TheAgitator.com
Go Away
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004The folks over at No Treason! were once awkwardly charming, if unrealistic anarchists. They’ve officially crossed over to obsessive and creepy.
They’ve been trolling the comments section of this blog for months now, regularly pointing out what I hypocrite I am for lamenting the size and scope of government without calling for, say, armed revolution. They also regularly call me out on their own site (try typing my name into their search engine). Hey guys, guess what? I also drink flourinated water. I know. Big squish, aren’t I?
Of late, they’re obsessing over my TV appearances. Apparently, I should have used the opportunity to call for the abolition of Medicare, or an end to taxation. Or something like that. Yep. And that would have pretty much ensured I’d never get invited to do TV again. My aim of course is to persuade. Their aim is to have vitrilioc flame wars with one another over the 2% they disagree on, then sit around cultishly shunning nonbelievers, and collectively giggling at how much more principled they are than everyone else.
Oh, they also draw up vaguely threatening cartoons directed at people they disagree with (I’m not the only one — see here and here).
All of that is fine. But I’ve gotta’ call bullshit and defend myself when I’m accused of…..stealing links! Here’s Lynette Warren’s post laying out the evidence. See, she likes the show Deadwood. And I wrote about the show Deadwood after she did. So I must have stolen the idea of posting about Deadwood from her!
Christ. Hey Lynette? Frankly? You’re putting way too much stock in my opinion of you. I don’t read you. I don’t think you’re interesting. You’re boring and you’re predictable — as are most of No Treason’s posts. When I see yours or John T. Kennedy’s name in my comments section, I gloss over it. Hell, at least Billy Beck can be somewhat colorful with his threats, and in the ways and methods he tells me to go fuck myself, or in calling me a “Judyboy” or some other playground epithet.
But you? You’re like the gum on the bottom of Kennedy’s shoe.
To be honest, the only time I venture over to No Treason! is when my logs or Technorati tells me you’ve linked to me, and y’all have found yet another way to articulate why I’m an awful writer, a sorry libertarian, have poor personal hygiene, or will make a terrible parent someday. If you’ll notice, I took No Treason! off my blogroll many months ago, after Sabotta posted his cartoon in which a cute little bear (which I guess is supposed to be me — it’s not clear) gets a spike driven through its heart. I thought that was weird.
But to soothe your hurt feelings, Lynette, I didn’t post about Deadwood solely because you did. The post you linked to is dated July 15. I first posted on Deadwood back in March, after the premiere. Then again in June.
Note that in my June post, I mentioned that if there’s any justice in the world, Ian McShane would get an Emmy nomination. Note that your own John T. Kennedy commented to that post. I then posted again this week.
So no, I didn’t steal an idea or a link or any other “trinkets” from your table. Get over yourself.
And frankly, if all of you No Treason! weirdos just ended you fascination with me, that’d be just fine, too.
this is hilarious
That post by Lynette Warren has to be one of the most pathetic I’ve ever seen.
This spat is way too much.
Ian “Cocksucker” McShane rocks. He deserved at least a nomination. Surely more than that cocksucker Martin Sheen or that other cocksucker Keifer Sutherland.
HBO has the best TV on TV. Period.
I had HBO once… then they wanted me to start paying for it. *sigh*
What’s a judyboy?
The internet is mostly haters.
I don’t even hate haters.
What am I doing here?
And awaaaayyy we go… When JTK and his posse see this, it’ll be the longest comment section in this site’s history…
One of the ongoing problems in the “make the state smaller” community seems to be the inability to form medium-term tactical alliances.
Clearly there are real differences of opinion over the fundamentals of WHY to make the state smaller, and HOW FAR to shrink it. Failure to remain civil in such discussions has interfered with progress on figuring out HOW to make the state smaller.
Beck clearly has a very low opinion of people like Balko and myself, but if he wants to defeat the Endarkenment, people like us are necessary allies. If he believes that Balko’s somehow sold out key principles that will lead to failure in the primary mission, he should say so, but he needs to do so in a way that keeps everybody’s blood pressure consistent with rational discourse.
JTK IMHO has been better at keeping things civil. His ideas, therefore, have a much better chance of spreading and being useful. It would be a mistake for us to write him off. His notion that we should abandon political action and instead pursue the development of rights-protecting and freedom-enhancing businessess seems especially promising.
Fuck, give em hell, Balko! What is their DEAL? Just a little bit of unhealthy obsession, wouldn’t you say?
So, let’s see…Radley’s been hyping on Deadwood for months. Then NoTreason has a blog entry commenting on Deadwood’s emmy nods. Agitator also has another entry about Deadwood. And over at NoTreason, in the comments section of an entirely unrelated blog entry, Balko posted a comment. BAM, now THAT is DAMNING evidence, if I’ve ever seen it.
What a bunch of creepy weirdos.
Yeah, hey, Radley, next time you’re on the teevee, you should get dressed up in fatigues and rant on and on about how you’re going to singlehandedly overthrow our evil socialist empire. That will surely convince the rest of the non-believers.
Kennedy and Warren seem to have zero fucking grip on the political reality in this country, or the nuances of public debate. They think that it would be healthy (either for the personal career of the debater, or for the cuase of liberty) to go on national teevee and call for revolution. Someone needs to send them a copy of McCloud’s “The Art of Libertarian Persuasion”. Any half-witted high-school debate-team member could tell you that extremism, and going out of your way to make your opponent feel dumb and wrong, are bad debate tactics. Oy.
I admit that JTK’s comments have sometimes caused me to think outside of my own cute little box.
Every minute we waste in emotional bickering the State gets bigger.
Every minute we spend on ad-hominems or retorts to such, the regulations get thicker.
Every time we write off people whose talents and passion we need our enemy grows stronger.
Every hour we spend yelling past each other the Panopticon — our ultimate doom — gets closer to completion.
FOCUS, people. FOCUS on the problem: the STATE. We need to deal with it, AND SOON.
“The revolution will be all business.”
-J.T. Kennedy
I have great respect for both Kennedy and Balko. Both make me think.
Kennedy, I think, doggedly follows every train of thought to its logical conclusion. Hence, what might seem like small differences turn out to be quite large at the end.
We need both of them right now.
>>Their aim is to have vitrilioc flame wars with one another over the 2% they disagree on, then sit around cultishly shunning nonbelievers, and collectively giggling at how much more principled they are than everyone else.
But it’s not just them.
Say anything good about Lincoln or questing the revisionist position on the Civil War and the LRC folks jump down your throat. There’s some nonsense going on right now regarding an article on the Reason web site. I also remember the Antiwar crowd ganging up on Harry Browne because of some comment he made on Bill Maher’s show. It seems like this kind of thing is happening constantly.
It reminds me of nothing so much as the Red Guard factions during the Cultural Revolution, where groups would splinter off because they wanted to be the truest follower’s of Mao’s idiotic philosophies.
I mean, Can’t we all just get along?
I think it’s fair criticism to question why or how one would invoke principles (or things that sound like principles) in a discussion and then not follow them logically to their extremes when making your case.
jtk always sounds like a grumpy old man to me… Maybe these anarchists just need a group hug??
TJ, re reading your post i was struck by your exhortation to collective action, which kind of tickled me. What “we” are you referring to? isn’t the state the “we” and “we” just a lot of “me’s”?
The WE here are people concerned about the growth of the state. (That makes my statement above about what WE need to be doing a bit tautalogical)
The collective action problem is real, but on a very small scale (the libertarian actvists within earshot of this post) it should be possible to overcome it.
The state is not the “we”. The state is an institution largely structured to assist people in their efforts to plunder each other. It’s sold as an institution designed to protect us from each other and from barbarians, but it does precious little of that these days.
Wade, the difference between ‘we’ and the state is one of choice. Neither anarchists or libertarians are opposed to people choosing to cooperate. The opposition is to those institutions which lock people into collective obligations against their will. If Madison had said ‘we should make laws to oblige people to cooperate in breaking down the laws which require people to cooperate’, there’d have been a very clear contradiction. What he did say was both logical and important.
I don’t watch Deadwood (or much TV for that matter).
There. I’ve said it.
Whew.
Uh … Wow! As far as their fascination with you Radley — can you really blame them?? I mean, you do look pretty hot in that thong
They stole that cartoon - it’s from Jim Woodring’s “Frank”. It’s really great too.
I agree with Ms.Dani, John T. Kennedy has his moments.
But that’s commin’ from me so…
TJ, have you spent much time in places where the state is absent? It’s not very nice. i know we are a long, long way from perfection ( a “perfect” society is possible), but we do at least have the freedom and security to form groups for collective political action. That is fairly difficult under anarchy, or in afghanistan.
Bernard, which people, at what point of history, have not been locked into some sort of collective agreement against their will? You mightn’t like it but it’s a fact of life, like the sun coming up in the morning. I think the collective agreements that we are locked into at birth at present are probably less onerous than at any previous time. Perhaps you would prefer serfdom in a feudal system?
Way to open a can of whoopass, Balko!
wade, I don’t quite understand where that came from. I was just responding to the questions you raised. I don’t remember making any statements or advocations which might lead to your reply :).
>>That is fairly difficult under anarchy, or in afghanistan.
What most people refer to as “anarchy” is really a particularly icky form of feudalism. In this situation local governments known as “gangs” compete for victims and plunder. Clearly not an improvement. Plans for anarchy that end up there certainly aren’t very well thought out.
A better approach involves dismantling those aspects of the state that obviously do not benefit overall liberty first. IMHO once we’ve eliminated all the parts of the state which make life worse, not much will be left. Ultimately though, that’s an argument that can be had later, once we’ve disabled or bypassed the transparently unpleasant State functions.
>>Perhaps you would prefer serfdom in a feudal system?
Sadly, I might not have much of a choice, as things may very well end up that way anyway if we continue down the present path. I don’t see freedom of movement/association/thought getting any better over the next 15-20 years. I may be mistaken, of course.
For what it’s worth, I’m an anarchist, and agree anarchism is where Radley’s principles should lead him, but the scorn emanating this way from No Treason strikes me as petty and counterproductive.
Radley is a friend, not an enemy, of liberty, and if he could convince lots of people to adopt his views, probably some of them would leak over into anarchism, which would be just fine with me.
What matt said.
You stupid little jerkoff. I didn’t draw that cartoon, (it was Jim Woodring) and it’s meant to show Kennedy being spiked by you.
As for the “vaguely threatening” cartoons, this just puts you in the same category as the neo-Confederate assholes at Lew Rockwell. The category of “paranoid idiot”. Which you are, you pathetic, worthless little git.
Keep on sucking off John Kerry, Balko. Don’t complain when your face gets all sticky.
Settle down John, you’re not winning any hearts and minds with that attitude. Write intelligently and people may think you have something intelligent to say.
Thanks, Radley, for making me read No Treason again. On my deathbed I’ll curse you for the three minutes that cost me.
By the way, good showing, Sabotta. Eloquent as always. If you ever want to leave your parents’ basement, I hear Abu Ghraib is running short of prison guards.
“Write intelligently and people may think you have something intelligent to say.”
Sabotta well and truly ice-picked (there’s one of those “creepy threats” again) the lunatic ideas of Lewrockwell.com’s Marcus Epstein in regards to crypto-Nazi Jared Taylor, to name but one example. In response to which LRC’ers valiantly rushed to the battlements ‘neath the Stars and Bars and hurled acusations of “death threats”, rather than attempt a principled defense of themselves. I judged at the time that it was because they couldn’t be honest enough to openly endorse peaceful white seperatisim or somesuch.
At least Balko has the courtesy to point his readership to what he takes issue with so they can decide for themselves, even though like the NeoConFeds, he interprets principled criticisim of his unstable positions as “trolling” and “obsession”. I judge that that’s because he can’t bring himself to openly endorse the logical conclusions of the policies he advocates.
I’ll go away, now.
John, before you go away, can you give us an example of a logical conclusion which he fails to endorse?
I’ve always considered it amazing that I tend to agree IN PRINCIPAL with every thing Kennedy posts on here, yet disliking him very much as a commenter.
I even ventured over to “No Treason” before to see what supposed “like minded” people are posting about.
I saw a bunch of fringe lunatics living in a world of their own.
I still consider myself an anarcho-libertarian, but a pragmatic one that has to live in the real world. “No Treason” is not the place for me.
Principal vs. Principle….I always get that one wrong…
So Radley so its a case of: “Don’t Go Away Mad, Just Go Away!”
You stupid little jerkoff. I didn’t draw that cartoon, (it was Jim Woodring) and it’s meant to show Kennedy being spiked by you.
Well, perhaps, it should have made a lick of sense. As it stands, without your explanation, it makes as much sense as a Worker & Parasite cartoon.
As for the “vaguely threatening” cartoons, this just puts you in the same category as the neo-Confederate assholes at Lew Rockwell. The category of “paranoid idiot”. Which you are, you pathetic, worthless little git.
Keep on sucking off John Kerry, Balko. Don’t complain when your face gets all sticky.
You see, now that’s the kind of intelligent, civilized, rational discourse that makes me want to high-tail it over to No tReason and read up! Boy, he showed The Balko, didn’t he? Only an intellectual powerhouse like Sabotta could come up with stuff like “stupid little jerkoff”, “pathetic, worthless little git”, and “Keep on sucking off John Kerry”. I am humbled by your irrefutable arguments and towering intellect!
Yeah, I found Sabotta’s latest No Treason installment. WTF? Some sort of inconsequential nonsense about Linda Ronstadt and Phil K. Dick.
He says, “Philip K. Dick died and Linda Ronstadt lived on to become the ugly stupid whore we can all see in the latest news pictures.”
This Sabotta guy needs some anger management. That, and he needs to find something worthwhile to write about, instead of blathering on about the poor Phil Dick and cussing out Balko in his comments section.
I don’t write for people like you, Williams. Sorry.
Let’s see - Balko sucks off Democrats and you suck off Balko. It’s the ultimate pragmatist daisy chain!
Play safe, now.
Interesting commentary by John Sabotta. I’m beginning to believe that Mr. Sabotta has quite the fixation on gay sex acts. Two posts on this thread, and both make the same accusations about different people performing fellatio…
Paging Dr. Freud?
Just a couple of anger management issues as well…
“John, before you go away, can you give us an example of a logical conclusion which he fails to endorse?”
Sure: He endorses theft via government, but doesn’t endorse the logical conclusion that his endorsement of the sort of theft he approves of necessarily means that he endorses all government theft, in principle.
See http://www.no-treason.com/comments.php?id=P683_0_1_0_C and links from that for more detail.
“Settle down John”? Is that what I saw? After Balko presumed two things about the infamous cartoon that were simply not true, John should “settle” down?
Where’s the justice, kids?
Yo, Balko: if I “threatened” you, then post it up, baby. Show your work.
You know what? I never got into any of this in order to make friends. I don’t care one whit in the world whether any of you like me. (Kennedy, Warren, Sabotta, and everybody else: that goes for all of you. We’ve come a long way together, but that is perfectly nothing next to the essence of the thing.) None of that is the point. I could live just fine without ever having known any of you. What counts is whether you know what you’re doing when it comes to prying this filthy rat of a government off our backs, and I’m telling you right now: negotiating principles away all day long, and putting up with stark morons hollering horseshit like “feudalism!!” about a place where liberty was proclaimed as a founding ideal for the very first time in all of human history (can any of you sort out the implication or do I have to get out The Big Crayon and scratch out The Big Picture on your foreheads?) doesn’t count.
You, Balko — make yourself good and comfortable in Washington, pal. You’ll be squarely out of the fight in no time at all. Knock yourself out. You’re always going to be safe.
“DougB” — I’ve got your “real world”: you get to go cash in your pragmatism on Tuesdays every other November for the privilege of paying the ransom on the entire remainder of the only life you’re ever going to live, right here in the “land of the free and the home of the brave”. May posterity forget that you were ever logged into a joint like this.
Ghertner — when you need new specs someday because you spent your whole life reading between every line in three axes, I have every confidence that hermeneutics will set you free: you’ll sign on the line for the Commissar of Seeing, and you’ll be set.
Williams — “extremism” is The Complaint From Nowhere.
(feh)
“I never liked any of you sonsofbitches, but I always wished I could have.”
Don’t you forget it.
John, I haven’t seen Radley’s actual position on taxation and Government, but I’m happy to point out the gaping hole in the ‘taxes are theft’ idea.
Ownership rights are determined within a system, and enforced within that system. The concept of ‘theft’ is reliant on the concept and enforcement of property rights, which rely on a central authority of some sort.
There’s an amusing irony in an anarchist group accusing a libertarian of endorsing theft.
Additionally, the idea that by endorsing limited government in practice, one endorses totalitarian government in principal seems a little wacky to me. Could you explain it further?
“The concept of ‘theft’ is reliant on the concept and enforcement of property rights,…”
Another chimpanzee who believes that might makes right.
Jesus H. Christ in a chicken-basket.
This is absolutely fucking hopeless.
Billy, way to wimp out of addressing the issue.
You go girl.
“The concept of ‘theft’ is reliant on the concept and enforcement of property rights,…”
No, the “legal” definition of “theft,” perhaps; not the moral one.
The concept of being morally in possession of a thing, that it rightly belongs to you and to no one else, and that it’s morally wrong for anyone to take it from you is first: a cornerstone of humanity, and second, the foundation of all civil law.
Let’s get the cart _after_ the horse.
Richard, I see morality in terms of long-term self-interest and genetic self-interest. I’m inferring that you see it in terms of natural law.
For me, natural laws are things you can’t break. No matter how much you want to, you can’t choose to defy gravity (I can, of course, but that’s another discussion entirely). Property rights, on the other hand, are both widely disagree’d on (’property is theft’, being only the most ridiculous example) and widely disregarded.
For me, and an element of this is down to my more-or-less-atheism, rights only have meaning in the context of some framework to enforce them.
Oh, excuse me. Bernard isn’t a chmpanzee.
He’s just a gene.
Got it.
Balko> Apparently, I should have used the opportunity to….call for an end to taxation. …Yep, and that pretty much would have ensured that I was never invited to TV again.
So, like, if, say, *I* were ever invited up in front of two hundred million impressionable mushwits, it’d be horribly imprudent of me to advise:
- - -
To: Individual-Sovereignty@yahoogroups.com
At 4:28 AM +0000 7/23/04, Ron Harders wrote:
>Does anyone have anything positive to say?
>Does anyone care to advance some new theory
>about how to get rid of the political and
>bureaucratic corruption that besets us all.
Shoot them. I’m quite serious: They’re *tyrants*, and you should shoot as bloody many of them as you can just as soon as you can squeeze the time in at the end of your life.
“Additionally, the idea that by endorsing limited government in practice, one endorses totalitarian government in principal seems a little wacky to me. Could you explain it further?”
Sure: you’re trying to sneak in your conclusion by assuming that “limited government” is anything except an obvious oxymoron. Government can’t be limited in principle, since it can exempt itself from whatever limits are placed on it by writing itself a permission slip.
John, I’ve never been an enormous fan of the slippery slope principle, and it doesn’t fit any better here. The reason we don’t have totalitarian government is because it doesn’t follow logically that any government will be totalitarian. Power is as centralised as people choose to let it be. If Government gets vast and unaccountable it’s because we’ve allowed it to become that way, not because it followed inevitably from the establishment of government in the first place.
Bernard,
I really don’t care which principles you’re a “fan of” or not. (Inlookers: are principles really decided by popularity, as Bernard here thinks?)
The base fact remains that there is no way in principle to restrain government. You could refute me by simply pointing to a law that could in principle restrain government.
John, let me state more clearly:
I’ve never been a big fan of the slippery slope principle because it’s dragged out as a lurid emotional appeal in lieu of well-reasoned debate and is almost always bullshit, eg:
‘if we let gay people get married, people wil start marrying their pet mice and society as we know it will certainly fall apart.’
‘we can’t legalise pot because it’s a gateway drug which will have all our kids injecting heroin if we do!’
or, my personal favourite, ‘anyone who supports limited government is actually opening the door to totalitarianism.’
Ignoring, for a moment, the fact that first world governments are arranged in a complex fashion to avoid concentrating power too far in the hands of individuals at certain points in time, the key factor which prevents Governments from setting new laws to allow them to steal all your money is public opinion. If you think public opinion is no barrier to totalitarian government, why not try canvassing for peoples’ views on the implementation of a totalitarian state which assumes ownership of everyone, their income and posssessions (or, better yet, have a go at implementing it. It’s not as easy as you might think).
Public opinion and energy is the main counterweighting factor to the power of Government. When the people get lazy and Government expands too far, the people, not logical necessity are at fault.
So, two questions for you:
Why, if Government cannot in principle be restrained, do we not live in a totalitarian state (example to compare against: North Korea)?
And a value judgement one:
Would you rather live, equally wealthy, in the US or in Somalia (the only anarchy I’m aware of. I’m happy for you to substitute others in preference if you wish)?
>>Why, if Government cannot in principle be restrained, do we not live in a totalitarian state (example to compare against: North Korea)?
Patience, my friend. These things take time. The US economy is large — growing a state bureaucracy large enough to crush that economy will take a while longer yet. The technology for the Panopticon isn’t fully deployed yet. We have at least 10, more like 15-20 years left.
>>Would you rather live, equally wealthy, in the US or in Somalia?
Getting rid of US citizenship is certainly an excellent idea. Actually relocating to Somalia probably won’t be prudent for a little while yet. By the time things get Really Ugly here, Somalia is definitely on the short list of places to evacuate to.
Would you rather live, equally wealthy, in the US or in Somalia (the only anarchy I’m aware of. I’m happy for you to substitute others in preference if you wish)?
This Somalia example, commonly used by statists is a tired, inaccurate example of anarchy. Saying, America - government = Somalia
Is, necessarily, to conclude that,
America = Somalia + government.
There are examples of anarchy all around you- on those occasions when value transactions occur between human beings, when they are mostly unfettered by government interference, but the biggest example of anarchy in our lifetime is the way that nations behave among themselves. There is no overarching enforcement body keeping countries from laying to waste or pillaging one another on a regular basis, but the world exists in a state of general peace — and overall anarchy between nations.
So, in answer to your question, I don’t fear a life without government and I would prefer to live (with or without wealth) in what is now the US, sans government.
‘Patience, my friend. These things take time. The US economy is large — growing a state bureaucracy large enough to crush that economy will take a while longer yet. The technology for the Panopticon isn’t fully deployed yet. We have at least 10, more like 15-20 years left.’
Technocratic totalitarianism has been mooted for decades. It’s somewhat of an interesting side issue to the assertion that Government of any kind is, in principle, a precursor to totalitarianism.
‘This Somalia example, commonly used by statists is a tired, inaccurate example of anarchy.’
No, Somalia is in anarchy. No inaccuracy. The absence of central government certainly hasn’t seen the country implode, but it does impede business and infrastructure investment such that, if my reading is correct, most of the people are keen to find an acceptable government asap.
The question was simply whether, with equal resources at his disposal, John would prefer the one to the other. I’m still interested to know.
As for the rest, the fact that value transactions would need to take place under anarchy does not mean that when value transactions occur that constitutes anarchy. Either I’m misunderstanding you, or you’re wrong there.
With respect to the example of nations, has it escaped your notice that international relations are significantly influenced by the relative power of the various parties? I was accused earlier of believing that ‘might makes right’, but that holds far more accurately with regard to international relations than to anything I’ve said so far.
Bernard wrote:
I was accused earlier of believing that ‘might makes right’, but that holds far more accurately with regard to international relations than to anything I’ve said so far.
Then it would follow that mightiest countries, would be the biggest rights violators among nations, but that’s clearly not the case. For the most part, nations make all manner and combinations of contracts, with one another, with the most powerful nations respecting the sovereignties of even the smallest nations. This, in the absence of any omnipotent enforcement body, is anarchy and it works fairly well on a global basis.
‘Then it would follow that mightiest countries, would be the biggest rights violators among nations, but that’s clearly not the case.’
Erroneous assumption. The most powerful nations are simply the ones freest to act without reprisal. If you need examples to support this, i’m more than happy to provide. There is, and has long been, a constant jostling for position among nations as there is among people within nations, and respect for sovereignty is always conditional (as Vietnam, Afghanistan and Taiwan, to name but a small number, are all too aware).
“I’ve never been a big fan of the slippery slope principle because it’s dragged out as a lurid emotional appeal in lieu of well-reasoned debate…”
I’m not making any such thing here. I said: ‘Government can’t be limited in principle, since it can exempt itself from whatever limits are placed on it by writing itself a permission slip.’
Where’s the “lurid emotional appeal” there, Bernard?
“If you think public opinion is no barrier to totalitarian government, why not try canvassing for peoples’ views on the implementation of a totalitarian state which assumes ownership of everyone, their income and posssessions…”
Bernard, the government *already* owns everyone, their income, and their possessions. Else, there wouldn’t be ‘taxes’ and ‘licences’ and ‘permits’ and ‘registrations’ on and for those things. And your vaunted “public opinion” is just fine with it - hell, they implement even more every couple of years.
“So, two questions for you:”
Not until the first one is nailed down. I’ve invited you to show me how government can be limited in principle, and I’m still waiting for an answer.
“I’m not making any such thing here. I said: ‘Government can’t be limited in principle, since it can exempt itself from whatever limits are placed on it by writing itself a permission slip.’
Where’s the “lurid emotional appeal” there, Bernard?”
Again, there is no principle by which the executive can do this. The furore over a minor constitutional amendment has been enormous (and rightly so). If you think this Government has the power to right itself a ticket to totalitarianism, then the obvious question, again, is why it has not done so. The lurid emotional appeal is in the idea that any talk of ‘limited Government’ is simply a trojan horse for totalitarianism. The point is highlighted handily in your further assertion below:
‘Bernard, the government *already* owns everyone, their income, and their possessions.’
This is an oxymoron. If nothing were privately owned, there would be nothing on which to impose tax.
‘right itself a ticket’?
Okay, it’s early.
Bernard, the only thing that says that the government can’t do ‘X’ is a collection of documents that the government can edit, reinterpret, or ignore at its will. Like the 9th and 10th Amendments, for example.
The “principle” here is common sense: if the only restrictions on your actions are the restrictions you can edit, reinterpret, or ignore, then those restrictions are worthless.
“If you think this Government has the power to right itself a ticket to totalitarianism, then the obvious question, again, is why it has not done so.”
It’s doing so, slowly but surely. Unless you think that there is more and more freedom appearing, as the years go by?
“The lurid emotional appeal is in the idea that any talk of ‘limited Government’ is simply a trojan horse for totalitarianism.”
I said: ‘Government can’t be limited in principle, since it can exempt itself from whatever limits are placed on it by writing itself a permission slip.’ Where’s the “trojan horse” talk coming from, Bernard? “Trojan horse” implies a *willful deception*, and I haven’t accused anyone here of anything approaching that.
“This is an oxymoron.”
No, Bernard. The fact is that you are given custody of those things in order to produce value for the government to siphon off, custody that can be revoked at any time should you choose to stop paying.
If you *owned* those things, again, you would have exclusive *control* of those things. Which you explicitly do not.
John, we’ve covered the first part. Government do not have a free hand in changing the constitution, nor do they have a free hand in raising taxes, changing laws etc.
If they did, the workings of state would be altogether less arduous.
On the second, where have you read that ownership is only real in the case of ‘exclusive control’? It’s quite obviously false. Think bank accounts or rented property. The bank and the tennants do not assume a degree of ownership when they receive a degree of control.
“Government do not have a free hand in changing the constitution, nor do they have a free hand in raising taxes, changing laws etc.”
Different governments are evidently different in the degree that they interfere in their subjects’ lives, in practice. In practice, though, the US government is growing: new laws are published every week in the Federal Register, new taxes/tariffs also. The Constitution is being essentially ignored out of existence. The US government certainly isn’t *being* “limited”.
You haven’t shown how government can be limited, in principle. At most, you’ve shown that some governments are less virulent than others.
“The bank and the tennants do not assume a degree of ownership when they receive a degree of control.”
So your claim is that we’re all effectively renting our stuff from the government? That’s my point exactly.
‘In practice, though, the US government is growing:… ‘
Because the people it represents choose to allow it to. Not because its growth is a matter of logical necessity.
On the principle issue, as we appear to be in a loop, let’s try from another angle.
You said, originally:
‘He endorses theft via government, but doesn’t endorse the logical conclusion that his endorsement of the sort of theft he approves of necessarily means that he endorses all government theft, in principle.’
Now, this is where things went awry. There is no principle by which government can do this. The controls on behaviour of particular governments in particular places at particular times stem from the will of the people. Objective principles are, unless you reference a deity, simply irrelevant to this issue, while subjective ones are specific to certain governments in certain places at certain times.
On the ownership issue, your conclusion only follows illogically from what I said. I’m not quite sure how you arrived there. Can you explain?
“There is no principle by which government can do this. ”
A government is an entity that has absolute power over a given geographical area. That definition is enough, in principle, to allow that entity unlimited power.
You claim that that isn’t the case. I’ve invited you to show me a law that, in principle, could restrain government.
You haven’t shown one.
“On the ownership issue, your conclusion only follows illogically from what I said.”
Reread the posts, Bernard. Feel free to point out the illogic.
‘A government is an entity that has absolute power over a given geographical area. That definition is enough, in principle, to allow that entity unlimited power.’
That definition certainly would be enough, but it’s not one I’ve heard before, and it certainly isn’t one which holds true in practice. Where does it come from?
On the ownership issue:
You said - ‘If you *owned* those things, again, you would have exclusive *control* of those things. Which you explicitly do not.’
I replied - ‘On the second, where have you read that ownership is only real in the case of ‘exclusive control’? It’s quite obviously false. Think bank accounts or rented property. The bank and the tennants do not assume a degree of ownership when they receive a degree of control.’
My challenge to the idea that ownership is always linked to exclusive control nowhere inferred that we were renting property from the Government. You seem to have picked up the word ‘rented’ and run in another direction with it.
If the Government did own everything, including people, as you have asserted, we would have no resources with which to pay rent. Would you accept a tenant paying you your own money in rent?
Likewise, if you are renting an item, you have no power to sell, rent out to others or use an item for collateral to secure a loan. These are rights associated with ownership.
Thus the government does not own my property. Nor does it claim to.
“That definition certainly would be enough…”
I’ll try again: A government is an entity that *claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force* in a given geographic area. Max Weber is the author, according to this ( http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/guillory/guillory1.html ).
“My challenge to the idea that ownership is always linked to exclusive control nowhere inferred that we were renting property from the Government.”
Then why’d you use rentals as an example? Again:
“Would you accept a tenant paying you your own money in rent?”
Is your contention that we are *renting our stuff* from the government, or not? If not, then please explain why there are such things as ‘licences’, backed by ‘confiscation’, on what’s purportedly my stuff.
Mostly happy with Max Weber’s definition (though many governments afford citizens the right to use substantial force in self-defence). It’s worth noting that ‘claims a monopoly over the use of force’ is quite a bit different from ‘has absolute power’.
Do you still hold that your definition ‘..is enough, in principle, to allow that entity unlimited power.’ or will this need to be refined too?
On the ownership issue.
I used rentals as an example in contrast to ownership. I’ve read it again and it looks clear to me. Which passage of mine are you referring to?
On the license issue. That’s something to take up with your government. I have no such restrictions on my property.
Who knew that Thomas Jefferson was a loony anarcho-capitalist who loves Somalia, hates logic, and appeals to emotion?
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
Bernard,
If there is no limit, in principle, on how much the government can tax us or regulate our bodies, then it effectively owns us. The fact that the government allows us to transfer some rights to and from each other, and allows us some spending money does not refute this. That a slave owner may give his slaves a weekly allowance to spend at the company store does not negate the fact that they are still his slaves.
Who owns you, Bernard?
Micha:
‘Who knew that Thomas Jefferson was a loony anarcho-capitalist who loves Somalia, hates logic, and appeals to emotion?’
Did this spring from anywhere in particular? It doesn’t seem to fit with anything so far discussed.
‘If there is no limit, in principle, on how much the government can tax us or regulate our bodies, then it effectively owns us….’
Have to stop you there Micha. This is precisely the premise of John’s which I’ve been challenging. Any conclusions you draw on top of it will be equally contentious. Best read what we’ve been saying and join in where you have something to add :).
“I used rentals as an example in contrast to ownership. ”
In “contrast to ownership”? Are you, once again, saying that the government owns everything, and merely *loans* us stuff?
“I have no such restrictions on my property.”
The why do you pay “taxes” or get “licences” or “permits” or “registrations”? For *fun*?
I’ll leave you to look up ‘contrast’, and work out how contrasting rental with ownership does not infer that ownership is actually rental. As I said, your conclusion is quite illogical.
‘The why do you pay “taxes” or get “licences” or “permits” or “registrations”? For *fun*?’
I have a driving license, which gives me the right to drive (but in no way compromises my ownership of my car). And a tv license, which is a bizarre form of taxation to fund the bbc but which, again, in no way compromises my tv ownership. Again, your point simply does not follow from the analysis you’ve given.
“I have a driving license, which gives me the right to drive…”
The “right”?
Forget it, Bernard.
Beck was right, right here: ‘Jesus H. Christ in a chicken-basket. This is absolutely fucking hopeless.’
Words just don’t mean *anything* *at* *all* to you.