> You seem to be suggesting that if two people meet on the street and agree to exchange goods or services, then neither recognizes the agreement, then this to you is anarchy. Well, no. I have nothing against consensual agreements, and nothing against holding people to what they agree to. What I am suggesting is that political government is *not* the result of such an agreement. > If you and I meet on the street and agree to exchange goods and services, plus we assign a third person to watch over the transaction, then that is a voluntary agreed upon transaction that wasn't dictated to us by a government. I agree, but what in the world has this kinderfable got to do with government? Governments don't sit around waiting to be "assigned" some kind of mediator role by independent parties. Nor do they confine their activities to the transactions that they have been "asked' to "watch over." They assert a completely open-ended, practically limitless authority right to monitor, regulate, and intervene in *all* transactions by *anybody,* at any time, and those of us who explicitly ask for them to butt out of our transactions get a search warrant and a "fuck you, civilian" for our trouble. > The same goes to government and politicians. We implicitly agreed to the system and therefore we live under it's authority Speak for yourself, please. I was never asked and I never agreed. > You simply can't participate in the system (by voting) ... O.K., so I don't vote. Does that mean I get to opt out of the state's authority? If it *doesn't*, then of course it is also absurd to claim that those who *do* vote somehow opt in. If *not* doing X doesn't allow you to opt out of an "agreement," then *doing* X doesn't count as opting in. And in fact it is not an agreement at all -- if there is nothing you can do to opt out, and everything you do counts as opting in, it's not really "opting" at all. It is simply a unilateral command. And Anarchists reject the claim that governments have the authority to issue unilateral commands on an individual, a people or a territory. > You and I may not support it in this fashion, but the majority of other do. Society works under a majority system *sigh* Not Anarchist societies. Anarchists believe in *consensual* society, not majority rule. If you want to defend the legitimacy of statist ideas like majority rule, representative government, non-negotiable, open-ended, unsigned, perpetual "social contracts" made entirely among the dead and yet somehow perpetually and irrevocably binding on the living, you should feel free to try and defend all that, but I don't know why you'd walk around calling yourself an Anarchist while you do it. > If the majority eventually move to a system based on individuals and not a central authority, then the system has become a anarchy. You don't have one person in the system claiming to live under anarchy while everyone else is living under state rule. Everyone lives under the same system. Well, my God, we sure couldn't have people trying to live under different systems from those favored by the majority. That would be sheer anarchy! Yes, it would. That's why I want it; that's why I defend the rights of people who attempt to get it; and that's why I reject the fraudulent claims (*) of those who stand in the way. Because I'm an Anarchist. What are you? (*) For example, the claim that voters consent to be governed by voting in government elections, and the even more absurd claim that non-voters consent to be governed by not voting in government elections. Also the outrageous fraud that those who spend every working hour dominating people and ordering them around -- whether they are acting on their own account, or acting on behalf of a belligerent majority -- are somehow politically "representing" the people they are dominating and ordering. Now, you may think that domination is illegitimate (as I do); or you may think that it is legitimate as long as the majority is complicit in it (as you seem to). But whether it is legitimate or illegitimate, dominating *does not* mean "representing" the political voices of the dominated. It means *silencing* them.

> You seem to be suggesting that if two people meet on the street and agree to exchange goods or services, then neither recognizes the agreement, then this to you is anarchy. Well, no. I have nothing against consensual agreements, and nothing against holding people to what they agree to. What I am suggesting is that political government is *not* the result of such an agreement. > If you and I meet on the street and agree to exchange goods and services, plus we assign a third person to watch over the transaction, then that is a voluntary agreed upon transaction that wasn't dictated to us by a government. I agree, but what in the world has this kinderfable got to do with government? Governments don't sit around waiting to be "assigned" some kind of mediator role by independent parties. Nor do they confine their activities to the transactions that they have been "asked' to "watch over." They assert a completely open-ended, practically limitless authority right to monitor, regulate, and intervene in *all* transactions by *anybody,* at any time, and those of us who explicitly ask for them to butt out of our transactions get a search warrant and a "fuck you, civilian" for our trouble. > The same goes to government and politicians. We implicitly agreed to the system and therefore we live under it's authority Speak for yourself, please. I was never asked and I never agreed. > You simply can't participate in the system (by voting) ... O.K., so I don't vote. Does that mean I get to opt out of the state's authority? If it *doesn't*, then of course it is also absurd to claim that those who *do* vote somehow opt in. If *not* doing X doesn't allow you to opt out of an "agreement," then *doing* X doesn't count as opting in. And in fact it is not an agreement at all -- if there is nothing you can do to opt out, and everything you do counts as opting in, it's not really "opting" at all. It is simply a unilateral command. And Anarchists reject the claim that governments have the authority to issue unilateral commands on an individual, a people or a territory. > You and I may not support it in this fashion, but the majority of other do. Society works under a majority system *sigh* Not Anarchist societies. Anarchists believe in *consensual* society, not majority rule. If you want to defend the legitimacy of statist ideas like majority rule, representative government, non-negotiable, open-ended, unsigned, perpetual "social contracts" made entirely among the dead and yet somehow perpetually and irrevocably binding on the living, you should feel free to try and defend all that, but I don't know why you'd walk around calling yourself an Anarchist while you do it. > If the majority eventually move to a system based on individuals and not a central authority, then the system has become a anarchy. You don't have one person in the system claiming to live under anarchy while everyone else is living under state rule. Everyone lives under the same system. Well, my God, we sure couldn't have people trying to live under different systems from those favored by the majority. That would be sheer anarchy! Yes, it would. That's why I want it; that's why I defend the rights of people who attempt to get it; and that's why I reject the fraudulent claims (*) of those who stand in the way. Because I'm an Anarchist. What are you? (*) For example, the claim that voters consent to be governed by voting in government elections, and the even more absurd claim that non-voters consent to be governed by not voting in government elections. Also the outrageous fraud that those who spend every working hour dominating people and ordering them around -- whether they are acting on their own account, or acting on behalf of a belligerent majority -- are somehow politically "representing" the people they are dominating and ordering. Now, you may think that domination is illegitimate (as I do); or you may think that it is legitimate as long as the majority is complicit in it (as you seem to). But whether it is legitimate or illegitimate, dominating *does not* mean "representing" the political voices of the dominated. It means *silencing* them.

> They are elected in open election, you simply can't dispute this. He wasn't disputing that. He was disputing the claim that being "elected in an open election" makes one a "legitimate representative." Why? Because he's an Anarchist. We don't believe that getting elected to rule allows anyone to "represent" anybody who didn't consent to be represented; and we also don't believe that political government engages in "representation" of their victims anyway. Rule is not representation. > I'm formerly a libertarian (i.e. minarchy) and changed to complete anarchy ideal a couple years ago. A few of the posts here have shocked me in their misconceptions (like your idea that politicians aren't legitimate). Maybe you mean something different by "legitimate" than what he meant by it. Certainly, if you mean to claim that elected politicians have genuine authority (not just power; authority) over the people they claim the authority to rule, then you are not an Anarchist. > That is the system that people currently support. Who's this "people"? I'm a people, and I certainly don't support the system that you're speaking of. Do you?

> They are elected in open election, you simply can't dispute this. He wasn't disputing that. He was disputing the claim that being "elected in an open election" makes one a "legitimate representative." Why? Because he's an Anarchist. We don't believe that getting elected to rule allows anyone to "represent" anybody who didn't consent to be represented; and we also don't believe that political government engages in "representation" of their victims anyway. Rule is not representation. > I'm formerly a libertarian (i.e. minarchy) and changed to complete anarchy ideal a couple years ago. A few of the posts here have shocked me in their misconceptions (like your idea that politicians aren't legitimate). Maybe you mean something different by "legitimate" than what he meant by it. Certainly, if you mean to claim that elected politicians have genuine authority (not just power; authority) over the people they claim the authority to rule, then you are not an Anarchist. > That is the system that people currently support. Who's this "people"? I'm a people, and I certainly don't support the system that you're speaking of. Do you?

> In essence this is government workers against taxpayers. No, it's government workers against the government treasury. When the government treasury saves money, it takes the money saved and spends it on another government project, often one that is even more destructive. However one feels about the government employees in question (*) the notion that their losses will somehow benefit even one "taxpayer" is just a ridiculous civics-textbook myth. (*) My own feelings here are mixed, since unionized government employees include both decent people like nurses and janitors, and also worthless thugs like prison guards, who I'd be happy to see paid 5 cents an hour, with their benefits plan being a sock on the jaw. I mean, Christ, do you think if "elected officials" saved money on employee benefits they would be giving it back to "taxpayers?" Ho, ho. Government is not a supermarket: they don't pass the savings on to you, because you are not their customer. You are their milk cow, and they whatever they get from you, they are going to keep.

> In essence this is government workers against taxpayers. No, it's government workers against the government treasury. When the government treasury saves money, it takes the money saved and spends it on another government project, often one that is even more destructive. However one feels about the government employees in question (*) the notion that their losses will somehow benefit even one "taxpayer" is just a ridiculous civics-textbook myth. (*) My own feelings here are mixed, since unionized government employees include both decent people like nurses and janitors, and also worthless thugs like prison guards, who I'd be happy to see paid 5 cents an hour, with their benefits plan being a sock on the jaw. I mean, Christ, do you think if "elected officials" saved money on employee benefits they would be giving it back to "taxpayers?" Ho, ho. Government is not a supermarket: they don't pass the savings on to you, because you are not their customer. You are their milk cow, and they whatever they get from you, they are going to keep.

> You don't give "state socialists" a red star. I have no control over who gets what stars 'round these parts, but I for one would be perfectly happy if all the Democracy Now! progressives, Trotskymaniacs and other state socialists got their own stars to wear. Why? Because I'd rather have these people wear their power-psychosis up-front, where it can be seen and taken note of, rather than leaving it to lurk in the shadows. It has proven useful for people to signal up-front where they are coming from in these arguments, and if someone wants to signal up-front that they believe in a lot of stupid crap like electoral politics, the Red Army, or government ownership of the means of production, then I'd like to know that, not because knowing it somehow "legitimates" it (as a form of anarchism or as anything else), but rather because it tells me something about what sorts of arguments will or won't be worth getting into.

> You don't give "state socialists" a red star. I have no control over who gets what stars 'round these parts, but I for one would be perfectly happy if all the Democracy Now! progressives, Trotskymaniacs and other state socialists got their own stars to wear. Why? Because I'd rather have these people wear their power-psychosis up-front, where it can be seen and taken note of, rather than leaving it to lurk in the shadows. It has proven useful for people to signal up-front where they are coming from in these arguments, and if someone wants to signal up-front that they believe in a lot of stupid crap like electoral politics, the Red Army, or government ownership of the means of production, then I'd like to know that, not because knowing it somehow "legitimates" it (as a form of anarchism or as anything else), but rather because it tells me something about what sorts of arguments will or won't be worth getting into.

Isn’t freedom of association one of the core bedrock principles of our country?

“Freedom of association” does not entail a positive claim to be furnished a non-union job by a companies that would otherwise be willing to make an exclusive contract with the union.

People should of course be free to get a job with any company willing to hire them, but companies should be free to negotiate any conditions of employment that workers are willing to accept, and to turn down offers if they can’t find anyone to accept them. If someone convinces the company that they ought to make it a condition of employment that people attend weekend retreats, finish school, join a gym, or — yes — join a union, but you don’t care to join, well, all that freedom of association demands is that you’re free to walk out. It’s not like they owe you a living.

If you want to defend freedom of association, then part of that is freedom of contract. So-called “right-to-work” laws violate that.

Well, I meant to ask where Austin called Wittgenstein that, not where you saw that he had. I was already aware of Wikipedia:J. L. Austin too — I am in fact the one who added that “[citation needed]” between the quote and the footnote. (Because the footnote doesn’t substantiate the quotation it is placed next to.) Certainly it’s possible that Austin called him that; if so, he wouldn’t have been the first. But for the moment, I still don’t know where or when.