MoonShadow
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
 |
July 12, 2011, 07:08:26 PM |
|
Right, so you don't actually have any property rights. I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights. However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint. Why? Where do rights come from if not from enforcement by superior force? You should stop and consider your own choice of words. Rights come from our Creator, or if you reject that concept, from our basic humanity. However, enforcement of rights comes from the justifiable use of superior force. Just because you can violate the rights of another, should you have the bigger guns at the moment, doesn't mean that 'might makes right'. Obviously what does make right is whatever YOU say makes right, right? No. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AyeYo
|
|
July 12, 2011, 08:11:46 PM |
|
Right, so you don't actually have any property rights. I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights. However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint. Why? Where do rights come from if not from enforcement by superior force? You should stop and consider your own choice of words. Rights come from our Creator, or if you reject that concept, from our basic humanity. However, enforcement of rights comes from the justifiable use of superior force. Just because you can violate the rights of another, should you have the bigger guns at the moment, doesn't mean that 'might makes right'. Obviously what does make right is whatever YOU say makes right, right? No. Excellent, highly detailed response. Then what makes right? |
Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
|
|
|
|
Babylon
|
|
July 15, 2011, 05:13:38 PM |
|
Once upon a time, this thread looked like it might be going somewhere interesting. Now it's just the same-old same-old.
A discussion of where rights come from or whether they exist and what their relationship is to liberty/freedom (ie; can you have liberty with a non-rights based approach?) etc might be interesting....
Rights are generally not a very popular approach for left wing Anarchists, we do however believe very strongly in Liberty. Whether our approach is effective at realizing that goal is open to interpretation, but although the periods of Left Libertarian society have generally been fairly brief several have matched the ideal fairly closely. Catalonia Spain during the civil war being one and Revolutionary Ukraine being another. |
|
|
|
lemonginger
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
firstbits: 121vnq
|
|
July 15, 2011, 08:09:07 PM |
|
As a left-libertarian I agree with you. Still think an overarching philosophical discussion about it would be interesting. I also think that looking at pre-civilized socieities ala David Graber ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragments_of_an_Anarchist_Anthropology) is often more useful than the aforementioned (good examples) of parts of Spain during the Civil War and the Free Territories in the Ukraine (always would add the Shinmin Autonomous Region to that list) -- also to look at how "Temporary Autonomous Zones" function -- either intentional communities, the aftermath of disasters, large-scale gatherings, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
AyeYo
|
|
July 15, 2011, 08:11:45 PM |
|
Right, so you don't actually have any property rights. I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights. However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint. Why? Where do rights come from if not from enforcement by superior force? You should stop and consider your own choice of words. Rights come from our Creator, or if you reject that concept, from our basic humanity. However, enforcement of rights comes from the justifiable use of superior force. Just because you can violate the rights of another, should you have the bigger guns at the moment, doesn't mean that 'might makes right'. Obviously what does make right is whatever YOU say makes right, right? No. Excellent, highly detailed response. Then what makes right? Bump for an answer. |
Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
|
|
|
lemonginger
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
firstbits: 121vnq
|
|
July 15, 2011, 08:24:05 PM |
|
Bump for an answer.
Come on AyeYo, whether you agree with it or not the non-aggression principal and the rights it is based on has been outlined many times in this forum by right-Libs and AnCaps. You are just playing dumb for the sake of an argument. If you want to make the argument that this approach is incorrect or coercive in and of itself, or that it only results from a priori assumptions, or that it involves a forced-agreement to a social contract just as much as any other socio/political approach (my argument), then please lay out that argument in a post and have that discussion/debate. But continually playing dumb and attacking strawmen is getting old and honestly does a disservice to an honest intellectual debate about the merits (or not) of a natural rights based approach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_libertarianism |
|
|
|
|
|
AyeYo
|
|
July 15, 2011, 08:49:37 PM |
|
Bump for an answer.
Come on AyeYo, whether you agree with it or not the non-aggression principal and the rights it is based on has been outlined many times in this forum by right-Libs and AnCaps. You are just playing dumb for the sake of an argument. If you want to make the argument that this approach is incorrect or coercive in and of itself, or that it only results from a priori assumptions, or that it involves a forced-agreement to a social contract just as much as any other socio/political approach (my argument), then please lay out that argument in a post and have that discussion/debate. But continually playing dumb and attacking strawmen is getting old and honestly does a disservice to an honest intellectual debate about the merits (or not) of a natural rights based approach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_libertarianismI've actually done exactly that in multiple threads. Here's the argument, it's a very simple one. Obviously not everyone agrees with the NAP and other such shit that libertarianism is based on. It follows that not everyone wants a libertarian type society, in fact, most don't. So, if you want to institute this libertarian society, you're going to have to FORCE people to abide by a system based on beliefs they don't believe in. |
Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 15, 2011, 08:55:26 PM |
|
So, if you want to institute this libertarian society, you're going to have to FORCE people to abide by a system based on beliefs they don't believe in.
Forcing people to stop robbing people at gunpoint to pay for their entitlements! Such injustice! If you want to live in a hierarchy, nothing's stopping you. Just don't try to make someone who doesn't want to. |
|
|
|
|
AyeYo
|
|
July 15, 2011, 08:57:05 PM |
|
So, if you want to institute this libertarian society, you're going to have to FORCE people to abide by a system based on beliefs they don't believe in.
Forcing people to stop robbing people at gunpoint to pay for their entitlements! Such injustice! If you want to live in a hierarchy, nothing's stopping you. Just don't try to make someone who doesn't want to. You make my point for me perfectly. |
Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 15, 2011, 09:02:51 PM |
|
So, if you want to institute this libertarian society, you're going to have to FORCE people to abide by a system based on beliefs they don't believe in.
Forcing people to stop robbing people at gunpoint to pay for their entitlements! Such injustice! If you want to live in a hierarchy, nothing's stopping you. Just don't try to make someone who doesn't want to. You make my point for me perfectly. Except that the current system forces people to live in the hierarchy, Yes I suppose I do.  |
|
|
|
|
FredericBastiat
|
|
July 15, 2011, 09:20:00 PM |
|
Libertarianism, on the whole, permits everybody to have more freedoms. That's the conclusion they come to when they take the step-by-step process of determining what types of activities they can engage in while not causing harm to their neighbors. To wit, if you own property and you control your own life, and your activities on your property (with you on it) stay within the boundaries it is confined to, then there isn't a problem.
If however there is a problem, that being your property or person in some way, shape or form, changes the conditions of other peoples property in some tangible, measurable way, and this force or intersection of property or life is not consented to or not acceptable to others, then a conflict arises. This conflict, which if it could be reasonably measured with the laws of physics, and is significant enough, then some form of mitigation and ultimately restitution (proportional to the forces applied) would need to be made to bring the conditions of the affected property and person(s) back to some nearly equivalent state prior to the intrusion.
This is what Libertarians strive for.
|
|
|
|
|
