How to run an Anarchy

[myrkul]

Where is the love, man?

None if nobody is willing to help.

There is today, even if nobody is willing to help.

Resist your brainwashing. Taxation is not love.
also: Welfare is not love.

[1715311210]

1715311210

[1715311210]

1715311210

[JA37]

Resist your brainwashing. Taxation is not love.
also: Welfare is not love.

Resist your brainwashing. Taxation is not love.
also: Welfare is not love.

To the one in need it matters little if the help comes from the willing or the unwilling.
A drowning man doesn't care if you swam out to him because you're a nice guy or because I held a gun to your head. He will be saved, that's all that matters to him.

Taxation might not be love, but what you can do with it can be. Brainwashed? Oh, I see, you're the only one able to think for yourself while everyone else are brainwashed sheep.
Tell me, do you have to be an arrogant prick to be an AnCap, or is that optional? If it's optional I suggest you stop.

[myrkul]

Resist your brainwashing. Taxation is not love.
also: Welfare is not love.

Resist your brainwashing. Taxation is not love.
also: Welfare is not love.

To the one in need it matters little if the help comes from the willing or the unwilling.
A drowning man doesn't care if you swam out to him because you're a nice guy or because I held a gun to your head. He will be saved, that's all that matters to him.

Taxation might not be love, but what you can do with it can be. Brainwashed? Oh, I see, you're the only one able to think for yourself while everyone else are brainwashed sheep.
Tell me, do you have to be an arrogant prick to be an AnCap, or is that optional? If it's optional I suggest you stop.

Hmmm...
Double quotation, calling me an 'arrogant prick'...

Yeah, I think I touched a nerve.

Frankly, I am not obligated to help someone. I am not obligated to save a drowning man. Nor pay for the care of an AIDS baby. If you feel that it is so important that this person be helped that you are willing to threaten my life to get it done, do it yourself.

[JA37]

Hmmm...
Double quotation, calling me an 'arrogant prick'...

Yeah, I think I touched a nerve.

Frankly, I am not obligated to help someone. I am not obligated to save a drowning man. Nor pay for the care of an AIDS baby. If you feel that it is so important that this person be helped that you are willing to threaten my life to get it done, do it yourself.

Not really. Just pointing out that falsely assuming that someone's opinions are the result of "brainwashing" or not being able to think for themselves is very arrogant, and arrogant people are pricks, you know that as well as I.

Way to miss the point by the way. I was talking about if your reason for helping someone matters to the person being helped. It doesn't.

[myrkul]

Way to miss the point by the way. I was talking about if your reason for helping someone matters to the person being helped. It doesn't.

I got your point. I just don't care. It matters to me why I helped the guy. If I helped them because someone held a gun to my head, I've been extorted, no less than if I was forced at gunpoint to hand over cash to a mugger.

[JA37]

I got your point. I just don't care. It matters to me why I helped the guy. If I helped them because someone held a gun to my head, I've been extorted, no less than if I was forced at gunpoint to hand over cash to a mugger.

It'd be interesting to watch you in a similar situation.
"Oh darn, I seem to be drowning, but I wouldn't want anyone to be coerced into helping me, so I'll just drown here in peace". 
 

[myrkul]

Let me restate my position:

When a man is drowning, a bystander who is good will jump in and help.
an evil bystander will force another to jump in and help.

I say again: If it matters that much to you, do it yourself.

[AyeYo]

AyeYo:  It seems like you have to stop at some premise and either attack it's logic or accept it, because otherwise you slide into infinite regression.  For example, I could say that the natural law that "all men own their own bodies" derives from the fact that all organisms deserve a chance at life, and in order for them to do so they must decrease entropy locally which requires economic ownership of not only their lives but resources around them.  But then you could ask me to prove that all organisms are entitled to a chance at survival.  I can't prove that.  It is an assertion.  The best I could do would be to say that by living you implicitly agree with my assertion.  However, then you could argue that only some organisms have a right to a chance at life. 

See, you've presented an argument for the claim made.  NOW we have somewhere to start from, and you've even gone a few steps ahead.  MoonShadow didn't want to do this because it leads to a dead end for him, so instead he just kept on the chant of wanting me to prove a negative.

Now...
I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time.  If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away.  Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed.  The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored.  The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered.  If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die.

And I guess that it's impossible to fly, since there is a natural law that we call "gravity", huh?

See, I can pull your bullshit too.

No even remotely close, not ballpark, not even universe.

Flight is accomplished by use of the LAWS OF PHYSICS to OVERCOME the force of gravity.  It is NOT accomplished by violating the law of gravity.

Keep trying though.  I'll keep laughing. 

[AyeYo]

I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time.  If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away.  Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed.  The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored.  The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered.  If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die.

You've actually made the best argument against a positive right to life I have ever seen.

That said, I counter it with a negative right to life: I have the right to not be murdered before my naturally decreed time.

Oh yea?  Says who?  Prove it.  Someone can murder you right now and where'd that right go?  It's not a natural law if you need to fight to maintain it.  We don't need to fight to maintain the laws of thermodynamics. 

[JA37]

Let me restate my position:

When a man is drowning, a bystander who is good will jump in and help.
an evil bystander will force another to jump in and help.

I say again: If it matters that much to you, do it yourself.

Using your definition of good and evil bystanders:
If you were drowning, and there were no good bystanders, would you like to have an evil bystander present?

[AyeYo]

Now...
I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time.  If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away.  Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed.  The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored.  The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered.  If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die.

What you are arguing is not natural law and has little to do with natural law.

Natural law is not the laws of physics.  Natural law has a specific meaning with regard to philosophy and the rights of people.  In this specific definition it is understood to be an axiom, which can be accepted or not, and it cannot be proved or disproved.

Since you seem so skilled at looking up stuff on Wikipedia, why don't you start there, rather than vomiting your ignorance all over this thread.

I'm well aware of that.  And this fact, basically by definition, means that "natural" rights are in fact not natural at all, but a construct of society and only have meaning if excepted by that society.

As already pointed out, anything truly natural exists with or without people there to fight for its existence.  If I don't force society to grant me the right to not be murdered, then I do not have that right.

[myrkul]

Let me restate my position:

When a man is drowning, a bystander who is good will jump in and help.
an evil bystander will force another to jump in and help.

I say again: If it matters that much to you, do it yourself.

Using your definition of good and evil bystanders:
If you were drowning, and there were no good bystanders, would you like to have an evil bystander present?

At the time, you're right, I wouldn't care. I certainly wouldn't refuse the assistance!

After the fact, I would support and bear witness to any claim that the 'neutral' bystander who was forced to help me had against the 'evil' one.

[MoonShadow]

See, I can pull your bullshit too.

No even remotely close, not ballpark, not even universe.

Flight is accomplished by use of the LAWS OF PHYSICS to OVERCOME the force of gravity.  It is NOT accomplished by violating the law of gravity.

Keep trying though.  I'll keep laughing. 

Oh, I'm sure that you have been laughing the whole time, I doubt it not.  That is, after all, the primary motive of agitators like yourself.

Just keep laughing.

[AyeYo]

See, I can pull your bullshit too.

No even remotely close, not ballpark, not even universe.

Flight is accomplished by use of the LAWS OF PHYSICS to OVERCOME the force of gravity.  It is NOT accomplished by violating the law of gravity.

Keep trying though.  I'll keep laughing. 

Oh, I'm sure that you have been laughing the whole time, I doubt it not.  That is, after all, the primary motive of agitators like yourself.

Just keep laughing.

How about addressing the point?  Lots of personal attacks, lots of troll calling... not much substance.

[vector76]

What you are arguing is not natural law and has little to do with natural law.

Natural law is not the laws of physics.  Natural law has a specific meaning with regard to philosophy and the rights of people.  In this specific definition it is understood to be an axiom, which can be accepted or not, and it cannot be proved or disproved.

Since you seem so skilled at looking up stuff on Wikipedia, why don't you start there, rather than vomiting your ignorance all over this thread.

I'm well aware of that.  And this fact, basically by definition, means that "natural" rights are in fact not natural at all, but a construct of society and only have meaning if excepted by that society.

As already pointed out, anything truly natural exists with or without people there to fight for its existence.  If I don't force society to grant me the right to not be murdered, then I do not have that right.

You can't redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean, and still have a meaningful discussion.  You could argue that it is improperly named, but you can't redefine natural law to mean something else and then argue against that other thing which is not what people are calling natural law.

AyeYo is effectively saying, "What you are calling 'rights' I interpret as unicorns, and unicorns do not exist!  Or at least the burden of proof is on you to show that unicorns exist."

If you want to argue that might makes right, you are free to argue that, but please don't call it natural law or unicorns or some other thing which does not mean what you want it to mean, even if you pay it extra.

[AyeYo]

What you are arguing is not natural law and has little to do with natural law.

Natural law is not the laws of physics.  Natural law has a specific meaning with regard to philosophy and the rights of people.  In this specific definition it is understood to be an axiom, which can be accepted or not, and it cannot be proved or disproved.

Since you seem so skilled at looking up stuff on Wikipedia, why don't you start there, rather than vomiting your ignorance all over this thread.

I'm well aware of that.  And this fact, basically by definition, means that "natural" rights are in fact not natural at all, but a construct of society and only have meaning if excepted by that society.

As already pointed out, anything truly natural exists with or without people there to fight for its existence.  If I don't force society to grant me the right to not be murdered, then I do not have that right.

You can't redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean, and still have a meaningful discussion.  You could argue that it is improperly named, but you can't redefine natural law to mean something else and then argue against that other thing which is not what people are calling natural law.

AyeYo is effectively saying, "What you are calling 'rights' I interpret as unicorns, and unicorns do not exist!  Or at least the burden of proof is on you to show that unicorns exist."

If you want to argue that might makes right, you are free to argue that, but please don't call it natural law or unicorns or some other thing which does not mean what you want it to mean, even if you pay it extra.

As already stated, I'm well aware of the concept of natural rights.  As I just pointed out in the last post, the concept is extremely flawed for multiple reasons.  

It's accepted by many people because on the surface it appears reasonable - most European and Asian based societies seem to share the same ideas of morality in spite of their separate origins.  However, when you start to examine the practices of native societies in other areas, what appeared to be the obvious truth of natural rights suddenly vanishes.



Here's is the bottom line, as it has always been:

The truth of natural rights is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that libertarianism FORCES those that do not agree with it 100% to nevertheless abide by its rules.  You attempt to justify this by saying it's based on some "natural law" and "natural rights", but the fact of the matter is that not everyone agrees with you, in fact most don't.  No matter how you want to spin your belief system, no matter how you redefine words, no matter how arbitrary you are with your application of standards, the bottom line will always remain the same: your belief system is hypocritical because it is based on non-aggression, but it is inherently aggressive against those that do not subscribe to it.

[myrkul]

No matter how you want to spin your belief system, no matter how you redefine words, no matter how arbitrary you are with your application of standards, the bottom line will always remain the same: your belief system is hypocritical because it is based on non-aggression, but it is inherently aggressive against those that do not subscribe to it.

Anarchy: We leave you alone, Whether you want it or not!

[JA37]

At the time, you're right, I wouldn't care. I certainly wouldn't refuse the assistance!

After the fact, I would support and bear witness to any claim that the 'neutral' bystander who was forced to help me had against the 'evil' one.

You don't think that's a little hypocritical? Without the "evil" bystander you would be dead. You owe him your life, yet you would like to punish him for saving it.

[MoonShadow]

At the time, you're right, I wouldn't care. I certainly wouldn't refuse the assistance!

After the fact, I would support and bear witness to any claim that the 'neutral' bystander who was forced to help me had against the 'evil' one.

You don't think that's a little hypocritical? Without the "evil" bystander you would be dead. You owe him your life, yet you would like to punish him for saving it.

What if the forced bystander died trying to save you, and you knew that he was forced to do so?

[myrkul]

At the time, you're right, I wouldn't care. I certainly wouldn't refuse the assistance!

After the fact, I would support and bear witness to any claim that the 'neutral' bystander who was forced to help me had against the 'evil' one.

You don't think that's a little hypocritical? Without the "evil" bystander you would be dead. You owe him your life, yet you would like to punish him for saving it.

No, I owe the forced bystander my life. The 'evil' one committed an aggressive act against the person to whom I owe my life, so of course I would like to see that he is justly compensated.