| | Mark,
Please be more specific regarding your original claim:
2. Statist arguments, no matter how minimal, are not consistent with Objectivism. Did you read my posts or are you just looking at their conclusions? Does the following help?
"The reality is that the state, as it limits or destroys the legitimate government of a civilized society, substituting government by the consent of the individuals that are governed with fiat law, creates chaos, destruction of businesses and people's dreams, violence, terrorism and war, culminating in its own failure and collapse, is the essence of anarchy."
To socialists, the idea that the complexities of the production and distribution of necessities could be accomplished without regulatory supervision of the state must seem to them as much a fantasy as free market civil government does to minarchists.
Your arguments are the classic statist dismissal of the free market. If I make them broader, they go like this:
"Free market advocates forever persist in describing in painful detail the workings of fantasy enterprises and their infinitely intricate relationships between themselves and the final consumer, envisioning a make-believe utopia while denying with bald assertions that successful socialism could never be possible."
You've make a bald assertion here, and I'm asking that you defend it.
The premise of statism is that either government has the right to govern without the consent of the governed or "the consent of the governed" is redefined to mean "collective consent of the governed". How would you make a moral distinction between the government of a legitimate business from the government of the state, other than to say that the state initiates the use of force? If it didn't, then it couldn't prohibit competition within its territory or enforce its borders.
This in no way answers my implied question regarding your implied claim that Objectivism supports anarchy.
Just because some Objectivists support anarchy, either intentionally as anarcho-capitalists or unintentionally as statists, in no way implies that I believe that a proper interpretation of Objectivism is anarchistic. In fact, I don't.
Is it your position that Objectivism is anarchical at it's base, or not? Again: absolutely not. That's why I reject both anarchism and statism, its precursor.
You've been quite a prick to Steve, and it's been my experience that new members bold enough to be a total asshole to senior members will eventually be a flat out disruptive asshole to everyone who enjoys hanging out here.
If you don't agree with my opinions then you can dispute them, but if you're unable or unwilling to do so, then don't try making me the issue. Personal attack is the tactic of the dogmatist.
Steve, each time his assertions were rebutted, instead of addressing what I wrote, tried to make it into an attack on himself. What does it say about a person when he interprets disagreements about beliefs as a personal insult, refusing to discuss it any further?
|
|
