty that theirs was the true religion. Who was I to question, I didn't know anything, I was just some young guy. Well I learned my lesson in spades since reading Ayn Rand, and I know how to spot a charlatan, and you are most definitely a charlatan.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

While I don't find your philosophy of government very coherent, Shayne, I've never found much coherence in anarcho-capitalism either. That's why I tend to lump you with George, believe it or not.

--Brant

What a cruel blow this was!

Actually, if you have no serious problem with the O'ist notion of a government without the power to tax, then you shouldn't have a serious problem with Rothbardian anarchism. The transition from the former to the latter is fairly minor. The real sticking point, in practical terms, is with the idea of financing a government voluntarily. Once this point is conceded, the theoretical Rubicon has been crossed, and the rest is a matter of detail.

Ghs

I didn't anticipate the wrapping up the details. I've got a serious problem with such a government. It's not going to happen. It's Rand's City on a Hill. It's that "sticking point." In 200 years I'll be reborn with a big brain and deal with this theorectical in detail then. For my next several rebirths I'm going to be a degenerate hedonist.

--Brant

things are getting nasty here

Edited February 15, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

I think most of the conflict between you and George has to do with him blasting any possible competition to his own ideas on governance. I'm certainly no competitor. It's a turf war, but he can't slay you, ultimately, without slaying himself. That's why this thread is so long.

--Brant

I have been involved in many debates on this issue, both in person and in print, and in most of those I have been quite civil. What I cannot stand about Shayne are his slip and slide tactics. I have dealt with hundreds of young libertarian theoreticians through the decades. When I have found promising thinkers, as I have on numerous occasions, I have done what I could to encourage them. At first I thought Shayne might fall into this category, which is why I was favorably disposed to him at first, but what a disappointment he turned out to be. If Shayne ever matures intellectually and learns how to deal with ideas, then he might be able to contribute something worthwhile, but I won't hold my breath.

This has been nothing like a "turf war," so far as I am concerned. I have no "turf" to defend here, since I don't think there is much difference, in practical terms, between Randian minarchism and Rothbardian anarchism. Nevertheless, I am often willing to engage in debates on this topic because they sometimes get into areas that I think need more work. One of these areas concerns the rights of landowners; another concerns the nature of unenforceable contracts. I have unresolved questions in my own mind in both these spheres.

For example, I initially raised the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights because this has been the theoretical foundation for rejecting certain kinds of contracts, such as "slave" contracts, as invalid and therefore unenforceable. (See Murray Rothbard's detailed treatment in The Ethics of Liberty.) But Shayne, with a confidence born from the bowels of his ignorance, repeatedly denounced this distinction. Why? Well, he seems to believe that it elevates some rights above others, and Shayne assures that all rights are equally important.

Of course, the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights implies no such thing. Shayne was again blowing hot air about a subject he knows nothing about. I can put up with a certain amount of this nonsense, but after a while it becomes hopeless.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I never was interested in understanding Murray Rothbard as a person, but to celebrate the fall of the South Vietnamese government to the communist North Vietnamese onslaught because, well, a government had fallen, completed my disinterest in spades. The only good thing to say about communist Vietnam is it was a lot better than communist Cambodia and its genocidal Marxism imported from France by Pol Pot and co.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I think most of the conflict between you and George has to do with him blasting any possible competition to his own ideas on governance. I'm certainly no competitor. It's a turf war, but he can't slay you, ultimately, without slaying himself. That's why this thread is so long.

--Brant

I have been involved in many debates on this issue, both in person and in print, and in most of those I have been quite civil. What I cannot stand about Shayne are his slip and slide tactics. I have dealt with hundreds of young libertarian theoreticians through the decades. When I have found promising thinkers, as I have on numerous occasions, I have done what I could to encourage them. At first I thought Shayne might fall into this category, which is why I was favorably disposed to him at first, but what a disappointment he turned out to be. If Shayne ever matures intellectually and learns how to deal with ideas, then he might be able to contribute something worthwhile, but I won't hold my breath.

This has been nothing like a "turf war," so far as I am concerned. I have no "turf" to defend here, since I don't think there is much difference, in practical terms, between Randian minarchism and Rothbardian anarchism. Nevertheless, I am often willing to engage in debates on this topic because they sometimes get into areas that I think need more work. One of these areas concerns the rights of landowners; another concerns the nature of unenforceable contracts. I have unresolved questions in my own mind in both these spheres.

For example, I initially raised the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights because this has been the theoretical foundation for rejecting certain kinds of contracts, such as "slave" contracts, as invalid and therefore unenforceable. (See Murray Rothbard's detailed treatment in The Ethics of Liberty.) But Shayne, with a confidence born from the bowels of his ignorance, repeatedly denounced this distinction. Why? Well, he seems to believe that it elevates some rights above others, and Shayne assures that all rights are equally important.

Of course, the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights implies no such thing. Shayne was again blowing hot air about a subject he knows nothing about. I can put up with a certain amount of this nonsense, but after a while it becomes hopeless.

Ghs

Well, this a better explanation than a "turf war." As for alienable and inalienable rights, I don't see how the former can exist if the right to life* is taken as the primary right. Otherwise you could sell yourself into slavery. I don't think Shayne has much focus on the right to life, especially compared to the right to property. If that's the case then one certainly will need to distinguish between the two types.

--Brant

*not to be confused with the right to life of a fetus kicking in immediately with conception--with the abortion debates; that's a matter of when

[sjw]

I never was interested in understanding Murray Rothbard as a person, but to celebrate the fall of the South Vietnamese government to the communist North Vietnamese onslaught because, well, a government had fallen, completed my disinterest in spades. The only good thing to say about communist Vietnam is it was a lot better than communist Cambodia and its genocidal Marxism imported from France by Pol Pot and co.

--Brant

And then there's his view that parents don't need to feed their children, and Walter Block with this:

Suppose that there is a starvation situation, and the parent of the four year old child (who is not an adult) does not have enough money to keep him alive. A wealthy NAMBLA man offers this parent enough money to keep him and his family alive – if he will consent to his having sex with the child. We assume, further, that this is the only way to preserve the life of this four year old boy. Would it be criminal child abuse for the parent to accept this offer?

Not on libertarian grounds. For surely it is better for the child to be a live victim of sexual abuse rather than unsullied and dead. Rather, it is the parent who consents to the death of his child, when he could have kept him alive by such extreme measures, who is the real abuser.

What a great way to sell libertarianism. It's more like they're trying to destroy it.

Shayne

[sjw]

Well, this a better explanation than a "turf war."

But it doesn't explain George defaming me by calling me envious even though he has no access to my motives. He's a shyster and a posturer and a charlatan.

As for alienable and inalienable rights, I don't see how the former can exist if the right to life* is taken as the primary right. Otherwise you could sell yourself into slavery. I don't think Shayne has much focus on the right to life, especially compared to the right to property. If that's the case then one certainly will need to distinguish between the two types.

My perspective is that one's life is one's action, and rights are exactly the same but constrained to not violate others, therefore all rights are inalienable in the sense that any interference with them is wrong. That is to say, only my position regards ones whole right to life, i.e. one's living action, as inalienable. You and George toss some rights by the wayside, so you toss some part of people's lives out the window. But to toss any part out is, on my view, to violate one's right to life.

I don't know what it means to say that one's right to life is "inalienable" if one is not holding my view, because obviously, someone can take away your life, or you can give it away, so in George's and your sense certainly it is "alienable."

Shayne

[sjw]

I have been involved in many debates on this issue, both in person and in print, and in most of those I have been quite civil. What I cannot stand about Shayne are his slip and slide tactics.

No, what you don't like is someone talking over your head, or actually knowing more than you do. You could mentor me on a great many things because you are far better than me at a great many things, but you don't want to, because on the fundamentals, I clean your clock.

For example, I initially raised the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights because this has been the theoretical foundation for rejecting certain kinds of contracts, such as "slave" contracts, as invalid and therefore unenforceable. (See Murray Rothbard's detailed treatment in The Ethics of Liberty.) But Shayne, with a confidence born from the bowels of his ignorance, repeatedly denounced this distinction. Why? Well, he seems to believe that it elevates some rights above others, and Shayne assures that all rights are equally important.

Of course, the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights implies no such thing. Shayne was again blowing hot air about a subject he knows nothing about. I can put up with a certain amount of this nonsense, but after a while it becomes hopeless.

Ghs

Here's an example of where I clean your clock. You do not know what you are talking about.

Shayne

[sjw]

A "right to life," which I most certainly recognize, is not merely the right to be alive, it is the right to live, and that means the right to take any action that does not violate the equal rights of others. The right to life is nothing more and nothing less than all of one's rights taken together, it is another synonym for "Natural Law."

Shayne

[PDS]

The back cover of Shayne's book states the following about the book: "Part I begins with the irrefutable foundation of common experience and ends with the pinnacle revelation of how government can actually be based on the consent of the governed. Just as Issac Newton's Three Laws of Motion describe the predictable actions of physical objects, Shayne Wissler's Three Laws of Human Relations describe the peaceful actions of human beings in a sociopolitical context."

Having not read Shayne's book, this statement seems a rather promising summary of some elements of Shayne's primary argument, notwithstanding that the comparison to Newton comes off as something of a stretch. Unfortunately, I for one have not been able to comprehend Shayne's argument as expressed in this thread. I suspect I speak for others who have followed this thread.

Shayne: this is a chance for you to back up the theory in your book, and to do so as against a leading libertarian thinker. Who knows, you might even get the best of George. But this is going to require you to use terms that have some reasonable definitions, and its going to require you to succinctly state your position. My prediction is that George will give you the benefit of a vigorous debate if you are willing to do these basic things, assuming he hasn't yet thrown in the towel.

I ask this question in good faith, and with no intention of provoking you: why are you passing up this opportunity?

[sjw]

Shayne: this is a chance for you to back up the theory in your book, and to do so as against a leading libertarian thinker. Who knows, you might even get the best of George. But this is going to require you to use terms that have some reasonable definitions, and its going to require you to succinctly state your position. My prediction is that George will give you the benefit of a vigorous debate if you are willing to do these basic things, assuming he hasn't yet thrown in the towel.

I ask this question in good faith, and with no intention of provoking you: why are you passing up this opportunity?

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying that I don't think you've been following this thread very closely, which isn't a complaint given how long it is.

Where we last left off was George insisting on a fixed comprehension of the term "government", instead of having integrity and holding to my actual view that it is not a magic word, and that "government" in principle can exist in microcosm even when we do not usually call it that. The reason why George wishes me to violate my integrity is that if he can work me into a concrete definition that guts the central premise of my argument -- that a right to form a government emerges from natural rights -- then he would then rightly be able to assert that anarchism is the only logical and morally permissible result.

If you pay close attention, George merely asserted that I must do such and such, and when I asked for reasons why, he just flounced out of the debate, pretending to have won it. That is precisely what happened.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I never was interested in understanding Murray Rothbard as a person, but to celebrate the fall of the South Vietnamese government to the communist North Vietnamese onslaught because, well, a government had fallen, completed my disinterest in spades. The only good thing to say about communist Vietnam is it was a lot better than communist Cambodia and its genocidal Marxism imported from France by Pol Pot and co.

--Brant

And then there's his view that parents don't need to feed their children, and Walter Block with this:

Suppose that there is a starvation situation, and the parent of the four year old child (who is not an adult) does not have enough money to keep him alive. A wealthy NAMBLA man offers this parent enough money to keep him and his family alive – if he will consent to his having sex with the child. We assume, further, that this is the only way to preserve the life of this four year old boy. Would it be criminal child abuse for the parent to accept this offer?

Not on libertarian grounds. For surely it is better for the child to be a live victim of sexual abuse rather than unsullied and dead. Rather, it is the parent who consents to the death of his child, when he could have kept him alive by such extreme measures, who is the real abuser.

What a great way to sell libertarianism. It's more like they're trying to destroy it.

Shayne

I thought NAMBLA kicked in at eight or so. Does that thing even exist any longer?

I'm sure there's enough flesh on the NAMBLA guy to keep the family going for a while.

I never read the author's book you're quoting. I figured if it was undefendable he failed in his defenses. Besides, the reviews were off-putting.

I'd like to read The Market for Liberty, by different authors.

--Brant

If you give me your one-year old, I'll give you some C-rations to feed the four year old: I'm going to eat the one-year old, but you'll save the 4 year old--hooray!

Edited February 16, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[PDS]

Shayne: this is a chance for you to back up the theory in your book, and to do so as against a leading libertarian thinker. Who knows, you might even get the best of George. But this is going to require you to use terms that have some reasonable definitions, and its going to require you to succinctly state your position. My prediction is that George will give you the benefit of a vigorous debate if you are willing to do these basic things, assuming he hasn't yet thrown in the towel.

I ask this question in good faith, and with no intention of provoking you: why are you passing up this opportunity?

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying that I don't think you've been following this thread very closely, which isn't a complaint given how long it is.

Where we last left off was George insisting on a fixed comprehension of the term "government", instead of having integrity and holding to my actual view that it is not a magic word, and that "government" in principle can exist in microcosm even when we do not usually call it that. The reason why George wishes me to violate my integrity is that if he can work me into a concrete definition that guts the central premise of my argument -- that a right to form a government emerges from natural rights -- then he would then rightly be able to assert that anarchism is the only logical and morally permissible result.

If you pay close attention, George merely asserted that I must do such and such, and when I asked for reasons why, he just flounced out of the debate, pretending to have won it. That is precisely what happened.

Shayne

But if I am sitting in my office right now at my computer, which I possess as a tenant only because of a contractual lease wherein my lease payments have been properly made, am I a government, or am I simply a leaseholder with a contractual right to possession? The situation does not change, in principle, simply because I am the landlord rather than tenant, does it? Or does ownership of a thing (such as land) create "government," in your view?

Feel free to ignore if this is too elemental, but most people not steeped in the minarch/arch debate would find it rather counterintuitive that "government" can be created by ownership, in microcosm or otherwise, but especially in microcosm. Most, even those with a Lockean conception of natural rights, I think, would say that something far less than "government" is created by mere ownership, i.e., contract rights, the right to alienate the property, etc.

Edited February 15, 2011 by PDS

[sjw]

It took me two years to write my book. This was not full time, I had other things I had to do, but it did take a great deal of time. And then there were many years before that coming to the point where I had ideas that I thought were worth writing down. And even given all that, my book has flaws, flaws that a professional like George would never have had, and I know it.

He acts like I'm in competition with him but I'm not. I could never write articles at the prolific rate he does, nor readily create a lecture, and when I edit it is is very painstaking and slow and I miss things even after having gone over things many times.

I don't envy Rothbard or George, I wouldn't even want to try to do that full time, that's not my career path. I'd rather send George $50,000 and have him do a better job than me than do any of this. I wrote my book solely because I didn't like what was going down in the libertarian movement, so I thought about the issue in my spare time, did some due diligence (but I have no interest in learning every nook and cranny of everything anyone ever wrote), and I came to my own belief about what the problem and the solution was, and I wrote it down.

If I am wrong and I wasted my time, that is fine with me, I'll be happy to support anyone with a better idea. But I see no evidence that I'm wrong, on the contrary, the way George has been acting convinces me that it's worse than I thought. Not only are the fundamental ideas they have fundamentally misguided, but the leadership is unethical, and it's very much about turf wars and not about liberty.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I have been involved in many debates on this issue, both in person and in print, and in most of those I have been quite civil. What I cannot stand about Shayne are his slip and slide tactics.

No, what you don't like is someone talking over your head, or actually knowing more than you do. You could mentor me on a great many things because you are far better than me at a great many things, but you don't want to, because on the fundamentals, I clean your clock.

You seem to regard intellectual exchanges as a type of competition. How very sad.

Ghs