NationStates Jolt Archive

What does everyone think of human rights?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm)

Do you think that every human must have them? Or only if the majority in their country agrees that they should have them? Or that only certain groups of people should have them?

What's your opinion?

I myself am a strong supporter of global human rights and an active member of Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org). Human rights are very important.

As long as we can still eat them ;)

What does everyone think of human rights?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm)

Do you think that every human must have them? Or only if the majority in their country agrees that they should have them? Or that only certain groups of people should have them?

What's your opinion?

I myself am a strong supporter of global human rights and an active member of Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org). Human rights are very important.

I hate you. With a passion.:)

The declarationis non-sensical. Such rights are enshrined in one group of nations, irrespective of the UN, and disregarded in any case by the other.

some universal human rights would be nice but I must say sadly I don’t care enough to have my coffee more expensive

Though I can’t be arsed if you have the will to improve the lives of people I say you go for it I’ll provide my non-committing support all the way especially if it means I feel less guilty and it looks like I care

I'm a terrible person :(

I don't believe in absolute human rights, and I don't know if the framework of rights I accept matches exactly with that of the UN.

In general, though, yes, I believe in universal human rights, and I believe that everyone is entitled to them - wherever they live and whatever the opinion of the majority.

some universal human rights would be nice but I must say sadly I don’t care enough to have my coffee more expensive

Though I can’t be arsed if you have the will to improve the lives of people I say you go for it I’ll provide my non-committing support all the way especially if it means I feel less guilty and it looks like I care

I'm a terrible person :(
Capitalism will be the death of this world.

...must not threadjack...

The rights contained in the Declaration should be made legally enforcable throughout the entire world, and applicable to everyone....

It'll never happen, of course, but it would be nice.
I agree.

Pffft, Human Rights. What a worthless concept.

The rights contained in the Declaration should be made legally enforcable throughout the entire world, and applicable to everyone....

It'll never happen, of course, but it would be nice.

The rights contained in the Declaration should be made legally enforcable throughout the entire world, and applicable to everyone....

It'll never happen, of course, but it would be nice.
What do you think of the people who think of that as imperialist? I'm gravely concerned for the future of human rights in the world. The right opposes them as usual, but support for them is declining on the left as relativism increases. "Leftists" are actually saying that it's wrong for us to say that oppressing people is a human rights abuse, because that's "just the way we see it" and other people have "a different culture".

What does everyone think of human rights?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm)

Do you think that every human must have them? Or only if the majority in their country agrees that they should have them? Or that only certain groups of people should have them?

What's your opinion?

I myself am a strong supporter of global human rights and an active member of Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org). Human rights are very important.

I too am a supporter of global human rights. It definetly is a goal to aspire to, but in it will not be achieved in my lifetime (I'm 21).

Everyone should have human rights. Absolutely No question about that. In reality there is no existence of a global human rights. Yes the Universal declaration of HR sets a standard but such legisaltion and laws just are not applicable in certain regions. Take the Middle East for example. Iran: Much of the governmental decisions are made according to religous beliefs. Women and children do not have the same rights as men. If this is the case then how can equal human rights be implemented?

The same can be said of African religions where FGM is the norm.

There are many solutions to help reduce the rate of rights being violated, all are long term but need the support of governments/ religious leaders to work.

Everyone should have human rights. Absolutely No question about that. In reality there is no existence of a global human rights. Yes the Universal declaration of HR sets a standard but such legisaltion and laws just are not applicable in certain regions. Take the Middle East for example. Iran: Much of the governmental decisions are made according to religous beliefs. Women and children do not have the same rights as men. If this is the case then how can equal human rights be implemented?
By gradually changing the forces that create the laws and empower the cultures in these countries. (not by military force)

I completely agree with you. The last president of the Iran Mohammad Khatami was actually making progress in human rights. It was estimated that within 25-30 years equal rights, that were on par with say Western countries would be in existance. But then Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got elected and any headway that had been made went out the door.

Human rights are like an analogy, it seems like a good idea to have some, but the more you think about them, the less sense they make.

Human rights are like an analogy, it seems like a good idea to have some, but the more you think about them, the less sense they make.
How do they not make sense?

What does everyone think of human rights?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm)

To start, I believe in them but the UDHR is non-binding so it is rather moot to invoke it.

All humans should be equal. Sounds simple enough right?

"Leftists" are actually saying that it's wrong for us to say that oppressing people is a human rights abuse, because that's "just the way we see it" and other people have "a different culture".

Which leftists?

All humans should be equal. Sounds simple enough right?
Sounds. But then, there's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron)

Rights are not governed by a piece of paper. If a human can choose to do something, he has the freedom to do it if he wishes. He must bear the consequences of his actions, but his original freedom is never denied.

How do they not make sense?
Yes, please, how do human rights not make sense?

Sounds. But then, there's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron)

And then there's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

I like the idea of Universal Human Rights, but I don't think the universe would agree on what those should be.

Well... I always keep a copy of the Declaration of Human Rights in my pocket, so that should tell you.

To start, I believe in them but the UDHR is non-binding so it is rather moot to invoke it.
I'm fully aware that it's not law and so is every Amnesty member. It's more of a guiding document.

Which leftists?
Do you want names?

I'm talking about the people who attack me for saying that people are better off in societies which respect human rights, or when I criticise a Muslim country for hanging gay people or fornicators.

I'm not smearing all leftists, because I am on the left myself. But destructive relativism seems to be more of a fad on the left than the right.

Rights are not governed by a piece of paper. If a human can choose to do something, he has the freedom to do it if he wishes. He must bear the consequences of his actions, but his original freedom is never denied.
If the action is punished then the person can't be said to be free to do it.

I like the idea of Universal Human Rights, but I don't think the universe would agree on what those should be.
It doesn't mean universal in that sense! It means global.

It doesn't mean universal in that sense! It means global.Yes, I know. :D I don't think everyone in the world could agree on what Human Rights should be.

Do you want names?

Yes.

I'm talking about the people who attack me for saying that people are better off in societies which respect human rights, or when I criticise a Muslim country for hanging gay people or fornicators.

Did they say that it's okay for Muslim countries to hang gay people or fornicators, or did they object to some other aspect of your criticism - say, overgeneralization, double standards, cultural chauvinism, etc.?

I'm not smearing all leftists, because I am on the left myself. But destructive relativism seems to be more of a fad on the left than the right.

What is "destructive relativism"?

Yes, I know. :D I don't think everyone in the world could agree on what Human Rights should be.
Let Clin-ton decide for you.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/Aenimus/Kang-Kodos.jpg

The rights contained in the Declaration should be made legally enforcable throughout the entire world, and applicable to everyone....

It'll never happen, of course, but it would be nice.


I totally agree. Universal human rights should be legalised and enforced throughout the world. However, this will only happen when we develop some form of world government.

What does everyone think of human rights?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm)

Do you think that every human must have them? Or only if the majority in their country agrees that they should have them? Or that only certain groups of people should have them?

What's your opinion?

I myself am a strong supporter of global human rights and an active member of Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org). Human rights are very important.
I think they're great :)

And that every human being has them. Global human rights are good.
Do you want names?
Is it Phillip Slater again? :(

I'd like to think of myself as a free person, able to do what I feel proper.

Human rights contradict my person.

What does everyone think of human rights?
I know that what a lot of people call "human rights"...aren't. And that some of the rights in the "charter" contradict other rights.

For instance:

Article 23
"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

Protection against unemployment is not a right.

"Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection."

Being paid enough to exist worthy of human dignity is not a right. Nor are "other means of social protection".

None of the following are rights:

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. "

And those violate this:

Article 17
"Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

And then there's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).
Trouble is, it's not a strawman. Egalitarianism is the ultimate end of all forms of collectivism. That means everyone must be metaphysically equal--or made to be.

Yes, I know. :D I don't think everyone in the world could agree on what Human Rights should be.
Well the UDHR was ratified by all but ten member states at the time (all Soviet Bloc states, South Africa and Saudi Arabia - surprise surprise).

There are people who disagree with them, but that doesn't mean that all people don't have them. Most people who disagree with them are against them because they want to feel justified in oppressing other people. That can't be allowed.

Protection against unemployment is not a right.

A lot of extremists in the world think that many of the rights in the declaration are not rights.

And then there's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).
How is pointing out the inherent difficulty in implimenting "equality" a strawman argument?

A lot of extremists in the world think that many of the rights in the declaration are not rights.
Is that supposed to mean something? If so--please spell it out. Precisely and exactly what you mean.

I know that what a lot of people call "human rights"...aren't. And that some of the rights in the "charter" contradict other rights.

For instance:

Article 23
"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

Protection against unemployment is not a right.

"Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection."

Being paid enough to exist worthy of human dignity is not a right. Nor are "other means of social protection".

None of the following are rights:

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. "

And those violate this:

Article 17
"Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

And these are not rights according to whom? Surely being in the UDHR makes them rights? And as to that last bit - how do they violate the last quoted article exactly?

And these are not rights according to whom?
Rational people who understand that making them rights makes slaves of others.


Surely being in the UDHR makes them rights?
Only if you think that writing down "god exists" on a piece of paper make god exist.


And as to that last bit - how do they violate the last quoted article exactly?
To make the others rights would cause people to be arbitrarily deprived of their property.

To make the others rights would cause people to be arbitrarily deprived of their property.

How do the right to free education and a decent standard of living result in the arbitary deprivation of property?

Rational people who understand that making them rights makes slaves of others.

Care to explain how? Or will this be another of your hghly unjoyable unsubstantialed, unreasoned arguments? :p

Only if you think that writing down "god exists" on a piece of paper make god exist.

Missed the point of having a Universal Declaration of Human Rights have we? These have been reasoned out, and by being declared humans rights they are so. What other standard do we have to judge them by? Unless there was another UDHR that was snuck in while I wasn't looking.

To make the others rights would cause people to be arbitrarily deprived of their property.

Again, care to explain how? I looked through them and failed to see how they would arbitrarily deprive others of their property, or even how they would deprive them of said, arbitrary or otherwise. And does it not make sense that, even if one were to deprive another of their property in the interests of the rights of some third party, because it was done under the premises of upholding someone's rights it wouldn't be arbitrary? It would, after all, be following the regulations of the UDHR.

Yes.

Gauthier, Checklandia, Free Shepmanigans, Grave_n_idle, etc.

Did they say that it's okay for Muslim countries to hang gay people or fornicators, or did they object to some other aspect of your criticism - say, overgeneralization, double standards, cultural chauvinism, etc.?
The usual objection is that I have no right to condemn people from a culture other than mine, because my (human rights-respecting) culture is supposedly no better, or that they have a different idea of human rights. You know, the usual bullshit.

What is "destructive relativism"?
Relativists would not stop human rights abusers, because they have "no right to judge". They would allow our culture to be destroyed by people who are rather less relativist.


To make the others rights would cause people to be arbitrarily deprived of their property.
Doi you even know what "arbitrary" means?

How is pointing out the inherent difficulty in implimenting "equality" a strawman argument?

Because equality is not the same thing as conformity.

Difference can be a basis for inequality, but it is not necessarily inequality.

Because equality is not the same thing as conformity.

Difference can be a basis for inequality, but it is not necessarily inequality.
Indeed, BAWAA is apparently setting up the old right-wing straw man of "equal = identical".

Because equality is not the same thing as conformity.

Difference can be a basis for inequality, but it is not necessarily inequality.

And besides which, surely the obvious counter-argument to that situation would be to say that, rather than bring everyone down to the same level, we should strive to bring everyone up to the same level, insofar as that is possible. And also to accept that there will always be certain situations where bringing everyone up to the same standard will be impossible (for example, short of major breakthroughs in medical science, it won't be possible for us to enable a severely mentally handicapped person to have the same abilities as, say, your average joe).

Indeed, BAWAA is apparently setting up the old right-wing straw man of "equal = identical".
Indeed, I am not. It is not a strawman, since it is the ultimate goal of collectivism.

How do the right to free education and a decent standard of living result in the arbitary deprivation of property?
Free education must be provided by someone--someone's property.

Decent standard of living must be provided by someone--someone's property.

People would be forced--arbitrarily--to give. That's not right. And no one can ever justify the initiation of force necessary for that.

Care to explain how?
Anything which involves a nonconsentual transfer of property makes slaves of the person whose property was taken away. I'm amazed that you don't know that.


Missed the point of having a Universal Declaration of Human Rights have we?
Missed the point of actually having rights, you have.


These have been reasoned out,
No they haven't.


and by being declared humans rights they are so. What other standard do we have to judge them by?
The individual. Have you ever heard of contractarianism?


Again, care to explain how? I looked through them and failed to see how they would arbitrarily deprive others of their property,
They involve a nonconsentual transfer of property, done because people feel like it.

I can never fathom how people can jump through the mental hoops required to justify theft.

Do you even know what "arbitrary" means?
Yes.

And besides which, surely the obvious counter-argument to that situation would be to say that, rather than bring everyone down to the same level, we should strive to bring everyone up to the same level, insofar as that is possible.
When you have nonconsentual transfers of property, you only bring people down.

Free education must be provided by someone--someone's property.

Umm... since when did government run schools go out of fashion where you are?! And kindly name one single educational facility ever that has deprived someone of their property, arbitrarily or otherwise.

Decent standard of living must be provided by someone--someone's property.

Has it passed you by that, again, it is possible to build new buildings to house people in rather than nick someone else's? There isn't a limit to how many buildings we are allowed you know (with the obvious exception of the limit of building space, but we have a whole planet's worth of that, so suggested that would just be plain silly).

People would be forced--arbitrarily--to give. That's not right. And no one can ever justify the initiation of force necessary for that.

For what reason would they be forced to give? And again please justify how this is arbitrary - it would be under the ruling of the UDHR. Acting under the ruling of law isn't arbitrary. (Of course, the UDHR isn't law, but were it to be made so...)

Anything which involves a nonconsentual transfer of property makes slaves of the person whose property was taken away. I'm amazed that you don't know that.

[quote]Missed the point of actually having rights, you have.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

No they haven't.

Oh yeah that's right - someone was bored on a train journey and felt like knocking out whatever bollocks they felt like to pass the time, then labelled it the UDHR:rolleyes: Gimme a break you hypocrite - it's not like your arguments are so spectacularly reasoned out. How the hell else do you think they were decided on? Two man sack races?

The individual. Have you ever heard of contractarianism?

So the UDHR was decided on by what if not a collection of individuals? The whole point of them is that they apply to each person individually. And as for contractarianism, let's assume I haven't heard of it (beacuse I haven't, mainly :D) and you can enlighten me.

They involve a nonconsentual transfer of property, done because people feel like it.

I can never fathom how people can jump through the mental hoops required to justify theft.

Yet again you have yet to explain how they involve nonconsentual transfer of property. You seem to have made some fairly impressive mental hoop-jumps yourself.

Umm... since when did government run schools go out of fashion where you are?!
Those are provided for via property taxes. Money. Other people's property. Which they have been deprived of.

Or didn't you know that?


Has it passed you by that, again, it is possible to build new buildings to house people in rather than nick someone else's?
Build with what money or materials? The only proper way is via consented-to donations.


For what reason would they be forced to give?
For the reason that it is simply demanded. Please justify how this is not arbitrary.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/arbitrary

Anything which involves a nonconsentual transfer of property makes slaves of the person whose property was taken away. I'm amazed that you don't know that.
And I still am.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion?
That rights are not something which allow one person to enslave another.


Oh yeah that's right - someone was bored on a train journey and felt like knocking out whatever bollocks they felt like to pass the time, then labelled it the UDHR
And who is suggesting such a thing? Certainly not me. To whom are you addressing this?


So the UDHR was decided on by what if not a collection of individuals?
A teeny-tiny collection of individuals. It's only valid for those people.


The whole point of them is that they apply to each person individually. And as for contractarianism, let's assume I haven't heard of it (beacuse I haven't, mainly :D) and you can enlighten me.
http://againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html


Yet again you have yet to explain how they involve nonconsentual transfer of property.
You've yet to explain how it is consentual.

Gauthier, Checklandia, Free Shepmanigans, Grave_n_idle, etc.

This forum is now the Left? I didn't mean for you to call out posters; rather, I was interested in the names of major left-wing figures who advocate such ideas.

The usual objection is that I have no right to condemn people from a culture other than mine, because my (human rights-respecting) culture is supposedly no better, or that they have a different idea of human rights. You know, the usual bullshit.

Those are two different claims. I see the first all the time, the second much less often.

The first is that your culture is no better, a claim they likely justify with the (accurate) observation that members of your culture routinely violate human rights.

The second, that they have a different conception of human rights, is one I hear mostly from the Right - "they don't value life the way we do," etc.

Relativists would not stop human rights abusers, because they have "no right to judge". They would allow our culture to be destroyed by people who are rather less relativist.

That's not true. Moral relativism does not preclude moral judgment. It precludes objective moral truth.

Those are provided for via property taxes. Money. Other people's property. Which they have been deprived of.

Or didn't you know that?

You agree to the governing laws of a country when you become a citizen - including taxes. You are also returned that investment in the form of the services it provides, including education.

Build with what money or materials? The only proper way is via consented-to donations.

Again, taxes are hardly nonconsentual. They are what fund government run schools. Or if you'd prefer a provate school then you have to agree to pay the fees required to attend that school. As to building a private school then again various contracters agree to fund the development - hardly nonconsentual. You seem to be hung up on this idea that people cannot contribute anything voluntarily.


http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/arbitrary[/url]

Arbitrary: 1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law

But that's the whole point isn't it - if the UDHR were to be made a law then actions taken under their rulings wouldn't be arbitrary, as they would be under the ruling of law.

You've yet to explain how it is consentual. My apologies :) I forgot to do that bit in my last post. But here we go - please point out anywhere in the UDHR where it states that its desired aims can only and must be achieved by brute force.

http://againstpolitics.com/contracta...faq/index.html

That's a fairly long winded account, but from what I can gather it seems to say that contractarianism dictates morals that are agreed upon - well if the UDHR were to be made law then it would be agreed upon wouldn't it. Problem solved :)

A teeny-tiny collection of individuals. It's only valid for those people.

Yes,and to be made law it would have to be agreed upon by the majority. Of course that may not include everyone, but I think something we can easily agree upon it that nothing will ever please everyone in this world. We simply have to do the best we can.

And who is suggesting such a thing? Certainly not me. To whom are you addressing this?

Come now, don't be pedantic; you know very well I was addressing you :p You suggested that the UDHR has not been reasoned out, so I provided a situation in which that would have happened - a situation which is clearly ridiculous. my aim was that you would respond with an argument demostrating how the UDHR could have been arrived at without any reasoning behind it.

That rights are not something which allow one person to enslave another.

And where does the UDHR state that anything within it must be achieved by force? You seem to be very hung up on this idea, when it isn't even relevant.

And I still am.

Because you are still insisting that the aims outlined by the UDHR must be achieved by force. The sooner you can rid yourself of that patently ridiculous idea, the sooner you can see the real point of them.

You agree to the governing laws of a country when you become a citizen
No you do not.


The second is that taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially, tax is payment in exchange for services from government. This kind of argument is suitable for defending almost any tax as part of a contract. Many libertarians accept social contract (for example, essentially all minarchists must to insist on a monopoly of government.) Of course they differ as to what should be IN the contract.
While it may be true that minarchists need a social contract to justify their support of a government monopoly over the use of retaliatory force, my experience is that very few of them, at least in the online population, make that argument.

The obvious reason not to is that the social contract argument doesn't work very well as anything more than a metaphor. Contracts get their moral force, in the view of most people, including most libertarians, from the agreement of the parties. But the "social contract" has the form "I will give you these services and you will pay me for them, whether you agree to or not."

The standard response, and Mike's, is that you "implicitly agree" by remaining in the country. But this works only if the government already has the right to throw you out of the country--i.e. if the government is somehow the owner of the entire territory it rules. Without a social contract, it is hard to see how you can justify such a claim. And until you can justify it, you can 't get your social contract.

I could, after all, propose a contract to Mike under which he agrees to pay me a thousand dollars a month in exchange for the valuable services I am providing by critiquing his FAQ. I could also inform him that by breathing, he agrees to accept that contract. But unless he already believes that he has no right to breath without my permission, it is hard to see why he should feel obligated to pay.
http://daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html


Again, taxes are hardly nonconsentual.
Yes they are. You are FORCED to do it.


They are what fund government run schools. Or if you'd prefer a provate school then you have to agree to pay the fees required to attend that school. As to building a private school then again various contracters agree to fund the development - hardly nonconsentual. You seem to be hung up on this idea that people cannot contribute anything voluntarily.
Taxes aren't voluntary.




But that's the whole point isn't it - if the UDHR were to be made a law then actions taken under their rulings wouldn't be arbitrary, as they would be under the ruling of law.
3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments -- A. J. Toynbee> b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary


My apologies :) I forgot to do that bit in my last post. But here we go - please point out anywhere in the UDHR where it states that its desired aims can only and must be achieved by brute force.
That is the only way possible when such things are declared "rights". When people are told they have a right to x, which must be provided by others, the only way to ensure that it happens is force.


That's a fairly long winded account, but from what I can gather it seems to say that contractarianism dictates morals that are agreed upon - well if the UDHR were to be made law then it would be agreed upon wouldn't it. Problem solved :)
I wouldn't agree to it. A number of people wouldn't, either. Therefore, there is a problem.


Yes,and to be made law it would have to be agreed upon by the majority.
It needs to be unanimous, or else some people's rights are being denied.



Come now, don't be pedantic; you know very well I was addressing you :p You suggested that the UDHR has not been reasoned out, so I provided a situation in which that would have happened - a situation which is clearly ridiculous. my aim was that you would respond with an argument demostrating how the UDHR could have been arrived at without any reasoning behind it.
And what is the reasoning behind it? I find none.


Because you are still insisting that the aims outlined by the UDHR must be achieved by force. The sooner you can rid yourself of that patently ridiculous idea, the sooner you can see the real point of them.
The problem is that the idea isn't ridiculous; the idea is the only method that it can happen.

No you do not.

http://daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html

Well if you don't like it then either move to another country whos laws are more to your preference, or form your own. Of course, he covers that bit with his 'assuming the government owns the land' bit. Of course, the fact is they do - either by purchasing (as the US government did from the native Americans) or by conquering it. There's nothing stopping you from doing the same, provided you have the means and are willing to accept the consequences.

So by possessing the land they tax you for living on, they do have the right to punish you for not adhereing to their laws.

Yes they are. You are FORCED to do it.

Yet again, all you have to do is move someplace else if you don't want to abide by the laws of the country you are in. If you don't want to abide by the laws of your country, why on earth do you live there?

Taxes aren't voluntary.

See above replies.

3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments -- A. J. Toynbee> b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary

You just don't get it do you? If something is a law then it ceases to be 'determined by individual preference or convenience' - hence why I quoted part one of the definition.

That is the only way possible when such things are declared "rights". When people are told they have a right to x, which must be provided by others, the only way to ensure that it happens is force.

Seriously, give me one example of something outlined in the UDHR which can online be provided by the forceful taking of said thing from others.

I wouldn't agree to it. A number of people wouldn't, either. Therefore, there is a problem.

Very well - if you would kindly provide me either with your own, more concise explanation, or link a site that does so :)

It needs to be unanimous, or else some people's rights are being denied.

Hardly - if no set of human rights is decided upon, then they can hardly be denied can they :p


And what is the reasoning behind it? I find none.

The reasoning is that these are the things which been decided upon as being that which a human being has a right to - those things which they require to lead a life in which they are not wanting of things which are necessary to a decent standard of living.

Hmm... not the most concise explanation I admit, but it is a fairly tricky thing to explain. Surely the reasoning is that these things have been found to be those which everyone has a right to?

The problem is that the idea isn't ridiculous; the idea is the only method that it can happen.

You still haven't explained just why these things can only be achieved by force.

Well if you don't like it then either move
Why? The government does not own the land. There's no reason that I should have to move.


to another country whos laws are more to your preference, or form your own. Of course, he covers that bit with his 'assuming the government owns the land' bit. Of course, the fact is they do
No, they do not.


- either by purchasing (as the US government did from the native Americans) or by conquering it.
Doesn't mean they own it.


There's nothing stopping you from doing the same, provided you have the means and are willing to accept the consequences.
There's no reason I should have to.


So by possessing the land
They don't.


they tax you for living on, they do have the right to punish you for not adhereing to their laws.
No, they do not.


Yet again, all you have to do is move
I shouldn't have to. The government should stop violating my rights.



You just don't get it do you? If something is a law then it ceases to be 'determined by individual preference or convenience'
You don't get it--the law could have been determined by individual preference or convenience.


Seriously, give me one example of something outlined in the UDHR which can online be provided by the forceful taking of said thing from others.
Free education for all when provided by governments. And since we have governments, the "free education" can ONLY come at the expense of others.


Very well - if you would kindly provide me either with your own, more concise explanation, or link a site that does so :)
I have with the explanation of contractarianism.


Hardly - if no set of human rights is decided upon, then they can hardly be denied can they :p
Yes.


The reasoning is that these are the things which been decided upon as being that which a human being has a right to - those things which they require to lead a life in which they are not wanting of things which are necessary to a decent standard of living.
So they are enforcing slavery.

Why? The government does not own the land. There's no reason that I should have to move.

Then who does own it? You? The reason you should move is that you are living on land which is the governments, by virtue of the fact that, as I have described, they have come into possession of it.

No, they do not.

Justify.

Doesn't mean they own it.

Then how the hell do you suggest one goes about purchasing, possessing or owning land?

There's no reason I should have to.

Then go ahead and don't pay your taxes. Start your own little insurrection. Then when you are in court, answering the the untirely non-arbitrary rule of law try using that one on the courts, see how it goes. Good luck with it.

I shouldn't have to. The government should stop violating my rights.

Maybe you should stop violating their right to rule - assuming you live in a democracy, they have after all been elected by the will of the people, and you, as a voter, have the right and ability to affect that.

You don't get it--the law could have been determined by individual preference or convenience.

That's possibly the worst argument ever. Sure it could have, but the whole point of law is that it benefits the people. Again, living in a democracy, the laws have been determined by the government which has been elected by the people, and therefore if it passes laws which do not benefit the people, it won't last long in power will it?

Free education for all when provided by governments. And since we have governments, the "free education" can ONLY come at the expense of others.

For their own benefit! And again, just because it comes at the expense of others doesn't amke it nonconsentual.

I have with the explanation of contractarianism.

Did you somehow miss the 'please provide a more concise explanation, or link to a site that does' bit?

Yes.

Riiiiiiight... so you're saying that a law can be broken even if it is not a law? See the subtle flaw there?

So they are enforcing slavery.

Once again you have yet to outline satisfactorily any way in which the UDHR promotes or requires slavery.

Then who does own it?
The individuals who purchased it. Governments, being illegitimate, cannot own things.



Then go ahead and don't pay your taxes.
Then why should I have to move? You have NEVER explained that.


Maybe you should stop violating their right to rule
There is no such thing.


- assuming you live in a democracy, they have after all been elected by the will of the people
Of SOME people. Not all.


, and you, as a voter, have the right and ability to affect that.
Voting is an abnegation of the rights of others.



That's possibly the worst argument ever.
Except it isn't.


Sure it could have, but the whole point of law is that it benefits the people.
I'm sure the Nuremburg laws benefitted the jews, and Jim Crow laws benefitted the blacks.


Again, living in a democracy, the laws have been determined by the government which has been elected by the people, and therefore if it passes laws which do not benefit the people, it won't last long in power will it?
Depends on what you mean by "long", and if the government is violently oppressing the people.


For their own benefit!
Prove it.


And again, just because it comes at the expense of others doesn't amke it nonconsentual.
Not everyone will consent.


Did you somehow miss the 'please provide a more concise explanation, or link to a site that does' bit?
Read.


Riiiiiiight... so you're saying that a law can be broken even if it is not a law?
No. See a flaw there?


Once again you have yet to outline satisfactorily any way in which the UDHR promotes or requires slavery.
But I have.

The individuals who purchased it. Governments, being illegitimate, cannot own things.

And how exactly are governments illegitimate?

Then why should I have to move? You have NEVER explained that.

Because clearly you don't want to abide by the laws of the government that owns - yes owns - the land you are living on, and they therefore have the right to evict you from their land if you don't abide by their laws.

There is no such thing.

They have the right to dictate the laws of their land, as they have been elected to power. It equates to mucht the same thing - either way you are disobeying the laws that they have been given the right to set down by being elected.

Of SOME people. Not all.

So provide me with a workable system of government that benefits all people completely and I will gladly support it.

Voting is an abnegation of the rights of others.

See above. And also explain how. Short of voting into power a government that denies you your rights how does that work?

Except it isn't.

Oh, wow, that's got me convinced. You really know how to sway an audience don't you :rolleyes:

I'm sure the Nuremburg laws benefitted the jews, and Jim Crow laws benefitted the blacks.

Hmm, yes, because those governments were prime examples of democracy.:rolleyes:

Depends on what you mean by "long", and if the government is violently oppressing the people.

By 'long' I mean that, should they prove to be a bad government, then they will be voted out in the next election. And if the government is violently oppressing the people then the whole discussion goes out the window doesn't it, since it is not longer a democracy

Prove it.

Disprove it. How exactly are the laws currently in place not for the benefit of the people?

Not everyone will consent.

Again, you aren't going to please everyone.

Read.

No, why don't you sum it up? After all, you are the one arguing for this system, so the onus is on you to provide decent explanations of it. You really don't know the meaning of 'concise' do you?

No. See a flaw there?

yes, actually I do - a blindingly bloody obvious one. Namely, that you can't break a law if what you are breaking isn't a law. Not hard to understand surely?

But I have.

But you haven't - note the 'satisfactorily' part, meaning that you havent provided an argument that hasn't been refuted. All you have done is assert that all things in the UDHR can only be achieved by force -an argument which I have constantly been refuting.

Only I should have human rights.

And how exactly are governments illegitimate?
They are coercive territorial monopolists, expropriating the property of others, and ruling without the full consent of the governed.


Because clearly you don't want to abide by the laws of the government that owns
Prove it.


They have the right to dictate the laws of their land,
No they do not.


as they have been elected to power.
Elected by whom? Certainly not everyone. What of the people who voted, but not for them? Aren't their rights being violated by having someone they didn't elect rule over them? Why yes--yes they are.


It equates to mucht the same thing - either way you are disobeying the laws that they have been given the right to set down by being elected.
Being elected means nothing. There is no metaphysical or epistemic reason for such.


So provide me with a workable system of government that benefits all people completely and I will gladly support it.
There isn't one. No government can be legitimate.


See above. And also explain how.
See above.



Oh, wow, that's got me convinced.
As much as you convinced me.


Hmm, yes, because those governments were prime examples of democracy
The US isn't an example of a democratically-elected government?

You *DO* know what Jim Crow laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws) were, don't you?


By 'long' I mean that, should they prove to be a bad government, then they will be voted out in the next election.
The government of the USSR stayed in power for some 70 years.


And if the government is violently oppressing the people then the whole discussion goes out the window doesn't it, since it is not longer a democracy
Picking-and-choosing. Not good for you.


Disprove it. How exactly are the laws currently in place not for the benefit of the people?
Are laws against homosexual marriage or homosexual activities for the benefit of the people? Are laws against certain drugs for the benefit of the people? Are laws against sex toys for the benefit of the people? Are laws which create so-called "entitlement" programs (no matter what country) which necessarily create stratification and enslave those who must toil for those who are "entitled" for the benefit of the people?

Would you like more?


Again, you aren't going to please everyone.
Then they cannot rule.


No, why don't you sum it up?
No. You need to read.


yes, actually I do - a blindingly bloody obvious one. Namely, that you can't break a law if what you are breaking isn't a law.
And that has what to do with what now? I don't know of anyone who's claiming what you're claiming is being claimed.


But you haven't
But I have.

Only I should have human rights.

I can go with that - makes more sense than most of the stuff... well, all of the stuff, that Knights has been saying.

There it is - I hereby decree that only Posi has human rights. The rest of you can stick it :D

I can go with that - makes more sense than most of the stuff... well, all of the stuff, that Knights has been saying.

There it is - I hereby decree that only Posi has human rights. The rest of you can stick it :D
Awesome :)

They are coercive territorial monopolists, expropriating the property of others, and ruling without the full consent of the governed.

Bullshit taken straight from some other anarchist manifesto no doubt?

Prove it.

You proved it yourself by saying, or implying, that you didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying you don't abide by them right now , I'm saying that in the situation where you didn't pay your taxes you wouldn't be.

No they do not.

And why not?

Elected by whom? Certainly not everyone. What of the people who voted, but not for them? Aren't their rights being violated by having someone they didn't elect rule over them? Why yes--yes they are.

Since when was having the government you want in power a right? Provided the elected govenment does not violate any of their actual rights they have no grounds for sayign their rights are being violated.

Being elected means nothing. There is no metaphysical or epistemic reason for such.

Being elected means everything in terms of government. By electing them, the people entrust them with the ability to set down and uphold the laws of the land. That's how democracy works genius.

There isn't one. No government can be legitimate.

Because anarchy works really brilliantly of course:rolleyes:

See above.

What, see above to the point I just refuted?

As much as you convinced me.[/quote[

And there you hit the sticking point of this discussion squarely on the head. Nothing I say, no matter how well reasoned, is going to shift your position one inch, because you are frankly too stubborn to accept that you might be wrong. At least, that's the impression you're giving. And I am more than willing to accept that I am probably giving the same impression - you have not, however, provided a satisfactory argument to justify your claims.

[quote]The US isn't an example of a democratically-elected government?

You *DO* know what Jim Crow laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws) were, don't you?

At the time of said Jim Crow laws the US government can hardly be counted a shining example of democracy can it? As it denied voting rights to many of its population.

The government of the USSR stayed in power for some 70 years.

Again, not exactly the most democratic government ever were they?

Picking-and-choosing. Not good for you.

Hardly picking and choosing, when the whole discussion was based on the assumption that we are discussing countries with democratic governments. There's not really much point elsewise is there?

Are laws against homosexual marriage or homosexual activities for the benefit of the people? Are laws against certain drugs for the benefit of the people? Are laws against sex toys for the benefit of the people? Are laws which create so-called "entitlement" programs (no matter what country) which necessarily create stratification and enslave those who must toil for those who are "entitled" for the benefit of the people?

Would you like more?

Then why don't those poor oppressed people do something about their situation rather than bitching about it on internet forums?

Then they cannot rule.

In which case all we have is anarchy, which is an even worse situation than a flawed democracy.

No. You need to read.

No, you need to clearly explain your arguments. If you contractarinism is so weak that it needs to hide its actual objectives behind pages and pages of bullshit then it can hardly be worth bothering with. It's your argument, you have to explain it.

And that has what to do with what now? I don't know of anyone who's claiming what you're claiming is being claimed.

You began by saying that if the UDHR were to be made law by majority vote rather than by unanimous decision then people's right would be violated. I said that if no laws were passed making them rights, which would be true at the time of the vote, then they can hardly be broken, therefore their rights cannot be denied as they wouldn't have been decided upon. You failed to understand this, and we argued the point for some time. Stop trying to avoid the issue.

That said, it was a pedantic point said in half-jest originally anyway. Your time would be better spent thinking up decent arguments for actual points.

But I have.

Where? Show me one example of an argument you have made to that effect which ahsn't been refuted.

Awesome :)

Any time :D

Say, you couldn't slip me a little free education could you?

Elected by whom? Certainly not everyone. What of the people who voted, but not for them? Aren't their rights being violated by having someone they didn't elect rule over them? Why yes--yes they are.

Being elected means nothing. There is no metaphysical or epistemic reason for such.

There isn't one. No government can be legitimate.

Are laws against homosexual marriage or homosexual activities for the benefit of the people? Are laws against certain drugs for the benefit of the people? Are laws against sex toys for the benefit of the people? Are laws which create so-called "entitlement" programs (no matter what country) which necessarily create stratification and enslave those who must toil for those who are "entitled" for the benefit of the people?

(and so on)



Certainly, bad and unjust laws exist. Would anarchy be a better state, though? Even though I hate his philosophy, Thomas Hobbes was right when he said we would all kill each other without some kind of order.

Every form of government is imperfect. What you're proposing is chaos and ultimately suicide.

Any time :D

Say, you couldn't slip me a little free education could you?
Hey, I only have rights, not authorita.

Hey, I only have rights, not authorita.

On the sly ;) No-one need ever know :D

Bullshit taken straight from some other anarchist manifesto no doubt?
No. It is the nature of government.


You proved it yourself by saying, or implying, that you didn't want to pay taxes.
No, that's not what I asked you to prove.


I'm not saying you don't abide by them right now , I'm saying that in the situation where you didn't pay your taxes you wouldn't be.
No.


And why not?
They have no right to rule.


Since when was having the government you want in
power a right?
Since always, because everyone's consent is necessary.


Provided the elected govenment does not violate any of their actual rights they have no grounds for sayign their rights are being violated.
Sure they do. They are forced to endure a government they did not want.


Being elected means everything in terms of government.
No it doesn't.


By electing them, the people entrust them with the ability to set down and uphold the laws of the land. That's how democracy works genius.
Oh, you are quaint, aren't you. You really believe that, huh?


Because anarchy works really brilliantly of course
Of course.


What, see above to the point I just refuted?
1. You haven't refuted anything.
2. I had already answered it.


And there you hit the sticking point of this discussion squarely on the head. Nothing I say, no matter how well reasoned,
You've provided well-reasoned arguments?


At the time of said Jim Crow laws the US government can hardly be counted a shining example of democracy can it?
Why can't it?


As it denied voting rights to many of its population.
But the majority wanted it......


Again, not exactly the most democratic government ever were they?
You hadn't specified.



Hardly picking and choosing, when the whole discussion was based on the assumption that we are discussing countries with democratic governments.
No it wasn't.


Then why don't those poor oppressed people do something about their situation rather than bitching about it on internet forums?
They do.


In which case all we have is anarchy, which is an even worse situation than a flawed democracy.
No, it's much better.


No, you need to clearly explain your arguments.
I have. If you are so terrified of reading, I suggest you shut your computer down right now.


You began by saying that if the UDHR were to be made law by majority vote rather than by unanimous decision then people's right would be violated. I said that if no laws were passed making them rights, which would be true at the time of the vote, then they can hardly be broken, therefore their rights cannot be denied as they wouldn't have been decided upon.
Rights aren't voted upon. You fail to understand that.


Where? Show me one example of an argument you have made to that effect which ahsn't been refuted.
Show me where you have refuted any of my arguments.

Certainly, bad and unjust laws exist. Would anarchy be a better state, though? Even though I hate his philosophy, Thomas Hobbes was right when he said we would all kill each other without some kind of order.
What in the world makes you erroneously believe that anarchy is the same as chaos? Anarchy = anarchy. Chaos = chaos. Please stop conflating the two.

What in the world makes you erroneously believe that anarchy is the same as chaos? Anarchy = anarchy. Chaos = chaos. Please stop conflating the two.

Here's my reasoning. We are all essentially self-interested and greedy, and we have to fight this very human tendency. If there is a majority that agrees on a framework of laws - say, punishing those who kill, rape, abuse others, setting down taxes for redistribution, and so on - we will be compelled to be less self-interested. If there's no law to compel us, we would beat and even kill each other, if not out of viciousness then out of fear and the need for self-defense.

If you believe that people don't have the tendency to be self-interested, you might disagree. In my view, though, anarchy would cause chaos for this reason.

Here's my reasoning. We are all essentially self-interested and greedy, and we have to fight this very human tendency.
Governments exacerbate it by allowing legal plunder.

Ooops. Didn't think of that, did you?

Governments exacerbate it by allowing legal plunder.

Ooops. Didn't think of that, did you?

Like I said, no government is perfect. A lot of them are pretty shitty, actually. But it depends on what you think is worse: the government allowing "legal plunder" (do you mean taxes, or white-collar business crimes, or what?) or people killing and plundering each other at random?

- snip -

*sigh* You know what, we really aren't getting anywhere with this are we? We're both certain that we're right, and aren't going to budge.

With this in mind, along with the fact that it is now 5 in the morning and I'm very tired, why don't we call it a day while the discussion is still reasonably civilised, and agree to disagree?

And with that, I bid you all a good morning. :)

Like I said, no government is perfect. A lot of them are pretty shitty, actually. But it depends on what you think is worse: the government allowing "legal plunder"
Taxation. "Entitlement" programs. etc.

Taxation. "Entitlement" programs. etc.

Do you consider yourself a libertarian? It sounds something like that.

Do you consider yourself a libertarian? It sounds something like that.
Anarcho-capitalist. The only real anarchists.

Do you consider yourself a libertarian? It sounds something like that.

You make that sound like it is a bad thing!

You make that sound like it is a bad thing!

Oh, come on. I was just talking about the "no taxation" thing BAAWA was harping on.

And, the way you said it suggested you don't have a very high opinion of us libs. So I stand by my comment. Call it an idle observation based on the tone of your post. Nothing more.

And, the way you said it suggested you don't have a very high opinion of us libs. So I stand by my comment. Call it an idle observation based on the tone of your post. Nothing more.

Okay, sorry. I don't agree on the taxation issue with you guys, but you have some good ideas. I certainly wasn't attributing any of BAAWA's other (crazy) concepts to libertarianism.

As the Aussies would say; No worries mate. I should have figured it was something like that. The taxation views a lot of us have grate on many people I've noticed.

Reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I see a few things that make me uncomfortable:

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

You had me up until honor and reputation. Thats vague, and I think it is likely to be read as a human right protection against being insulted or offended. It is virtually impossible to have a real commitment to liberty or freedom of expression if you consider not having your feelings hurt to be a human right. Part of living in a free and open society is that even ideas and concepts which you find repugnant are allowed, because that is the speech most likely to stimulate debate and further human understanding. If someone attacks your honor or reputation, then you are more than welcome to respond, and the public can build it's own informed opinion based upon the evidence provided.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

This is another place where I feel that the UN definition of human rights is flawed. I read this article as requiring governments to encourage and preserve cultural and social norms within societies. The use of the phrase "social security" implies to me that there should be some protections against major uphevals and social changes. I feel that this is inconsistant with a general commitment to human rights because cultures in which human rights are not respected will have to lose some of what makes them them("social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity") in order to conform with a broad interpretation of rights.

Take Northern African culture(as one of the more extreme examples). This is a culture which, at it's core, holds women to be inferior to men. It is a culture which has, for thousands of years, engaged in extreme and brutal genital mutilation, which holds promicutity and adultry to be among the higest of social ills, and which treats women as chattle. If you suddenly take away those things, not only do you radically change the culture, but you throw the entire society into chaos. Thats a good thing, but it seems to be counter to article 22's concept of "social security".

The other way to read article 22 is as a means of cultural protectionism, an attempt to limit globalization and slow the spread of the monoculture. Again, while I understand that some people feel a profound loss of dignity and identity as their culture fades, I'm not sure that this rises to the level of a human right. Further, I am not sure there is any way to enforce the preservation of native culture which does not, on some level, require governments to limit the free flow of expression and ideas in a society. Is it really the place of the government to discourage or stop people from buying Coca Cola instead of naranjada, wearing Nike instead of wooden clogs, using words that originated in other cultures rather than approved native terms(as the French and Spanish try to do), or watching Fear Factor instead of kabuki? Even if it does, where do you stop? Should acupunture be encouraged over chemotherapy? Having sex with a virgin over taking anti-retrovirals? More to the point, doesn't that discouragement of choice constitute a violation of human rights?

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Here is where I start to have a major problem with the UN definition of human rights. These four articles cross the line from being human rights to being policy issues. I agree that most of these things are a good idea, I even agree that some of these things should be compelled, but they are not "rights." None of these issues are vital to the survival of an individual's freedom, they are preks of a sophisticated and civil society, signs that a culture has advanced to a point where it is able to provide a higher than minimal standard of living to it's people, but not inherant rights of human beings. Paid time off is not in the same league as freedom of conscience, universal secondary education should not stand on the same page as the right to not be owned by another human being.

Finally, the compulsory education bit in 26:1 is bad. That is crossing the line from laying out a document which tells the government what it is not allowed to do to it's citizens to telling citizens what to do. It isn't the enshrining of a right, it is the removal of a choice.


And now, the reason I am strongly opposed to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 29

Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Translation: They're not really rights, so much as guidelines. These rights may be suspended if we feel that your excercise of them might interefere with someone else's excercise, so really it all comes down to popularity. Oh, and if your excercise of rihs is deemed immoral, dangerous to public order, or contrary to general welfare, well, you're shit out of luck then to. Also, all human rights may be suspended by the UN at any time if said organization decides that you aren't using them the way we would like you to.

28 articles of rights, one article that makes them all privilages subject to local and international whim.

What do you think of the people who think of that as imperialist? I'm gravely concerned for the future of human rights in the world. The right opposes them as usual, but support for them is declining on the left as relativism increases. "Leftists" are actually saying that it's wrong for us to say that oppressing people is a human rights abuse, because that's "just the way we see it" and other people have "a different culture".


Honestly, tough shit. Human rights were not first claimed with polite solicitations. Men and women fought, killed, and died to carve out just a little bit of human dignity. Human beings take their rights with the edge of a sword or a bullet from a gun, because the people who withold them aren't nice. Human rights aren't denied because of a civil difference of opinion, they are denied by evil men who wish to wield power and influence over their peers. They only way to convince those kinds of people is to hang pieces of the last ones who tried as a warning.

I have no problem being imperialistic when it comes to human rights. My society is better than another because women don't have their clitoris and labia shaved off and sewn up to make sure they don't stray from their husbands, it is better because a man who loves another man cannot be killed in the street, it is better because I can worship any god or gods I choose(or none at all) in public and all you can do is try to convince me I'm wrong. The generations who will live free and unoppressed are worth the deaths of a handful of throwbacks.

I'd like to remind all the pacifists out there that Martin Luther King had a dream, never raised a sword, and here we are two generations after his death still seeing deep institutionalized racism. Ghandi smiled and took his lumps and all that was realy acheived was that the poor remained poor but the oppressors were Brahmin instead of British. Meanwhile some queers beat up some cops in New York in 1969, a time when the vast majority of states had sodomy laws and meant it. Just 37 years later and the fight isn't over if they can have sex without being arrested but if they can marry. Human rights are taken, not requested.

By gradually changing the forces that create the laws and empower the cultures in these countries. (not by military force)

Right, lets let this generation be raped, silenced, and mutilated. Maybe if we work hard the next will only be mutilated and silenced. After that maybe we'll only see some intimidation. Thats alot better than giving this generation guns and helping them kill the people trying to rape, silence, and mutilate them.

Lets be real clear. We live in a world where there are many places that can sentance someone to gang rape as punishment for the crime of a member of their family. We live in a world where 9 year old girls have their sexual organs cut off with broken glass and no anasthetic. We live in a world where it is common practice for civilians to be fucked to death as a means of intimidation during wartime. We don't have time for a gradual change, because every second we hold off from killing these wholesale victimizers is a second we allow more victims to be created.

Yes.
Taxes aren't arbitrary.

I can never fathom how people can jump through the mental hoops required to justify theft.
Well, some of us don't put blind faith in the belief that the current distribution of property in the world is just.

Others among us don't believe that theft is the ultimate evil, and that there are worse things that you can do to someone.

For the reason that it is simply demanded. Please justify how this is not arbitrary.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/arbitrary
Taxes are consensual. If you don't like it either vote in a low-tax party or live in a different country.

Taxes are fixed by law and they are not imposed by absolute authority, at least in democratic countries.

Anything which involves a nonconsentual transfer of property makes slaves of the person whose property was taken away. I'm amazed that you don't know that.
Isn't slavery a huge exaggeration? Who ever heard of a slave that was richer and more powerful than his master?

Those are two different claims. I see the first all the time, the second much less often.

The first is that your culture is no better, a claim they likely justify with the (accurate) observation that members of your culture routinely violate human rights.
But that's dishonest. Relativists demand that the west be perfect before anyone from the west dares utter criticism of other places. They also tend to assume that I endorse violations that happen in the west.

In Europe, human rights get violated from time to time, but not on the scale that happens in the Middle East, Africa, China and some other places. An easy example is that in the West there are some who believe that gay people have no right to get married. In some parts of the world, gay people are not considered to have a right to live.

Now, it seems obvious to me that while restricting civil rights for gay people is deplorable, killing them is much worse. The source of respect for human rights lies in the culture of the country in question.

I don't see how cultures that respect human rights are no better than countries which don't.

The second, that they have a different conception of human rights, is one I hear mostly from the Right - "they don't value life the way we do," etc.
People from many sides of the spectrum say it (worth noting that there are more than two sides).

The relativist "left" usually says it, then says that because the majority culture doesn't accept human rights as we do, then the individuals in that culture don't have human rights. I'm a democrat (not the US party), but there are rights which should be above the consent of the majority.

That's not true. Moral relativism does not preclude moral judgment. It precludes objective moral truth.
Isn't the whole notion of the UDHR somewhat absolutist?

Why? The government does not own the land. There's no reason that I should have to move.
The government rules the land. If land ownership mattered, then only landowners would be allowed to vote in the government. Which is how it was back in the liberal heyday of the 19th century.

Once again you have yet to outline satisfactorily any way in which the UDHR promotes or requires slavery.
BAWAA maybe you should read it. The UDHR is very specific about not accepting slavery.

Only I should have human rights.
We can call them Posi Rights!

They are coercive territorial monopolists, expropriating the property of others, and ruling without the full consent of the governed.
In a dictatorship, yes, but not in a democracy.

Governments exacerbate it by allowing legal plunder.

Ooops. Didn't think of that, did you?
In anarchy nothing is illegal. Theft and plunder would be legal.

But that's dishonest. Relativists demand that the west be perfect before anyone from the west dares utter criticism of other places. They also tend to assume that I endorse violations that happen in the west.

Actually, a "relativist" in the sense you were using it (very much distinct from the actual position of moral relativism, but I digress) would deny that violations that happen in the West are "violations" at all.

People who point out such violations are not "relativists," they are people tired of the benevolent human rights rhetoric of the rulers of the world amidst the horrific atrocities they are all too fond of committing, and tired of the arrogant cultural chauvinism of the citizens of the Western countries who prefer to omit and ignore the atrocities committed by individuals belonging to their cultures.

In Europe, human rights get violated from time to time, but not on the scale that happens in the Middle East, Africa, China and some other places. An easy example is that in the West there are some who believe that gay people have no right to get married. In some parts of the world, gay people are not considered to have a right to live.

Now, it seems obvious to me that while restricting civil rights for gay people is deplorable, killing them is much worse. The source of respect for human rights lies in the culture of the country in question.

I don't see how cultures that respect human rights are no better than countries which don't.

No culture today respects human rights, Western cultures included. Treatment of gay people is simply one aspect of such respect.

People from many sides of the spectrum say it (worth noting that there are more than two sides).

The relativist "left" usually says it, then says that because the majority culture doesn't accept human rights as we do, then the individuals in that culture don't have human rights.

No, it doesn't. I've never heard any leftist say that the deliberate killing of innocent gay people is acceptable if it is approved by majority vote, at least not without some compelling objective being pursued.

I have my I'm a democrat (not the US party), but there are rights which should be above the consent of the majority.

I agree. So do most people, including, most likely, most of those you label as "relativists."

Isn't the whole notion of the UDHR somewhat absolutist?

How so?

Taxes aren't arbitrary.
Yes they are.


Well, some of us don't put blind faith in the belief that the current distribution of property in the world is just.
Some of use don't put blind faith that others know better how to control our own property than we do.


Others among us don't believe that theft is the ultimate evil, and that there are worse things that you can do to someone.
A violation of rights is a violation of rights, regardless. To say otherwise is to attempt to excuse immoral behavior.


Taxes are consensual.
No they aren't.


If you don't like it either vote in a low-tax party or live in a different country.
Why?


Taxes are fixed by law and they are not imposed by absolute authority, at least in democratic countries.
Governments are coercive territorial monopolists. That means they ARE the absolute authority in that territory.


Isn't slavery a huge exaggeration?
No.


Who ever heard of a slave that was richer and more powerful than his master?
Such a narrow view you have. As if the only type of slave must be poor and downtrodden. Pheh!


The government rules the land. If land ownership mattered, then only landowners would be allowed to vote in the government.
That's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about. And no, it wasn't the case in the "liberal heyday of the 19th century".

BAWAA maybe you should read it. The UDHR is very specific about not accepting slavery.
It's not. Positive rights create slavery.


In a dictatorship, yes, but not in a democracy.
Yes, in a democracy. All governments are like that. The nature of government is an expropriating territorial monopolist. If not, then there can be competition WITHIN THAT SAME TERRITORY. But there isn't. It's not allowed.


In anarchy nothing is illegal.
False.

People who point out such violations are not "relativists," they are people tired of the benevolent human rights rhetoric of the rulers of the world amidst the horrific atrocities they are all too fond of committing, and tired of the arrogant cultural chauvinism of the citizens of the Western countries who prefer to omit and ignore the atrocities committed by individuals belonging to their cultures.

I don't think it is necessarily chauvinism. No, western countries do not have perfect human rights records, nor have any managed to get it completely right, but that doesn't mean that all failures are equal. There is something disturbing about drawing a moral equivilency between the wage gap in America and FGM in Sudan. All too often I hear arguments like "how can you criticize X when Y happens in your back yard?" I'm perfectly able to criticize both.

More than that, can you really say with a straight face that it is culturally chauvanistic for a westerner to criticize say, Rural Pakistani tribal councils that sentance young girls to be raped because of crimes commited by their relatives? I don't understand how such an argument can be made unless it is in the complete absence of sanity. There are simply some things that humanity cannot abide, and even if my own culture is less than perfect I find it my duty as a member of the human race to criticize some things.

No culture today respects human rights, Western cultures included. Treatment of gay people is simply one aspect of such respect.

So because no one has gotten it right no one has the moral authority to criticize someone else. You have to have some grasp of degree. Denying marriage rights to gay couples(as heinous as it is) is not the same as executing gay teens. I don't find it chauvanistic to believe that my culture is better because it is less abusive.

No, it doesn't. I've never heard any leftist say that the deliberate killing of innocent gay people is acceptable if it is approved by majority vote, at least not without some compelling objective being pursued.

What objective could possibly be so compelling? This is the problem I have with a good portion of leftist thought, it is unwilling to ever make an absolute statement. Theres always some kind of caveat, some kind of attempt to understand and embrace the other side. There are some things that do not need qualification. The diliberate killing of innocent gays is not ok. Period. There is no objective that could be compelling enough to override that statement. Any individual who advocates it is either derage, ignorant, or evil, and theres a good chance its a combination of the three. There is no need to better understand that person, no value in reaching out. Such violent forms of discrimination do not grow out of a lack of misunderstanding or fear, they grow out of a primal hatred of the other. Homophobic do not fear homosexuals, they hate them and the hate them because this group of people represents a different tribe which their reptile brains perceive as a threat. You cannot fix that kind of hatred, only contain the damage and wait for the atavists to die out.

I'm sorry if this is an unpopular view, but if a culture demands the oppression of individuals, the violation of human rights, or the abuse of persons, then it has failed. There is no culture so worthy of preservation that we as humans should be willing to tollerate these things. If the oppression of women is vital to the social structure and cultural heritage of a people, than that society has failed and it needs to be replaced, even if those in charge do not like it.

There comes a time when human beings must make a stand and decide the direction in which their world will go. The violation of one person's rights diminishes the rights of every other person touched by that society. I have a vested interest in the continuation of individual rights, in the preservation of basic human rights. There are others who do not. We cannot live in harmony. Eventually you will have to choose a side, eventually you will have to choose either cultural preservation or individual freedom. One will survive, one will not.

I, for one, am glad that those who came before me chose liberty. I'm glad we live in a world guided by the light of reason rather than one strangled by superstition and ignorance. I'm glad we don't burn witches, beat beat fags, or lynch niggers. I'm glad that most of society hears those words and responds with shock and revulsion. I'm glad that women are not owned by men. I'm glad that no one can force me to kneel before their God. I'm glad that no one can force me to hide my face in public. I'm glad that I can have sex with someone of either gender without being imprisoned. I'm glad I can say I'm glad about these things. Most of all, I'm glad that I have the information, ability, and equipment to defend these things I value.

False.

Only technically. In a society that truely lacked a government or federal power the only things that would be illegal would be the things which society refused to tolerate. It would be pure mob rule. Even then, a sufficiently powerful individual(someone who was well armed, well supplied, and supported by a small group of highly trained followers) would be able to subvert even the will of the society by sheer force.

In anarchy, the only things that are illegal are the things that the weak do which the strong choose to punish. It isn't justice.

Anarchy, as a modern political concept, only works on paper. Its like communism or direct democracy, once you make the group larger than a handful of individuals who are equally powerful and wealthy, it fails. When it fails, like all other political systems, it becomes a totalitarian system that borrows the rhetoric of the former system.

I believe all humans are supremely and unconditionally equal, and I believe that everyone should have equal rights (I'm a strong supporter of the declaration). I take alot of heat for my beliefs, but I refuse to step down.

I believe all humans are supremely and unconditionally equal, and I believe that everyone should have equal rights (I'm a strong supporter of the declaration). I take alot of heat for my beliefs, but I refuse to step down.
I have to go with TC on this. There's nothing to say that ensuring the rights set forth in the UDHR would be easy, or that it could be achieved quickly. It's a goal and a worthy one. Let me quote Thomas Paine, "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Only technically. In a society that truely lacked a government or federal power the only things that would be illegal would be the things which society refused to tolerate.
Not in the least.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html

http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Law_as_a_private_good/Law_as_a_private_good.html

I have to go with TC on this. There's nothing to say that ensuring the rights set forth in the UDHR would be easy, or that it could be achieved quickly. It's a goal and a worthy one. Let me quote Thomas Paine, "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Thank you. I'd never heard that quote before, but I love it.

Thank you. I'd never heard that quote before, but I love it.
Welcome. I had to Google the quote (I cadged it from my Daytimer, quote of the day) to find that it's from "Dissertations on First Principles of Government".

I don't think it is necessarily chauvinism. No, western countries do not have perfect human rights records, nor have any managed to get it completely right, but that doesn't mean that all failures are equal. There is something disturbing about drawing a moral equivilency between the wage gap in America and FGM in Sudan. All too often I hear arguments like "how can you criticize X when Y happens in your back yard?" I'm perfectly able to criticize both.

Yes, you are. The problem is, we don't. And it's still there.

More than that, can you really say with a straight face that it is culturally chauvanistic for a westerner to criticize say, Rural Pakistani tribal councils that sentance young girls to be raped because of crimes commited by their relatives?

I didn't say it was.

So because no one has gotten it right no one has the moral authority to criticize someone else.

I didn't say that either. I criticize the abuses of people of other cultures all the time.

You have to have some grasp of degree. Denying marriage rights to gay couples(as heinous as it is) is not the same as executing gay teens. I don't find it chauvanistic to believe that my culture is better because it is less abusive.

I don't think comparing cultures with terms like "better" or "worse" is useful at all. Executing gay teens is wrong. Preventing gay marriage is wrong. Executing gay teens is worse than preventing gay marriage. What point is there in using that as an excuse to say that my culture is "better"? Actions are good and bad. Cultures, being neither clearly distinct nor monolithic, are not usefully describable in moral terms.

What objective could possibly be so compelling?

Preventing the utter eradication of the human species, for instance.

This is the problem I have with a good portion of leftist thought, it is unwilling to ever make an absolute statement. Theres always some kind of caveat, some kind of attempt to understand and embrace the other side. There are some things that do not need qualification. The diliberate killing of innocent gays is not ok. Period. There is no objective that could be compelling enough to override that statement. Any individual who advocates it is either derage, ignorant, or evil, and theres a good chance its a combination of the three. There is no need to better understand that person, no value in reaching out. Such violent forms of discrimination do not grow out of a lack of misunderstanding or fear, they grow out of a primal hatred of the other. Homophobic do not fear homosexuals, they hate them and the hate them because this group of people represents a different tribe which their reptile brains perceive as a threat. You cannot fix that kind of hatred, only contain the damage and wait for the atavists to die out.

I'm not exactly a fan of homophobia. I happen to be utterly and completely opposed to it. It is despicable and inexcusable.

I'm sorry if this is an unpopular view, but if a culture demands the oppression of individuals, the violation of human rights, or the abuse of persons, then it has failed. There is no culture so worthy of preservation that we as humans should be willing to tollerate these things. If the oppression of women is vital to the social structure and cultural heritage of a people, than that society has failed and it needs to be replaced, even if those in charge do not like it.

Except cultures are not monolithic and they are not so clearly defined. They can change for the better without being completely overthrown.

Not in the least.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html

http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Law_as_a_private_good/Law_as_a_private_good.html



I'm Familiar with Mises, the Friedman family, Nozich, Locke, and the rest. That still doesn't change the fact that Anarchy, every single time it has happened in human history, has quickly degenerated into tyranny. It happens because human beings are flawed creatures, and a few tenths of a percent of us are truely evil. Beyond that, basic social psychology causes human beings to devide themselves into various groups, and we have a tendancy to help the groups we are more a part of screw over the groups we are less a part of in order to secure a better share of the limited resources that are available to us.

Anarchy fails for the same reaons that any system which is based around social trust fails: because we are untrustworthy, irrational, petty little monkeys with a disturbingly high rate of myopia. That is true of all peoples, in all times, of all religions, from all areas of the world, it is the one thing that unifies mankind.

Philosophers have worked hard to get around it, but at the end of the day there is always that damned human factor. Entropy will throw even the best planned system.

Take your argument for private police and common law. Private police are really only going to work best for the people that pay them and the common law they enforce is going to be selected by the people who give them their charter. Beyond that, they are likely to be subject to all the flaws that any highly democratic system is subject to: favortism, cronyism, and in-group/out-group bias. If you think for even a second that the system would not immediately fall to corruption and favortism, you are either too young to have met enough people or too slow to integrate information from the world around you.

The sad reality is that yes, we need referees because for every one person for whom anarchy would work as a social model there are a few who would wantonly abuse it and dozens who would sway whichever way was most adventageous for them at the moment.

I'm Familiar with Mises, the Friedman family, Nozich, Locke, and the rest. That still doesn't change the fact that Anarchy, every single time it has happened in human history, has quickly degenerated into tyranny.
No, it hasn't.

[snip argument from humans are just evil scum]

Yes, you are. The problem is, we don't. And it's still there.

Right you are there.


I don't think comparing cultures with terms like "better" or "worse" is useful at all. Executing gay teens is wrong. Preventing gay marriage is wrong. Executing gay teens is worse than preventing gay marriage. What point is there in using that as an excuse to say that my culture is "better"? Actions are good and bad. Cultures, being neither clearly distinct nor monolithic, are not usefully describable in moral terms.

In an academic sense, I would agree with you, but I have a tendancy to be a bit more pragmatic. Most people are not going to be able to make such fine distinctions, they need shorthand like "better or worse" so they can run their lazy little heuristics and get on with their lives. Hell, even people who have the time and interest to actually pay attention to the world need a way of ranking cultures and abuses so that the scant resources we have to fix problems can be efficiently targeted.

Beyond that, you have the problem that even if you do not want to view your culture as better or worse, other cultures are doing so. Humanity has always been involved in a culture war, and like most major conflicts, you cannot opt out. Europe, for example, has had to fight two wars in the last century: the war against fascism and the war against communism. Both of these wars were fought(in significant part) on the cultural front. Politicians were being chosen, policies accepted or rejected. Because of the nature of politics, cultures tend to be turned into monoliths and sides need to be take. Somewhat clumsy determinations of "better" or "worse" need to be made.


Preventing the utter eradication of the human species, for instance.

Can you really imagine a single scenario in which the excercise of an individual human right would threaten the human species?

Oh, just as advance notice no, "kill all the gays and stop making fun of the prophet or we'll blow up the world" doesn't count.


Except cultures are not monolithic and they are not so clearly defined. They can change for the better without being completely overthrown.

But rarely through any means other than force. Even then, I would generally find force to be the preferable engine for change because it is quicker(thus shortening the length of oppression), it gives the people more of an investment in their liberty(because they fought and died for it, rather than begged for a few generations), and it sends a strong message to future would-be tyrants.

No, it hasn't.

[snip argument from humans are just evil scum]

Ok, I'll bite, give me a historical example of an anarchy which survived more than a generation without becoming a tyranny or a tribal despotism.


...and my argument wasn't that humans are evil scum. A small percentage are, a small percentage are good and virtuous, but most are scared, dim little things that have trouble thinking more than a turn or so ahead and tend to go with whoever they like more.

In an academic sense, I would agree with you, but I have a tendancy to be a bit more pragmatic. Most people are not going to be able to make such fine distinctions, they need shorthand like "better or worse" so they can run their lazy little heuristics and get on with their lives. Hell, even people who have the time and interest to actually pay attention to the world need a way of ranking cultures and abuses so that the scant resources we have to fix problems can be efficiently targeted.

Why do we need to judge cultures at all, ever? Judge actions; act to prevent them. That's simple enough. Why bring "culture" into it?

Beyond that, you have the problem that even if you do not want to view your culture as better or worse, other cultures are doing so. Humanity has always been involved in a culture war, and like most major conflicts, you cannot opt out. Europe, for example, has had to fight two wars in the last century: the war against fascism and the war against communism. Both of these wars were fought(in significant part) on the cultural front.

No. The former was fought on the military front. To the extent the latter was fought at all, it was fought on the economic front and on the military front with proxies elsewhere.

Politicians were being chosen, policies accepted or rejected. Isn't th Because of the nature of politics, cultures tend to be turned into monoliths and sides need to be take. Somewhat clumsy determinations of "better" or "worse" need to be made.

Stalinism and fascism are social orders; they are not cultures. I can oppose them without bringing in culture into it at all.

Can you really imagine a single scenario in which the excercise of an individual human right would threaten the human species?

Yes. The human right to reproductive freedom could conceivably end up destroying us through overpopulation.

But rarely through any means other than force.

Action, yes. Force, no. How many people were killed in the struggle for suffrage and woman's liberation in the US?

Even then, I would generally find force to be the preferable engine for change because it is quicker(thus shortening the length of oppression), it gives the people more of an investment in their liberty(because they fought and died for it, rather than begged for a few generations), and it sends a strong message to future would-be tyrants.

It depends on the extremity of the oppression and the efficacy of force.

Ok, I'll bite, give me a historical example of an anarchy which survived more than a generation without becoming a tyranny or a tribal despotism.
Saga-period Iceland.


...and my argument wasn't that humans are evil scum. A small percentage are, a small percentage are good and virtuous, but most are scared, dim little things that have trouble thinking more than a turn or so ahead and tend to go with whoever they like more.
And that doesn't mean that there would be no laws or order.

Every single last goddamn one of us should have basic human rights.

Rights to life, uninterefered with by the state.
Rights to liberty, uninterefered with by the state.
Rights to property, uninterefered with by the state.

You had me up until honor and reputation. Thats vague, and I think it is likely to be read as a human right protection against being insulted or offended
It's a protection against malice and character assassination. Most western countries enshrine this right in the form of libel laws.

Here is where I start to have a major problem with the UN definition of human rights. These four articles cross the line from being human rights to being policy issues. I agree that most of these things are a good idea, I even agree that some of these things should be compelled, but they are not "rights." None of these issues are vital to the survival of an individual's freedom, they are preks of a sophisticated and civil society, signs that a culture has advanced to a point where it is able to provide a higher than minimal standard of living to it's people, but not inherant rights of human beings. Paid time off is not in the same league as freedom of conscience, universal secondary education should not stand on the same page as the right to not be owned by another human being.
It may appear to lean on the socialist side of things, but the same document mentions the right to private property.

The UDHR protects us from fundamentalism, be it religious, free-market, or communism.

Right, lets let this generation be raped, silenced, and mutilated. Maybe if we work hard the next will only be mutilated and silenced. After that maybe we'll only see some intimidation. Thats alot better than giving this generation guns and helping them kill the people trying to rape, silence, and mutilate them.
Do you live in the real world? I want all humans to have their rights, but I don't want to turn their countries into chaotic, war-torn hells in the process.

Actually, a "relativist" in the sense you were using it (very much distinct from the actual position of moral relativism, but I digress) would deny that violations that happen in the West are "violations" at all.
Good point.

People who point out such violations are not "relativists," they are people tired of the benevolent human rights rhetoric of the rulers of the world amidst the horrific atrocities they are all too fond of committing, and tired of the arrogant cultural chauvinism of the citizens of the Western countries who prefer to omit and ignore the atrocities committed by individuals belonging to their cultures.
Again here we go. The assumption that just because I criticise human rights abuses in the non-western world, it means that I don't campaign against them here in the west. A bullshit assumption.

No culture today respects human rights, Western cultures included. Treatment of gay people is simply one aspect of such respect.
Really? Care to list the human rights abuses that have been committed by Norway and Ireland lately? Even when Sweden let America have its way, the government at the time got fucked at the polls. The Swedish people respect human rights so they don't stand for "war on terror" bullshit.

Frequent and severe violations of human rights are worse than rare and minor violations.

No, it doesn't. I've never heard any leftist say that the deliberate killing of innocent gay people is acceptable if it is approved by majority vote, at least not without some compelling objective being pursued.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11459856&postcount=12
Irans only crime it appears is to try and do things differently.
Not a case of homosexuality, but it was rape/fornication which is another thing that fundies hate.

I agree. So do most people, including, most likely, most of those you label as "relativists."
Good, except that I usually hear this phrase applied exclusively to the US South. The phrase is appropriate in that case, but it should also be used to refer to Iran, etc.

How so?
It is universal, but not all cultures agree with its definition of human rights.

Go tell that to Iran!

False.
I'll respond to your other postings tomorrow, but seriously, how can you have laws without a governemnt?

Except cultures are not monolithic and they are not so clearly defined. They can change for the better without being completely overthrown.
This one's true. European society used to be as bad as anyone, but we fixed and improved without destroying the good things that we had made.

It's a protection against malice and character assassination. Most western countries enshrine this right in the form of libel laws.
But you don't own your reputation.


It may appear to lean on the socialist side of things, but the same document mentions the right to private property.
...and then proceeds to destroy it.

I'll respond to your other postings tomorrow, but seriously, how can you have laws without a governemnt?
Demonstrate that laws require a government. Don't bluster and hem and haw and say "Well, everyone knows it."

Rights to property, uninterefered with by the state.Why?

Why?
It's an interlocking right, alongside liberty and life. The three are inseperable.

That one's life belongs to one's self, and only one's self is the basis of ownership.

That I do what I will with my life in the form of liberty, is a further indicator of ownership over my life and my actions.

That I might be at liberty to do what I will with the physical results of my actions, which is property, the physical manifestation of my life and liberty.

To say that I cannot control the physical manifestations of my life and liberty is to say that I cannot control my life and liberty.

Much as to say that I cannot control my liberty is to say that I cannot control my life, and to say that I cannot control my life obviously shows that I cannot control my liberty or my property.

It's all or nothing. ∞ or 0, nothing in between.

Why do we need to judge cultures at all, ever? Judge actions; act to prevent them. That's simple enough. Why bring "culture" into it?

Because people act as groups, not as individuals. Further, quite a few of the problem actions have their roots in the cultures. Gays aren't denied full civil liberties in the US because someone happens to decide to deny they liberties, it is a coordinated effort by individuals because of their beliefs, which are firmly rooted in the culture of American fundamentalist christianism. It is not enough to address the action, you have to address the underlying causes: a morally rigid, obediance obsessed, highly paternalistic school of thought that treats any kind of dissidents as outsiders to be marginalized and intimidated into conformity. You have the same problem with fundamentalist Islam. People don't crash planes into buildings, force women into second-class roles, or execute homosexuals in a vaccuum; people commit these atrocities because of their cultures, because of the way they look at, and interact
with, the world.


No. The former was fought on the military front. To the extent the latter was fought at all, it was fought on the economic front and on the military front with proxies elsewhere.

I disagree. Both Europe and the United States had fascist and communist organizations active during the times leading up to these conflicts. The populace and the government had to decide not to go down that root. Remember, Germany voted for fascism. Europe has traditionally had(and many countries still have today) active communist parties and significant political parties which have embraced more moderate forms of socialism. These are choices that are made, to embrace one social construct over another.



Stalinism and fascism are social orders; they are not cultures. I can oppose them without bringing in culture into it at all.

There is little difference between the two. Social orders exist as the political expressions of a given culture.



Action, yes. Force, no. How many people were killed in the struggle for suffrage and woman's liberation in the US?

And exactly how far have women come? They have earned the vote, the right to work(though there are still significant social barriers), the ability to use birth control(if they happen to live in an area with enough pharmacists who are not obstructionists)and the right to decide who can use their bodies under what circumstances(kind of, depending on the state and the time frame). More importantly, all of these victories have been slow, hard-won, and are still embattled. I have to wonder if maybe the reason isn't that people are relatively safe in their ability to oppress women. When was the last time someone intimidating abortion seekers was killed? When was the last time an angry mob tarred and feathered a pharmacist who refused to give out contraception? When was the last time an anti-women's rights agitator found themselves shot in the way doctors are?

More than that, it is important to note that the women's rights movement is inherantly tied to the gay rights movement, which managed to make significant gains only with violence and the threat of violence.

It depends on the extremity of the oppression and the efficacy of force.

As long as you measure the violence to the level of oppression, you should be fine.

Because people act as groups, not as individuals.
*chokes and writhes on the ground*

Saga-period Iceland.


I find it hard to see how you view a culture with a parliament as an anarchy. Saga period might have been a time of minarchy, but it isn't anarchy. This is a system of rule, even if most of the people are considered free and without a king. They still got together, made laws, and exiled criminals. Sounds like governance to me.


And that doesn't mean that there would be no laws or order.

Only that in a true anarchy the laws would be subject to whoever could buy, intimidate, cajole, or convince enough of the population to overlook offenses.

I find it hard to see how you view a culture with a parliament as an anarchy.
The Althing wasn't a parliament.


Saga period might have been a time of minarchy, but it isn't anarchy. This is a system of rule, even if most of the people are considered free and without a king. They still got together, made laws, and exiled criminals. Sounds like governance to me.
Just because there are rules doesn't make it a government.


Only that in a true anarchy the laws would be subject to whoever could buy, intimidate, cajole, or convince enough of the population to overlook offenses.
Think you can prove it?

The Althing wasn't a parliament.



Just because there are rules doesn't make it a government.



Think you can prove it?

What are your minimum requirements to consider a group of people deciding on laws a government? Is a town council a government? What about a direct democracy, in which every person represents themselves?

What are your minimum requirements to consider a group of people deciding on laws a government? Is a town council a government? What about a direct democracy, in which every person represents themselves?
Beer

/stupid joke

If there is no existing higher form of government, I'd consider a town council a government in and of itself.

What are your minimum requirements to consider a group of people deciding on laws a government?
It needs to be a coercive territorial monopolist.

That I might be at liberty to do what I will with the physical results of my actions, which is property, the physical manifestation of my life and liberty. Not at all. At best, property merely begins with such a manifestation; it doesn't require a constant exertion of action. Therefore, it is not an extension of life and liberty, there is another step there that is missing.

Not at all. At best, property merely begins with such a manifestation; it doesn't require a constant exertion of action. Therefore, it is not an extension of life and liberty, there is another step there that is missing.
No, there is no step missing, that one put exertion into it, so as to 'improve' the object, is enough, for the amount of their life and liberty that was put into that piece of property will remain within it.

If I pour wine into a vessel and the cap the vessel and leave it there, the wine does not dissapear. The wine remains, even though no further exertion is required to put it into the vessel.

Every single last goddamn one of us should have basic human rights.

Rights to life, uninterefered with by the state.
Rights to liberty, uninterefered with by the state.
Rights to property, uninterefered with by the state.

Amazing how even centuries later those three little rights still cover just about everything of import, huh?

It's a protection against malice and character assassination. Most western countries enshrine this right in the form of libel laws.


Then it should be phrased as such. Incedentally, I'm not exactly a big fan of libel restrictions as a concept. The way that article is written is likely to be used to restrict speech that is seen as malicious, offensive, or an attack on honor. Look at how the UN responded to the Mohammed Cartoons farce, I seriously doubt that this passage would be restricted to individual non-satirical libel. The vague and easily abused wording of that article, combined with article 29, shows the flaws of trying to build a declairation of human rights in an organization where a good deal of it's members have a vested interest in the violation of basic human rights.

It may appear to lean on the socialist side of things, but the same document mentions the right to private property.

The UDHR protects us from fundamentalism, be it religious, free-market, or communism.

You've misunderstood my argument. I dont necessarily have a problem with quasi-socialist domestic policy, I have a problem with a document regarding human rights straying into social policy. The more broadly you define human rights, the more things you force or fake into that definition, the weaker the concept becomes. Those four articles provide an easy argument for anyone who wants to reject the document as a whole, they present a weak spot that neither needs to be there nor should be there.

Do you live in the real world? I want all humans to have their rights, but I don't want to turn their countries into chaotic, war-torn hells in the process.

Please, war is part of great social change. Besides, I generally feel it is the responsibility of the people to throw off their own chains. Take a look at Iraqi Kurdistan as an example. The Kurds were among the worst treated, most oppressed people in Iraq. An international force came in, crippled the military of the country that oppressed them, and the Kurds did the rest. For 15 years the Kurds maintained a basically autonomous state, then, even when the res of their country degenerated into hell, they kept it going. Kurdistan is the only place in Iraq where there isn't a problem with the insurgency. Why? Because the people who live there decided they wanted something better, that they were willing to fight for it.


Really? Care to list the human rights abuses that have been committed by Norway and Ireland lately? Even when Sweden let America have its way, the government at the time got fucked at the polls. The Swedish people respect human rights so they don't stand for "war on terror" bullshit.

Ah yes, Ireland, that great bastion of human rights where a woman who wants an abortion has to be able to afford to go to the UK or out to international waters...




http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11459856&postcount=12

Not a case of homosexuality, but it was rape/fornication which is another thing that fundies hate.


Good, except that I usually hear this phrase applied exclusively to the US South. The phrase is appropriate in that case, but it should also be used to refer to Iran, etc.


It is universal, but not all cultures agree with its definition of human rights.[/QUOTE]

Demonstrate that laws require a government. Don't bluster and hem and haw and say "Well, everyone knows it."

Laws do not require government. Meaningful laws, with protections against their circumvention, a sophisticated and consistant system for their application and prosecution, a framework for appeal, do need a government. There comes a point in a society when some individuals must ben given more authority than others, and that is the point at which government forms.

The Althing wasn't a parliament.


Hmm, the most powerful leaders of the region meeting to discuss legislation and dispense justice, sure sounds like a parliament to me. Every single reference I can find refers to it as a parliament, contemporary accounts make it sound like a parliament. What, exactly, makes it different, other than the absence of a king?


Think you can prove it?

No problem. Look at Africa over the past century. Pay special attention to places where formal governments have collapsed and tribal rule not dissimilar in structure to saga period Iceland has risen.

It needs to be a coercive territorial monopolist.

And there it is. For 99.9% of the people in a given discussion a government is considered a body that, well, governs. As an anarcho-capitalist you should know that this is the common meaning of the word government. If you are going to argue the need for government you need to be clear that you are using an unusual and highly specialized definition of the term.

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

No baby has ever been born free or dignified or endowed with reason and conscience. Some develope these traits later in life others do not. "A spirit of brotherhood" is a little pie in the sky, and nobody fights like brothers do in any case.

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.


Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

This is one place these articles should have been more ambiguous so as to allow wiggle room to deny some rights to people who abuse the rights (the criminally insane for instance) or people who need more rights (those who need diplomatic immunity for example). Sadly this is where this docunent is strictest and least ambiguous in it's overarching comprehensive inclusion of all humans.

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The right to liberty and in some cases life should not stand independent from behavior. Security of person and liberty are at serious odds with one another. Granting both to all people is optomistic to say the least

Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

In order that no person be held in servitude all standing armies will need to be abolished. This might be something to strive for but it would be difficult in extreme for nations without armies to enforce this right upon nations who do not believe in this right.

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Interesting. Since prison and in fact every form of punishment is degrading in the short run we can abolish courts. And spankings. And time outs. In fact any time a person is made to do something against their will it degrades them and shows them to be lesser than whomever is forcing them to behave in a way they do not wish to behave. So not only will prisons be vacant but schools will also be sparsely populated as well once these rights are actually granted.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.


Not til they are born they dont. It says so in article one.


Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

There goes freedom of speech down the toilet. We arent even allowed to incite discrimination against this declaration.

Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

The questions "Which constitution?" and "Who's law?" are eclipsed by the macabre humor of universal trust in the competence in national tribunals.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

One mans arbitrary is another man's reasonable. This is where this declaration could really stand to be less arbitrary and more precise.

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

I dont have a problem with this article save the wishy washy verbage regarding guarantees of defense.

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

This article reinforces that we are not free to say what we think. Under this article I could not call a politician a womanising asshole even if it was true. It is a trade off I suppose between liberty to speak and security against loud mouthed slanderers. I prefer being able to speak even if it means others are also allowed to speak.

Article 13
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
When this article is in concert with Article 9's no arbitrary exile it means that all borders must be opened to all people who wish to cross them, and in concert with other articles it means that people can move wherever they wish despite what people who already live in a country think. In any numbers. With any intent, military, political, or fiscal.

Article 14
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
This reinforces Article 13's open border policy unless and until the UN states it's purposes and principles. If any.

Article 15
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

We can each become a citizen of any nation or indeed all nations if we should choose to do so. Randomly and often. Yay.

Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Family values as determined and enforced by the UN. I wonder what the official UN positions on shacking up and on gay marriage are? Also "full age" by definition given in Article 1 means that no age discrimination can happen after birth. As long as the babies consent to be married.
Article 17

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

No baby has ever been born free or dignified or endowed with reason and conscience. Some develope these traits later in life others do not. "A spirit of brotherhood" is a little pie in the sky, and nobody fights like brothers do in any case.

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.


Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

This is one place these articles should have been more ambiguous so as to allow wiggle room to deny some rights to people who abuse the rights (the criminally insane for instance) or people who need more rights (those who need diplomatic immunity for example). Sadly this is where this docunent is strictest and least ambiguous in it's overarching comprehensive inclusion of all humans.

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The right to liberty and in some cases life should not stand independent from behavior. Security of person and liberty are at serious odds with one another. Granting both to all people is optomistic to say the least

Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

In order that no person be held in servitude all standing armies will need to be abolished. This might be something to strive for but it would be difficult in extreme for nations without armies to enforce this right upon nations who do not believe in this right.

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Interesting. Since prison and in fact every form of punishment is degrading in the short run we can abolish courts. And spankings. And time outs. In fact any time a person is made to do something against their will it degrades them and shows them to be lesser than whomever is forcing them to behave in a way they do not wish to behave. So not only will prisons be vacant but schools will also be sparsely populated as well once these rights are actually granted.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.


Not til they are born they dont. It says so in article one.


Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

There goes freedom of speech down the toilet. We arent even allowed to incite discrimination against this declaration.

Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

The questions "Which constitution?" and "Who's law?" are eclipsed by the macabre humor of universal trust in the competence in national tribunals.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

One mans arbitrary is another man's reasonable. This is where this declaration could really stand to be less arbitrary and more precise.

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

I dont have a problem with this article save the wishy washy verbage regarding guarantees of defense.

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

This article reinforces that we are not free to say what we think. Under this article I could not call a politician a womanising asshole even if it was true. It is a trade off I suppose between liberty to speak and security against loud mouthed slanderers. I prefer being able to speak even if it means others are also allowed to speak.

Article 13
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
When this article is in concert with Article 9's no arbitrary exile it means that all borders must be opened to all people who wish to cross them, and in concert with other articles it means that people can move wherever they wish despite what people who already live in a country think. In any numbers. With any intent, military, political, or fiscal.

Article 14
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
This reinforces Article 13's open border policy unless and until the UN states it's purposes and principles. If any.

Article 15
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

We can each become a citizen of any nation or indeed all nations if we should choose to do so. Randomly and often. Yay.

Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Family values determined and enforced by the UN. I wonder what the official UN positions on shacking up and on gay marriage are? Also "full age" by definition given in Article 1 means that no age discrimination can happen after birth. As long as the babies consent to be married.


I could go on with the rest of the articles but it doesnt get any better. This declaration was feel-good bullshit written by politicians with WWII's issues and aftermath too fresh on their minds to think clearly for the ages.

Human rights are extremely important. We are all equal and we are all the same. Dispite our differences in dress, language, etc. we all have emotions and feel pain. We all bleed the same blood and no one should be denied their rights no matter who they are. People need to step back and realise we are all human and our lives are all equal. Sorry if its been said before but thats just my 2cents.

Laws do not require government. Meaningful laws, with protections against their circumvention, a sophisticated and consistant system for their application and prosecution, a framework for appeal, do need a government.
Demonstrate it.

Hmm, the most powerful leaders of the region meeting to discuss legislation and dispense justice, sure sounds like a parliament to me.
Not to me.


Every single reference I can find refers to it as a parliament, contemporary accounts make it sound like a parliament.
And what references are those?


What, exactly, makes it different, other than the absence of a king?
The seats were not held via election or heredity, but could be transfered/sold.


No problem. Look at Africa over the past century.
Oh, you mean post-colonial socialism and chaos, not anarchy.



And there it is. For 99.9% of the people in a given discussion a government is considered a body that, well, governs.
They don't use the precise definition that is required.

... This declaration was feel-good bullshit written by politicians with WWII's issues and aftermath too fresh on their minds to think clearly for the ages.

Yeah, that can't happen again, we'll either all go together when we go, or just snipe each other to pieces with little wars. You disappoint me, NB. Your comments on several of the articles are disingenuous.

Thinking clearly for the ages is precisely what they were trying to do. It's an admirable goal, if probably unattainable in either of our lifetimes. I can be as cynical about the realities of the World as the next person, but sometimes you have to look forward.

Demonstrate it.

On the contrary, can you explain why a sophisticated framework of laws doesn't need a government to create and change it? Should we conduct a national referendum every single time we want to pass a new law? I'm curious as to how you think a large country could function without a government that fits your definition.

No, there is no step missing, that one put exertion into it, so as to 'improve' the object, is enough, for the amount of their life and liberty that was put into that piece of property will remain within it.How do we objectively determine whether or not something has been 'improved'?

If I pour wine into a vessel and the cap the vessel and leave it there, the wine does not dissapear. The wine remains, even though no further exertion is required to put it into the vessel.No, but if you put the vessel down and someone picks it up and moves it to some other place, they have added their labor to the vessel.

On the contrary, can you explain why a sophisticated framework of laws doesn't need a government to create and change it?
Burden of proof shift fallacy.

If I pour wine into a vessel and the cap the vessel and leave it there, the wine does not dissapear. The wine remains, even though no further exertion is required to put it into the vessel.

But we do not point to the wine bottle and declare that it owns the vessel.

The whole notion of natural property rights based on labor is ludicrous anyway; that which belongs to no one (and thus to everyone) cannot be claimed by someone simply on the basis that she alters it.

Did everyone else consent to let her acquire it? Did we sign a contract voiding all our claims? Did we agree to let her alter it, to let her add her precious labor and energy to the object? No; but we are obligated, allegedly, to respect this "right." We are obligated to assume that her use of it is okay (whatever she uses it for, indeed, even if she does not use it at all), simply because she claims it (and adds her labor to it, but this is essentially immaterial; I can "add my labor" to pretty much anything fairly easily.)

The only objects I can justly remove from their natural states, with regard to ownership, are objects I already have a claim to. Otherwise I am simply trampling on the claims of everyone else.

Edit: Furthermore, by the line of reasoning suggested by absolute natural property rights, pretty much all property today is illegitimate theft, and property rights being absolute, we should return it all to those stolen from.

...and then proceeds to destroy it.
No more than the private property part destroys the education part.

Ah yes, Ireland, that great bastion of human rights where a woman who wants an abortion has to be able to afford to go to the UK or out to international waters.
I didn't notice the right to get an abortion in the UDHR. Amnesty doesn't campaign for abortion choice like it campaigns against capital punishment.

I didn't notice the right to get an abortion in the UDHR. Amnesty doesn't campaign for abortion choice like it campaigns against capital punishment.

And Amnesty and the UDHR are the only determinants of what is in fact a human right?

No more than the private property part destroys the education part.
No it doesn't, since education isn't a right anyway.

Just a hint, Knights, that if followed might make things easier for all concerned:

When you reply to someone, rather than just putting closed, one-phrase answers such as "False", which came up a bit ago, you would do well to explain why you think it is false (in this case) and elaborate the point a bit. This would a) make it easier for everyone to appreciate what exactly you are getting at and b) advance the discussion more swiftly and directedly, rather than filling it with erroneous responses caused by lack of understanding of what exactly you are getting at.

Just a hint, Knights, that if followed might make things easier for all concerned:
Just a hint: when someone makes a statement that has no backing whatsoever, it is perfectly fine to simply gainsay the statement.

You'd know that if you knew anything about debate.

Just a hint: when someone makes a statement that has no backing whatsoever, it is perfectly fine to simply gainsay the statement.

You'd know that if you knew anything about debate.

Yeah, of course on the other hand you could be an irritable, irritating arrogant bastard with no social graces whatsoever.

:rolleyes: Geez you try to give someone a friendly pointer and this is what you get. Not to mention trying to remain civil throughout pages of 'debate' where every instinct screams at you to unleash the righteous anger.:rolleyes:

Yeah, of course on the other hand you could be an irritable, irritating arrogant bastard with no social graces whatsoever.

:rolleyes: Geez you try to give someone a friendly pointer and this is what you get. Not to mention trying to remain civil throughout pages of 'debate' where every instinct screams at you to unleash the righteous anger.:rolleyes:

Don't bother arguing with him. It's always futile.

Don't bother arguing with him. It's always futile.

Lol, I learned that several pages ago - about two pages before I gave up trying to actually have a debate with him.

Out of interest, does being a stubborn, arrogant, insulting wanker count as flamebaiting? :D

(I appreciate the irony there btw).

Lol, I learned that several pages ago - about two pages before I gave up trying to actually have a debate with him.

Out of interest, does being a stubborn, arrogant, insulting wanker count as flamebaiting? :D

(I appreciate the irony there btw).

Most of the people here are stubborn, arrogant, insulting wankers. Maybe you've noticed.

Anyway, I meet all kinds here.

Some who think that Robert's Rules of Order and every debate term they learned in high school is "in effect" here.

Some who have no tactic other than to call you "troll" or say you're using "talking points".

And a few nice people with a sense of humor.

But I digress...

Yeah, of course on the other hand you could be an irritable, irritating arrogant bastard with no social graces whatsoever.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.

Don't bother arguing with him. It's always futile.
That's because you got your intellectual ass kicked.

Most of the people here are stubborn, arrogant, insulting wankers. Maybe you've noticed.

Anyway, I meet all kinds here.

Some who think that Robert's Rules of Order and every debate term they learned in high school is "in effect" here.

Some who have no tactic other than to call you "troll" or say you're using "talking points".

And a few nice people with a sense of humor.

But I digress...

Well quite, and from time to time I expect I could well count myself as possessing some of those undesirable traits to a certain degree, for all that I try to be as pleasant and agreeable as the situation will allow.

Some, however, you must admit, and not wishing to mention any names or give any meaningful looks, do take it to extremes. Constantly. Whether out of ignorance or just a desire to be... well, undesirable we don't know, but there it is - even in such an enlightened place as NS Gen there will always be arsehole fundamentalists.

That's because you got your intellectual ass kicked.

You know, I didn't think it possible, but you have just dropped a notch or two in my reckoning. You could almost be proud of such a momumental achievement.

Oh and just out of interest, what is the BAAWA bit meant to mean?

Well quite, and from time to time I expect I could well count myself as possessing some of those undesirable traits to a certain degree, for all that I try to be as pleasant and agreeable as the situation will allow.

Some, however, you must admit, and not wishing to mention any names or give any meaningful looks, do take it to extremes. Constantly. Whether out of ignorance or just a desire to be... well, undesirable we don't know, but there it is - even in such an enlightened place as NS Gen there will always be arsehole fundamentalists.

You know, I didn't think it possible, but you have just dropped a notch or two in my reckoning. You could almost be proud of such a momumental achievement.

Oh and just out of interest, what is the BAAWA bit meant to mean?

I wonder how long it's going to take for people to realize that I am an extremely sophisticated parody.

Or are people that dense?

You know, I didn't think it possible, but you have just dropped a notch or two in my reckoning.
You say that as if I'm supposed to care.


Oh and just out of interest, what is the BAAWA bit meant to mean?
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/BAAWA

I wonder how long it's going to take for people to realize that I am an extremely sophisticated parody.

Or are people that dense?

:D I like to take some things at face value, simply for the entertainment they provide. Perhaps others are the same?

You say that as if I'm supposed to care.

Do you really think I'm stupid enough to still think you might have some trace of humanity left in you, such that not being considered a total nob by everyone, and shunned by all right-thinking members of society was a matter of some importance to such a depraved being as yourself?

Oh and thanks for the definition. However, all I can say to that as applied to you is... well, something along the lines of 'ahahahaha *wipes tears of mirth from eye*'. Only more so. But again, this is all futile since you, being the badass rebel that you are don't care about anyone besides yourself.

Do you really think I'm stupid enough to still think you might have some trace of humanity left in you, such that not being considered a total nob by everyone, and shunned by all right-thinking members of society was a matter of some importance to such a depraved being as yourself?
*yawn*

Wake me when you're not hysterical.

*yawn*

Wake me when you're not hysterical.

Of course, you yourself assume that I would consider your company worth waking you for. I'm quite happy to rant without you.

Of course, you yourself assume that I would consider your company worth waking you for. I'm quite happy to rant without you.
Then by all means: rant to yourself.

What do you think of the people who think of that as imperialist? I'm gravely concerned for the future of human rights in the world. The right opposes them as usual, but support for them is declining on the left as relativism increases. "Leftists" are actually saying that it's wrong for us to say that oppressing people is a human rights abuse, because that's "just the way we see it" and other people have "a different culture".
I don't see them as real leftists. They're what I call "neo-leftists." (The neo-left.) Bunch of idiots.

But we do not point to the wine bottle and declare that it owns the vessel.
You fundamentally misunderstand. I am claiming that the wine is akin to your life and liberty, and the piece of property is the vessel. A wine bottle without wine is pretty fucking worthless.

The whole notion of natural property rights based on labor is ludicrous anyway; that which belongs to no one (and thus to everyone) cannot be claimed by someone simply on the basis that she alters it.
If it belongs to no one it cannot belong to everyone. There is no claim to unimproved property, for anyone. Espescially not for everyone to hold equally. If it is unimproved, it belongs to the first person to pick it up. If it's just sitting around in nature, it's of no use to anybody.

Burden of proof shift fallacy.

I'm not sure that's strictly a fallacy. Also, I've already briefly stated why I think a government is necessary to create and give teeth to laws, and I just wanted to know why you think it isn't necessary. Your one-line responses and dismissals aren't very convincing.

You fundamentally misunderstand. I am claiming that the wine is akin to your life and liberty, and the piece of property is the vessel. A wine bottle without wine is pretty fucking worthless.

Forgive my flippancy.

If it belongs to no one it cannot belong to everyone.

To the contrary. A right to property implies an exclusive right. If I own something, no one else can use it. Objects before private ownership have no exclusive rights attached to them; they can be used freely for legitimate ends. Any person passing by an apple tree in the wilderness is free to pick an apple. When Locke says that the right to ownership cannot be based on universal consent because that would mean that we would all starve, he is failing to understand the notion of property; it is not granting someone a right as much as denying everyone else a right.

In the sense that anyone can use it, it belongs to everyone. But "belongs" may be the wrong word, because I do not mean that in order to use a particular piece of property, I must attain the consent of everyone, the way I have to attain the consent of the owner for ordinary property. That is simply tyranny. It merely means that I cannot say "this is mine, and nobody else can have it" unless I have some other kind of legitimate claim to that property (and everyone else withdrawing their claims would qualify). It also means that I cannot hoard in my usage; I cannot over-use in a manner that denies others the capability to use.

So it belongs to everyone in terms of use; everyone can use it. It belongs to no one in terms of exclusivity; no one is barred from using it.

"Natural" property rights, independent of the legal framework of a democratic government (which may or may not respect them), are simply forcible usurpation of that which belongs to all.

There is no claim to unimproved property, for anyone. Espescially not for everyone to hold equally. If it is unimproved, it belongs to the first person to pick it up. If it's just sitting around in nature, it's of no use to anybody.

How do you determine what is "improvement"?

I'm not sure that's strictly a fallacy. Also, I've already briefly stated why I think a government is necessary to create and give teeth to laws,
But you've not show why. You have the onus of proof. You're the one claiming that only a government can do it. So please--show that only a government can do it. Why is it not possible for private firms to create laws? Why is it not possible for legal codes to be sold on the market? Why is it not possible possible for there to be private police/defense agencies?

To the contrary. A right to property implies an exclusive right. If I own something, no one else can use it.
Actually, a group of people may own a business or building.


Objects before private ownership have no exclusive rights attached to them; they can be used freely for legitimate ends. Any person passing by an apple tree in the wilderness is free to pick an apple. When Locke says that the right to ownership cannot be based on universal consent because that would mean that we would all starve, he is failing to understand the notion of property; it is not granting someone a right as much as denying everyone else a right.
Bollocks. No one's rights are being denied.


"Natural" property rights, independent of the legal framework of a democratic government, are simply brutal usurpation of that which belongs to all.
Nothing "belongs to all". If it belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one.

Actually, a group of people may own a business or building.

I don't care to argue with you, but I'll use this transparently disingenuous criticism as an excuse to point out that when I said "no one else can use it" I meant "no one else can use it without my consent." Obviously, in modern times there is a great deal of property owned by someone who does not use it and who permits others to use it for money. This is perhaps the pinnacle absurdity of the Lockean framework of property rights, next to the fact that it's an ex post facto justification entirely irrelevant to the actual way property developed in our society. Who is it who labors away in a farm owned by a landlord, or a factory owned by a capitalist? Whose time and energy is invested? If we are serious about prescribing property rights based on labor investment, perhaps we should reconsider the whole idea of such forms of ownership, or indeed, of ownership of anything that I do not actively use.

But you've not show why. You have the onus of proof. You're the one claiming that only a government can do it. So please--show that only a government can do it. Why is it not possible for private firms to create laws? Why is it not possible for legal codes to be sold on the market? Why is it not possible possible for there to be private police/defense agencies?

Fine. If we give all power of lawmaking to private firms, I assume that the local/state/federal law code system would be replaced by a flood of competing private codes. In this case, we would just be fracturing one legal system into many. How would we determine who is charged under which code? Would it depend on whose property the crime was committed on? In any case, with so many codes floating around, rulings would constantly be disputed on the grounds that "I follow this code, instead" and we'd have some serious problems.

Government at least attempts (sometimes) to maintain a consensus on the best and most effective laws. The best part of having lawmaking and law-enforcement authority rest with the state alone is that it would be less possible for individuals to harness that kind of power for their personal gain - since the best kind of government is accountable to all of the people, it has to make an effort to deal fairly with everyone. Even if individuals still do take advantage of their power within government, they are sometimes dealt with (in Georgia, the former secretary of education was recently sentenced to up to eight years in prison for stealing hundreds of thousands from her department, one example.)

If you don't believe in taxation at all, though, I don't think we could ever agree on anything politically. Nothing to be done about that.

I don't care to argue with you,
...because you can't anyway.


but I'll use this transparently disingenuous criticism as an excuse to point out that when I said "no one else can use it" I meant "no one else can use it without my consent."
That's better.


Obviously, in modern times there is a great deal of property owned by someone who does not use it and who permits others to use it for money. This is perhaps the pinnacle absurdity of the Lockean framework of property rights, next to the fact that it's an ex post facto justification entirely irrelevant to the actual way property developed in our society.
And why do you presume that all people who argue for property rights do so from a purely Lockean standpoint?


Who is it who labors away in a farm owned by a landlord, or a factory owned by a capitalist?
Who is the one who invested the time, money, and risk?

You also might want to brush up on non-purely-Lockean justifications for property rights. They do exist, y'know.

Fine. If we give all power of lawmaking to private firms, I assume that the local/state/federal law code system would be replaced by a flood of competing private codes. In this case, we would just be fracturing one legal system into many.
Is that bad?


How would we determine who is charged under which code?
Location and/or contract.


Would it depend on whose property the crime was committed on? In any case, with so many codes floating around, rulings would constantly be disputed on the grounds that "I follow this code, instead" and we'd have some serious problems.
No we wouldn't.

And please, don't give me that nonsense about "Company A would go to war with Company B because someone covered under Company A's policy is hiding from Company B". Won't work.


Government at least attempts (sometimes) to maintain a consensus on the best and most effective laws.
Only if you live in a magic land of fairies and elves.


The best part of having lawmaking and law-enforcement authority rest with the state alone is that it would be less possible for individuals to harness that kind of power for their personal gain
*coughcorruptpoliticianscough*


- since the best kind of government is accountable to all of the people, it has to make an effort to deal fairly with everyone.
*coughJimCrowLawscough*

*coughcorruptpoliticianscough*



*coughJimCrowLawscough*


Quoting myself...

"since the best kind of government is accountable to all of the people, it has to make an effort to deal fairly with everyone. Even if individuals still do take advantage of their power within government, they are sometimes dealt with

I don't think the government that passed Jim Crow laws was the best kind of government. In fact, I'm talking more about as close to an ideal form of democracy as a government can get. Can't you explain how a total lack of government would be better? I'm interested to know.

Quoting myself...

"since the best kind of government is accountable to all of the people, it has to make an effort to deal fairly with everyone. Even if individuals still do take advantage of their power within government, they are sometimes dealt with

I don't think the government that passed Jim Crow laws was the best kind of government.
It's governments that we have now.


In fact, I'm talking more about as close to an ideal form of democracy as a government can get.
Democracy is a bad thing:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe2.html


Can't you explain how a total lack of government would be better?
I'm not the one advocating for a coercive monopoly, am I? Are coercive monopolies good?

It's governments that we have now.

Democracy is a bad thing:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe2.html

I'm not the one advocating for a coercive monopoly, am I? Are coercive monopolies good?

I don't know how to respond at this point. I was asking you to explain how you think a system of lawmaking and law-enforcing other than that of majority-elected government would succeed. You come back with "well, you think government is good and you're obviously wrong." What?

Also, I was talking about the ideal form of government, which in my mind is fully accountable to the people. Yes, no government that exists now in the world reaches this ideal, so it's more of a thought experiment.

I don't know how to respond at this point. I was asking you to explain how you think a system of lawmaking and law-enforcing other than that of majority-elected government would succeed.
I have given you some tidbits. You either need to explain why governments are necessary or ask better questions.

I have given you some tidbits. You either need to explain why governments are necessary or ask better questions.

I've given you my ideas in brief. I'm really feeling like this whole discussion is futile.

I've given you my ideas in brief. I'm really feeling like this whole discussion is futile.

It's taken you this long to realise that?

Thinking clearly for the ages is precisely what they were trying to do. It's an admirable goal, if probably unattainable in either of our lifetimes. I can be as cynical about the realities of the World as the next person, but sometimes you have to look forward.

I can agree with universal human rights being a good thing that is worth striving for. The declaration of human rights was a horribly written and conceived way to go about it. What's worse is that some people actually believe and quote this piece of tripe as actual. Instead of wastuing their energies on pipe dreams the UN could have concentrated on actually only trying to reach what it might hope to grasp. It still could. However to some degree this declaration is in the way of actual progress while not actually investing any rights in any person anywhere. I very well may be disingenuous but not half so much as this declaration and Im not hindering any real progress in human rights in the way this declaration is.

I've given you my ideas in brief. I'm really feeling like this whole discussion is futile.
Because it calls into question your entire belief structure about government.

It's taken you this long to realise that?
You say that because you're just not intelligent enough to actually have a discussion.

Demonstrate it.

You're being intentionally difficult now, but fine, I'll try one more time.

Lets look at major disasters, the kinds of things which knock out government but do not destroy all of the people involved(hurricanes, tsunamis, civil wars, etc). Now, according to your arguments, if a society had common law and good leaders it should be fine. Law and order should continue, justice would go on, the rules would remain even without the coercive authority of the government. I'll grant you, that is true for a good percentage of the people(if only because they are too lazy, dim, or afraid to change), but not for all. Those handful of people who take advantage of the lack of strong authority ruin anarchy. Yugoslavia is an example of a people(or group of peoples) with a common law history, they were taken over by a highly coercive government(Tito's reigeme), and when that reigeme collapsed they....dissolved into chaos with the strongest and most charismatic leaders allowing their followers to break every social norm(murder, rape, assault, the theft of personal property) as long as they only victimized "the other."

Now, lets look at the Titanic. Again, we have a people with a strong history of common law who do fine even without government(in international waters the only real authority is the captain) until something bad happens. Even though there were rules regarding who got to use the life boats, you had men going instead of women and children, the rich going first, and the strong taking what they could manage.

The asian Tsunami. Law abiding cultures, relatively stable social structure, big social disruption, then you had internation aid workers racing to try to prevent orphans from being kidnapped by international slavers. Oh, and now theres a rape epidemic in costal areas.

Hurricane Katrina. Common law culture, disaster strikes, the government has fled, everything goes Lord of the Flies.

If you want more examples you can look at the history of Africa post WWII, but I'm getting kind of bored.


Not to me.


Then what in the hell would you call it?


The seats were not held via election or heredity, but could be transfered/sold.

Surely the best way to ensure that wealth or power does not influence justice.

Snarking aside, you dodged the question. The Althing gathered to make laws and dispense justice, how is that different from any other legislative body?



Oh, you mean post-colonial socialism and chaos, not anarchy.

Sometimes, but governments in Africa have a history of collapse. They fold, they fall apart, civil wars erupt, and in the absence of government(or under ineffectual government) you have anarchy.



They don't use the precise definition that is required.

No, they don't use the precise definition you have formed in order to solve your cognitive dissonance. You are using an uncommon definition of government that is only generally accepted by a small group of economists and philosophers who ascribe to a specific ideology. In doing so you are attempting to frame the argument in a manner most adventageous to yourself. More to the point, you didn't have the decency to explain that you were using this highly specialized definition instead of the standard one that common sense would have lead you to assume everyone else was using.

That leads me to believe that you aren't arguing to convince, you aren't debating, you are prostelytizing. Maybe you're looking for whole cloth converts, maybe you're hoping to find like-minded individuals, maybe you just want to internally reinforce your arguments. Regardless, it is counter productive to the discussion.

Democracy is a bad thing:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe2.html

Yeah, representitive democracy is a bad thing. Still, trust me kid, you wouldn't like the alternative. Its the best of a bad set of options. Democracy works because it is so far the system we have built that is least likely to devolved into despotism. Limited government power coupled with a government that is just strong enough to take down individuals who would abuse others keeps tyranny at bay.

Would I like anarchy if it could work? Sure.

Even if it didn't work, I don't have much to worry about. I'm a man, in the racial majority for my area. I'm charismatic, people like me, I'm good with a gun, I'm above the 90th percentile in terms of physical size and I keep in decent shape, I'm above the 98th percentile in terms of intelligence. I'd do just fine in an anarchy, even a failing one. I know quite a few people who wouldn't, and even if I could manage to protect those I cared about, it would almost have to be at the expense of others.

I have given you some tidbits. You either need to explain why governments are necessary or ask better questions.

I hate to interrupt your stroke fantasy, but you're no guru and we aren't sitting at your feet. You're on an internet discussion board. You don't give tidbits and just linking to whole essays by whovers on the cover of Teen Anarch Swoon doesn't count as an argument. Tell us why those esssays matter, explain what convinced you, because at this point you look about as convincing as the guy who yells "believe in jesus" and hands you a bible on the subway.

Perhaps you should listen to others rather than waiting for them to ask the right questions so you can shoot back with the answer you've been feverishly crafting. Think on your feet, think for yourself, or go somewhere else. I'm sure you can find some nice marxists somewhere to deafly duke it out with.

You say that because you're just not intelligent enough to actually have a discussion.

Yet you can't seem to be bothered to have one. Snide "prove it!" remarks and links to the essays of better people than yourself aren't a discussion. You sound like the arrogant professor who fakes mastery of a subject by assigning mountains of reading and demanding the students defend themselves while refusing to contribute anything original or analytical of his own.

I can agree with universal human rights being a good thing that is worth striving for. The declaration of human rights was a horribly written and conceived way to go about it. What's worse is that some people actually believe and quote this piece of tripe as actual. Instead of wastuing their energies on pipe dreams the UN could have concentrated on actually only trying to reach what it might hope to grasp. It still could. However to some degree this declaration is in the way of actual progress while not actually investing any rights in any person anywhere. I very well may be disingenuous but not half so much as this declaration and Im not hindering any real progress in human rights in the way this declaration is.
Perhaps the problem with discussing human rights and ethics and "good versus evil" is that as abstract concepts they're worthless. There's no point in being good all by yourself, you have to do it in relation to other people. The UN can't do anything but try to set a good example, of which the UDHR is one. As long as countries on this planet always say, "All very good, we like it, BUT don't you bring those powder-blue helmets over here and try enforcing anything" that's all it will be, a noble attempt to set down what rights human beings ought to have. Sad, really. Still, hope springs eternal.

To the contrary. A right to property implies an exclusive right. If I own something, no one else can use it. Objects before private ownership have no exclusive rights attached to them; they can be used freely for legitimate ends. Any person passing by an apple tree in the wilderness is free to pick an apple. When Locke says that the right to ownership cannot be based on universal consent because that would mean that we would all starve, he is failing to understand the notion of property; it is not granting someone a right as much as denying everyone else a right.

In the sense that anyone can use it, it belongs to everyone. But "belongs" may be the wrong word, because I do not mean that in order to use a particular piece of property, I must attain the consent of everyone, the way I have to attain the consent of the owner for ordinary property. That is simply tyranny. It merely means that I cannot say "this is mine, and nobody else can have it" unless I have some other kind of legitimate claim to that property (and everyone else withdrawing their claims would qualify). It also means that I cannot hoard in my usage; I cannot over-use in a manner that denies others the capability to use.

So it belongs to everyone in terms of use; everyone can use it. It belongs to no one in terms of exclusivity; no one is barred from using it.

"Natural" property rights, independent of the legal framework of a democratic government (which may or may not respect them), are simply forcible usurpation of that which belongs to all.
Ah, so that's it. I totally disagree, and I know we'd not be able to come to agreement on the basis of this original normative judgement. There's no point in wasting my time on another thread like this.



How do you determine what is "improvement"?
It's individually subjective. What I consider improvement, you might not, and vice versa. As such, we accept what your claim of improvement is, as long as you continue to accept what mine is.

U.N. Declaration of Human Rights;

The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights sounds good to me. Please read them then tell me what you think.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html


Here is a link to numerous Human Rights Websites ... check them out.

http://search.hp.netscape.com/hp/search?fromPage=HPSidebar&query=US+Human+Rights&x=22&y=9

Ah, so that's it. I totally disagree, and I know we'd not be able to come to agreement on the basis of this original normative judgement. There's no point in wasting my time on another thread like this.

Like I said on the other thread, I don't think it's that simple. This kind of approach - "it's just arbitrary" - is (real) moral relativism at its worst. I understand that you disagree, but just as I have reasons to reject the framework you have proposed - and have tried to state them - undoubtedly you have reasons you reject my alternative as well.

I don't know if we disagree on "original" premises. What we disagree on is a framework of property, and our disagreement may well be based on different perspectives on the implications of essentially similar original premises.

If you really don't want to argue this out, don't, but for anyone interested, I'll elaborate a bit on the point I was making in my reply to you, hopefully in a manner that will meaningfully distinguish it from mere contradiction.

What you have argued is that property rights are justly based on the investment of labor in the improvement of something. I think you would agree, however, that if I invest labor to "improve" something that belongs to another, that does not make it my property. The idea that something in nature belongs to no one in every sense doesn't work, because it is clearly false. People freely use things in nature (drinking from creeks, picking fruit from trees, hunting and eating animals, etc.), and I don't think many people would object to that; in this sense it belongs to all, because the right to use is available to all. You could say that this is the equivalent of acquisition by labor, but it's not, and the crucial difference is that when I stop using something in nature, the next person who comes along can use it. Thus everyone has a certain kind of property right over everything in nature; they have the right not to have their free use interfered with.

It follows that if I do make a claim of ownership - and not of mere right to use, equivalent to those of all others - I have usurped the rights to use of all others. It is theft, not legitimate acquisition.

I think perhaps the root of this difficulty is the confusion of "use" and "ownership." I need not exclusively own something in order to use it. Thus we need not assign exclusive rights to property over things in nature simply because people use them; we should not say that something over which no exclusive property rights are held is useless, because clearly it can be used, it merely cannot be owned.

It's individually subjective. What I consider improvement, you might not, and vice versa. As such, we accept what your claim of improvement is, as long as you continue to accept what mine is.

But what if you claim to "improve" something that I have not claimed to improve, but that I am using? Why must I accept the loss of my right to use on the basis of your subjective judgment? A subjective notion of improvement is useless; it adds essentially nothing to the simpler notion of "what I make/alter, I own."

What if I belong to a tribe of hunter-gatherers and am using the plants and animals of the region for food, and you and other agriculturists come in and begin destroying large tracks of the wilderness to plant your farms? To you, this is undoubtedly an "improvement" - but, of course, it is not to us. We have not "improved" anything, and indeed, we have no desire to do so; any such "improvement" would not be "improvement" to us. Yet is not an injustice being inflicted upon us anyway? Why should we respect your property rights?

Lets look at major disasters, the kinds of things which knock out government but do not destroy all of the people involved(hurricanes, tsunamis, civil wars, etc). Now, according to your arguments, if a society had common law and good leaders it should be fine.
Generally.


Law and order should continue, justice would go on, the rules would remain even without the coercive authority of the government.
You're comparing what we have now to what it would be under anarchocapitalism without exploring the fact that there would be multiple police agencies and other such.


I'll grant you, that is true for a good percentage of the people(if only because they are too lazy, dim, or afraid to change), but not for all. Those handful of people who take advantage of the lack of strong authority ruin anarchy. Yugoslavia is an example of a people(or group of peoples) with a common law history,
Not really. Yugoslavia was created by a League of Nations mandate. Brought together a bunch of people who hated each other.


they were taken over by a highly coercive government(Tito's reigeme), and when that reigeme collapsed they....dissolved into chaos with the strongest and most charismatic leaders allowing their followers to break every social norm(murder, rape, assault, the theft of personal property) as long as they only victimized "the other."
Years of tribal hatred and being forced to live side-by-side with your bitter enemy can do that.


Now, lets look at the Titanic. Again, we have a people with a strong history of common law who do fine even without government(in international waters the only real authority is the captain) until something bad happens. Even though there were rules regarding who got to use the life boats, you had men going instead of women and children, the rich going first, and the strong taking what they could manage.
And? Trying to use the "ethics of disaster" to prove some non-point?


The asian Tsunami. Law abiding cultures, relatively stable social structure, big social disruption, then you had internation aid workers racing to try to prevent orphans from being kidnapped by international slavers. Oh, and now theres a rape epidemic in costal areas.
And that's supposed to mean.....?


Hurricane Katrina. Common law culture, disaster strikes, the government has fled,
Funny--I saw police there. What video footage were you looking at?


If you want more examples you can look at the history of Africa post WWII, but I'm getting kind of bored.
Oh, you mean post-colonial socialism and chaos?

I'm actually getting bored, too. I see nothing which provides any backing to your claims. You just said "this is evidence" and didn't explain one whit as to why it is evidence.


Then what in the hell would you call it?
A tribal council.



Surely the best way to ensure that wealth or power does not influence justice.
Yes.


Snarking aside, you dodged the question.
I did no such thing.


The Althing gathered to make laws and dispense justice, how is that different from any other legislative body?
Was it a coercive territorial monopoly?



Sometimes, but governments in Africa have a history of collapse.
Due to socialism and tribal warfare.


They fold, they fall apart, civil wars erupt, and in the absence of government(or under ineffectual government) you have anarchy.
What you have in many places in Africa is chaos.



No, they don't use the precise definition you have formed
If by you you mean "people who have studied political science", then you're correct.


Yeah, representitive democracy is a bad thing. Still, trust me kid, you wouldn't like the alternative.
Trust me, kid: I would.


Its the best of a bad set of options. Democracy works because it is so far the system we have built that is least likely to devolved into despotism.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



I hate to interrupt your stroke fantasy, but you're no guru and we aren't sitting at your feet.
I actually do love to interrupt your idiotic fantasy, because that's not what I'm meaning.

Perhaps you could be bothered to use your brain, just for once.


Yet you can't seem to be bothered to have one.
But I am.

Now then, either make a point or concede.

You say that because you're just not intelligent enough to actually have a discussion.

Don't be condescending. It's a major turn-off with the ladies.

But what if you claim to "improve" something that I have not claimed to improve, but that I am using? Why must I accept the loss of my right to use on the basis of your subjective judgment? A subjective notion of improvement is useless; it adds essentially nothing to the simpler notion of "what I make/alter, I own."

What if I belong to a tribe of hunter-gatherers and am using the plants and animals of the region for food, and you and other agriculturists come in and begin destroying large tracks of the wilderness to plant your farms? To you, this is undoubtedly an "improvement" - but, of course, it is not to us. We have not "improved" anything, and indeed, we have no desire to do so; any such "improvement" would not be "improvement" to us. Yet is not an injustice being inflicted upon us anyway? Why should we respect your property rights?
You've obviously improved it, by making use of it for your survival. Like I said, improvement is subjective, and if it's clear to yourself that you've improved it, then anyone who would take it away from you is a thief, and you should cane their asses.

Don't be condescending. It's a major turn-off with the ladies.
I wasn't aware that this was a dating service.

You've obviously improved it, by making use of it for your survival. Like I said, improvement is subjective, and if it's clear to yourself that you've improved it, then anyone who would take it away from you is a thief, and you should cane their asses.

If we can have property rights by mere use, I think you run into another problem. Once, at least, there were humans living in most areas of wilderness on the planet. Indeed, the "state of nature" consisted of exactly that. Almost everything in the wilderness, thus, was either being actively used by people or had considerable potentiality to be used by them, especially considering that many of them were not static. Indeed, if this were not the case, there would be no need for property rights at all; why bother with a right to property over something that no one else would use? Thus, "legitimate acquisition" in terms of things like land becomes nearly always theft; it is the illegitimate acquisition of something that others have already acquired. Even ordinary usage for purposes of substinence - picking apples off trees, etc. - becomes illegitimate if I happen to fall within the territory of others, something that is completely subjective because its means of definition are completely subjective.

You've obviously improved it, by making use of it for your survival. Like I said, improvement is subjective, and if it's clear to yourself that you've improved it, then anyone who would take it away from you is a thief, and you should cane their asses.If I may make an alternative point to what Soheran is trying to say, I would agree that the person has the right to try to stop the thief; but what if that person can't do so? Why should I, or anyone else be obligated to help them do so unless I agree to do so?

Don't be condescending. It's a major turn-off with the ladies.

Bah! Ladies are just an offshoot of a higher organisation, a coercive territorial monopolist. Knights needs them not, for surely if we were to have no ladies then we would all be better off - we would have privatised reproduction-and-pleasure services, and they would function far better than actual ladies.

Bah! Ladies are just an offshoot of a higher organisation, a coercive territorial monopolist. Knights needs them not, for surely if we were to have no ladies then we would all be better off - we would have privatised reproduction-and-pleasure services, and they would function far better than actual ladies.
And you wonder why I look down on you.

And you wonder why I look down on you.

Because I'm shorter than you?

Generally.

No, not generally. In theory, if you accept your philsophy, then it should. The problem is that history, sociology, and human psychology simply do not support your theory.

I asked you for one example of a successful anarch culture, you provided saga period Iceland. Lets take a closer look, shall we? Your sole example of a successful anarchy is a culture that had a general disrespect for individual liberty(in the form of slavery), was ruled by wealth, and had a legislature which both made law and dispensed justice. Reports supporting it as a successful anarchy are between 700 and 1000 years old, and focus mostly on geneology. Even then, this successful anarchy survived only about 300 years before degenerating into civil war and pledging fealty to a king. On top of that, it had few external threats because it was a harsh and relatively invaluable terrain that was geographically remote given contemporary technology. That is your poster child. If anarchy worked, it is likely we would have seen a few others worth mentioning in the various political uphevals that have happened across the globe over the past seven or eight hundred years.


You're comparing what we have now to what it would be under anarchocapitalism without exploring the fact that there would be multiple police agencies and other such.

That is the theory. The problem with anarchocapitalism is that it is a utopian system. It has no viable means of transition, and requires quite a few variables to tip in just the right direction.



Not really. Yugoslavia was created by a League of Nations mandate. Brought together a bunch of people who hated each other.

And anarchocapitalism would be different how? Group A and Group B hate eathother and plan to destroy eachother, both have their own police forces and judiciaries, how will the conflict be settled other than the strong killing the weak? What external force will prevent the more ugly examples of human nature?


And? Trying to use the "ethics of disaster" to prove some non-point?



And that's supposed to mean.....?

The point I am making, if you had bothered paying attention, is that humans don't do well without some kind of guidance.



Funny--I saw police there. What video footage were you looking at?

Not in the first few days, not in the poorer areas, not in the giant shelters, not enough to keep watch. The problem with anarchy is that you have supervision that is unable to keep an effective watch. There is a reason there were quite a few rapes and assaults in the wake of Katrina, and it is the same reason that there was quite a bit of looting. The reason is that a good portion of human beings behave because they are afraid of the consequences, take away that fear and they do what they want.

Anarchy depends on people being smart enough to create and maintain a well-funded police force voluntarily. It requires all public service to be maintained voluntarily. Anarchy is particularily vulnerable to what social psychologists call the commons dilemma. Common resources are not generally well respected because their loss is not perceived as a personal loss but rather as a loss for the other. Someone who does not perceive themselves as being threatened by a particular force is unlikely to spend money to defend themselves against it.

Sure, the argument can be made that those who do not fund the police force should not gain it's protection(a user-fee argument). The problem there is that it creates classes of people(those unable to afford protection) who can be victimized without fear of retribution. Even if the police force is tasked to defend those who do not pay, they are unlikely to provide adequate protection to poorer areas. The fact that these civil servants are actually being directly paid by citizens rather than by a government is likely to exaggerate these existing problems by increasing accountability("why were you in X area instead of Y, X pays more and if you fail there we lose funding").



I'm actually getting bored, too. I see nothing which provides any backing to your claims. You just said "this is evidence" and didn't explain one whit as to why it is evidence.

It is fairly clear at this point that you see what you choose to.



A tribal council.

And the circle starts again because even though a tribal council is responsible for governance you do not consider it a government because that would mean a concession to the concept of external authority. Instead, you define government extremely narrowly as a "coercive monopoly," presumably of land. I'll go one step further. Any tribal council necessarily claims a monopoly on power in order to make it's laws and ruling binding. It maintains this power the same way virtually every other form of government does: by force. To continue on your Iceland example: take Erik the Red. Erik was exiled for manslaughter. Say he returned, what would the penalty have been? Would he have been executed? Physically forced from the land?

All enforcement of law requires coercion. More to the point, all authority(including tribal councils) require a monopoly on coercive force in order to maintain their validity. If they lack that monopoly, then a conflict will ensue between the parties which claim authority. Say Erik returned to Iceland with his own coercive force, founded a paralell tribal council which said he could remain, and told the Althing to suck it through a straw. What would have happened in the face of this challenge to the monopoly on coercive force that the Althing needed?

There are a few options. The first is that the Althing could have backed down. The problem with this is that any wise ruler would realize that such an action would be seen as a sign of weakness and any rulings the Althing made after would be called into question and possibly challenged. The next option is that some kind of compromise could be hammered out. Again, this would cause a serious social problem because it would mean that anyone with the power or charisma to directly challenge a ruling against them would be able to avoid justice. The final(and most likely) response would be for the two powers to draw weapons and fight until only one still claimed authority.

The problem with anarchy is that, in the absence of a monopoly on coercive force, the application of law is decided by whoever has the most ability in a given situation to assert authority. Its good when the good guy has the power, but once that changes everything goes to hell. The very instant that the most powerful force in the reigion decides that it doesn't like this whole anarchy thing and begins to consolodate power, the system fails and you end up with a despotism.


Was it a coercive territorial monopoly?

Did it attempt to enforce it's laws and rulings through force?




Due to socialism and tribal warfare.

Yet your shining example of anarchocapitalism is a loose grouping of tribes, which warred.




Now then, either make a point or concede.

Ok, I'll make a point, you'll neither like it nor agree, but I'll make it. Then I'm done because we are on the virge of threadjacking. Anarchocapitalism is a good idea. Not perfect, I feel that it focuses on economic freedoms to the detriment of individual liberty, but that is an issue of subjective valuation, not objecttive fact. The big problem with anarchocapitalism is that it simply isn't feasible. It would require too many major changes to society and too much luck to work. Even then, it would be counterproductive because it's tribal nature wouldn't jibe well with the increasingly global culture our world is moving towards. A more pragmatic(and effective) approach would be to look at anarchocapitalism and figure out what parts of the system you favor and why, then attempt to impliment those into the system in which you live.

In the real world, there simply isn't the support for revolution in most industrialized nations. Yeah, it sucks for absolutists, but I think it is rathr a good thing. It means that the extremists get weeded out, it means that while I am denied a total victory, so are those who I am opposed to. It means that compromise is required and a composoite form of government will be built. I'm a classical liberal/libertarian, but I'm realistic enough to know that there is little chance of leading a libertarian revolution. As a result, arguing why an impossible dream would be good is, at best, academic. Instead, I support movements, candidates, and organizations which I feel are likely to move towards my goals. Other people get to do the same and chaos is held at bay for that much longer.

Man isn't immune to the natural universe. Entropy is always nipping at our heals. Man builds socities in order to hold chaos at bay. Human rights(to get back on topic) are a good thing because they create ground rules, they prevent government from doing things that would make the whole excercise invalid.

Now, if you want to further debate something other than human rights, start a thread, maybe the market will show there is a real need for it. Maybe not.

Because I'm shorter than you?
Among other reasons.

No, not generally.
Yes, generally.


In theory, if you accept your philsophy, then it should. The problem is that history, sociology, and human psychology simply do not support your theory.
They do. We're not at war with each other.


I asked you for one example of a successful anarch culture, you provided saga period Iceland. Lets take a closer look, shall we? Your sole example of a successful anarchy is a culture that had a general disrespect for individual liberty(in the form of slavery), was ruled by wealth, and had a legislature which both made law and dispensed justice.
You simply wanted an example of a successful anarchy, nothing more.


Reports supporting it as a successful anarchy are between 700 and 1000 years old, and focus mostly on geneology. Even then, this successful anarchy survived only about 300 years before degenerating into civil war and pledging fealty to a king.
Actually, it was the influx of xer missionaries which did them in.



That is the theory. The problem with anarchocapitalism is that it is a utopian system.
No it's not.

See: when you make a claim that has no backing whatsoever, I'll just gainsay you.



And anarchocapitalism would be different how?
Who's going to be forced to live next to someone they hate?

Are you really that dumb?


Group A and Group B hate eathother and plan to destroy eachother, both have their own police forces and judiciaries, how will the conflict be settled other than the strong killing the weak?
And how do the police forces get money?


What external force will prevent the more ugly examples of human nature?
What external force prevents wars like we have in Iraq right now? Answer: none.

So I fail to see what your point is. You try to say that my system won't protect against such-and-such, but such-and-such isn't protected against right now!



The point I am making,
You make points?


if you had bothered paying attention, is that humans don't do well without some kind of guidance.
And there wouldn't be guidance in the form of laws....why?



Not in the first few days,
Yes in the first few days. I don't know what videos you've been watching, but there were police there in the first few days.

Lying does not get you points, bubby.


not in the poorer areas, not in the giant shelters, not enough to keep watch. The problem with anarchy is that you have supervision that is unable to keep an effective watch. There is a reason there were quite a few rapes and assaults in the wake of Katrina,
Because those who were left behind were mostly the infirm or infantalized by a government-run welfare system to the point where they had regressed to serious anti-social behavior.


Anarchy depends on people being smart enough to create and maintain a well-funded police force voluntarily.
Sorta like creating and maintaining a carpet cleaning service.


It requires all public service to be maintained voluntarily. Anarchy is particularily vulnerable to what social psychologists call the commons dilemma.
No, that's what statism is vulnerable to. Since no one really owns the "government" land, it gets royally fucked. And since no one has a real stake in the government, it's grab all you can now and fuck the future.

You'd do well to read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed.


Sure, the argument can be made that those who do not fund the police force should not gain it's protection(a user-fee argument). The problem there is that it creates classes of people(those unable to afford protection) who can be victimized without fear of retribution. Even if the police force is tasked to defend those who do not pay, they are unlikely to provide adequate protection to poorer areas. The fact that these civil servants are actually being directly paid by citizens rather than by a government is likely to exaggerate these existing problems by increasing accountability("why were you in X area instead of Y, X pays more and if you fail there we lose funding").
Nah, you're still thinking like a statist. Why can't there be contracts, just like you contract to have your carpet cleaned or to have a house built?



It is fairly clear at this point that you see what you choose to.
No, it actually isn't. All I saw were examples of emergencies. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know that I'm not), but emergencies aren't the norm. That's why they're called emergencies.



And the circle starts again because even though a tribal council is responsible for governance you do not consider it a government because that would mean a concession to the concept of external authority.
No.


Instead, you define government extremely narrowly as a "coercive monopoly,"
That's the definition.


All enforcement of law requires coercion. More to the point, all authority(including tribal councils) require a monopoly on coercive force in order to maintain their validity.
Prove it.


If they lack that monopoly, then a conflict will ensue between the parties which claim authority.
Prove it.



Yet your shining example of anarchocapitalism
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Goalpost shifting. You wanted an example of anarchy, not anarchocapitalism. Don't try to shift the goalposts now. Hell, I can even quote you from above if you like.



Ok, I'll make a point, you'll neither like it nor agree, but I'll make it. Then I'm done because we are on the virge of threadjacking. Anarchocapitalism is a good idea. Not perfect, I feel that it focuses on economic freedoms to the detriment of individual liberty,
That's not possible. The two are intertwined.


but that is an issue of subjective valuation, not objecttive fact. The big problem with anarchocapitalism is that it simply isn't feasible. It would require too many major changes to society and too much luck to work.
So we shouldn't do it because it's too hard. Wow. Let's just sit in front of the TV and zone out because thinking is just too fucking hard.

[snip the rest, since you disgust me at this point]

-snip-


When you say "xer missionaries", you mean Christian, right? It's just that I've never seen that form before.

Also, you'd do well to read John Rawls' Justice As Fairness if you haven't already.

When you say "xer missionaries", you mean Christian, right? It's just that I've never seen that form before.
Yes.


Also, you'd do well to read John Rawls' Justice As Fairness if you haven't already.
Rawls' world is the world of Harrison Bergeron.

You want justice and fairness? Contractarianism ala Gauthier and Narveson.

Among other reasons.

Prove it :p

How tall are you anyway? Just so we can actually solve at least one dilemma here.

Oh and before you go all psycho on JCLLM for not thinking, you would do well to look to the fallacies in your own posts:

They do. We're not at war with each other.

What external force prevents wars like we have in Iraq right now? Answer: none.

Sorry... what now? We're not at war with each other, yet we still have wars?

Oh and actually, the definition of government, far from being "coercive monopoly" as you claim, is actually:

1. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.
2. the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government.
3. the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration.
4. a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole: a dam built by the government.
5. (in some parliamentary systems, as that of the United Kingdom)
a. the particular group of persons forming the cabinet at any given time: The Prime Minister has formed a new government.
b. the parliament along with the cabinet: The government has fallen.

You see? You really were using a very narrow and generally unrecognised definition (I have yet to come across anybody besides yourself who uses it). You really should have defined yourself better. Turns out JCLLM was right - whaddaya know?

Prove it :p

How tall are you anyway? Just so we can actually solve at least one dilemma here.
Not telling.


Oh and before you go all psycho on JCLLM for not thinking, you would do well to look to the fallacies in your own posts:

Sorry... what now? We're not at war with each other, yet we still have wars?
Yes. Just because there are wars doesn't mean we're at war with each other.


Oh and actually, the definition of government, far from being "coercive monopoly" as you claim, is actually:
What I claimed. It's sorta like people thinking that "theory" means "wild guess".

Not telling.

Aaaaaw he's just shy - isn't that adorable :)

Yes. Just because there are wars doesn't mean we're at war with each other.

Damn right! Everyone knows them Eye-raqis aren't proper human bein's anyway! They don't count as 'us'!:rolleyes:

What I claimed. It's sorta like people thinking that "theory" means "wild guess".

And yet you stuck to it despite constant repetitions on the theme of 'governments aren't CTMs'. It's sorta like people assuming that theories equal laws.

Damn right! Everyone knows them Eye-raqis aren't proper human bein's anyway! They don't count as 'us'!
Aha. So because a couple of countries are at war, we are all at war. Gotcha :rolleyes:


And yet you stuck to it
Because I'm correct.

I read that Declaration once... most of it is taken semi-verbatim from the US Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Well, kudos to Jefferson in that case.

Yes, I believe that all people have certain inalienable rights. Don't give me bullshit about "Well, what if one culture doesn't believe that women are people? Don't be insensitive, man."

You simply wanted an example of a successful anarchy, nothing more.



Actually, it was the influx of xer missionaries which did them in.

And I am arguing that it wasn't really much of an anarchy. Beyond that I'm arguing that it wouldn't rise to my definition of successful because, as a society, it failed to provide the protections I demand of civilization. Further, it doesn't matter what did them in, then fell apart after a fairly small period of time. If missionaries can destroy a warrior's society by simply being there, then you have a pretty profound weakness somewhere in th system.




No it's not.

See: when you make a claim that has no backing whatsoever, I'll just gainsay you.

Ahh, the most powerful of denials: nuh uh!




Who's going to be forced to live next to someone they hate?

Are you really that dumb?

...the disconnect you have from reality is shocking. For the vast majority of human history the response to not liking your neighbors(speaking of societies, not individuals) was to wage war on them, not move. The only time whole cultures of people have traditionally moved from one place to another was when either they were forced out or some new opportunity opened up(such as the waves of immigration the United States has experianced since the late nineteenth century). Human beings don't play nice. Anarchocapitalism has no real means of preventing sectarian fighting.

Still, I get the feeling you're gonna say NUH UH! so I'll put the ball in your court. In an anarchocapitalist society, what would be the means of preventing the largest demographic in a society from warring with a neighboring society?

And how do the police forces get money?

In an anarchy they get their money from the groups that choose to support them, which means they are loyal to ther bankrollers. My point was that if both groups hire their own security forces, and both groups want war, then there is little way of preventing it unless a third group decides to step in to play referee. That leads to a society which depends on the selfless good of human beings to prevent tribal warfare and the slide towards chaos.


What external force prevents wars like we have in Iraq right now? Answer: none.

Exactly, because the international community is basically an anarchy. There are few binding international laws, there is no monopoly on either coercive force nor territory, each group hires it's own security which is loyal to that group alone, and the strong shit on the weak whenever they feel like it. The US was able to attack Iraq because no one is strong enough to prevent it, and no one is willing to get together and pay the price it would cost to do so. As a result, a strong tribe(the US) attacked a weak tribe(Iraq) without any real consequences.

Honestly, I like the way the system works because I happen to be a member of the society which has the power, therefore I have a vested interest in the protection of the status quo. However, I live in a constitutional democracy, which means I get the best of both worlds. Granted, my nation isn't perfect, and we're slowly moving away from the things I value most, but it is better than any of the alternatives, it is better than anywhere I could move, so its home.

So I fail to see what your point is. You try to say that my system won't protect against such-and-such, but such-and-such isn't protected against right now!

If you're using the international example, it is because we have an international anarchy. Here is the difference:

On the global level, no one has the power or will to stop the US from invading a country like Iraq because the international community is an anarchocapitalist system. Some of the individual groups within it are fascists, some republics, a handful of pretend communists, and quite a few somewhere in-between. Within this global society each group has it's own security force, some groups share security forces in order to pool resources, but the international body is largely impotent and lacks any means of enforcement unless a powerful block of nations decides to enforce. The UN has no power over land distribution, and can be effectively ignored by anyone with the strength to prevent enforcement. Under this system you have internal massacres like Darfur, you have all the little human rights abuses that happen all over the world constantly, and the only thing holding a nation like the US or China back from making a real play for it's neighbor's territory is a hope that they won't decide to do so. Finally, people have to live next to others they hate because there is a finite amount of available land, and it has all been claimed. The only way to move is to make war.

Then you have the US. California can't invade Nevada. Texas can't ban sodomy. If either try there are several levels of enforcement that range from the peaceful(a supreme court ruling) to the violent(sending in the national guard to desegregate schools).

Do you see the difference of the degree of social protections between these two systems? Forget whether or not you think the protections are worth the costs, just try to see the fact that just because both have abuses doesn't mean that the abuses are the same.


And there wouldn't be guidance in the form of laws....why?

Because the laws only apply to those who do not have the clout/money/force to ignore them.



Yes in the first few days. I don't know what videos you've been watching, but there were police there in the first few days.

Not in any meaningful way. The New Orleans police department had a skeleton crew to police a city. They had chaos in the streets, a total lack of command and control, no real ability to report, limited reponse ability, and low moral. There is a reason that neighborhood watches patrolled the streets with guns to drive off looters themselves, a reason that buisnesses hired private security companies(the same they use to protect their belongings in places like Baghdad) to guard their assests. There might have been police in New Orleans, but they weren't there, not in a way that society either recognized or needed.



Sorta like creating and maintaining a carpet cleaning service.

Not really. If your carpet gets dirty and you fail to have a system in place to clean it, you have a dirty carpet. If you fail to have police you have murder, rape, and theft. The big problem with private security is that it provides the three basic human rights(life, liberty, property) only to those who can either protect their rights themselves or pay someone else to do so. I can't stand the fact that twice a year I have to pay property tax on the land I own, but at a bare minimum I accept it because it is better than having to live in a fortress.



No, that's what statism is vulnerable to. Since no one really owns the "government" land, it gets royally fucked. And since no one has a real stake in the government, it's grab all you can now and fuck the future.

You'd do well to read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed.

Believe it or not, I have. In fact, I agree with quite a bit of Hoppe's theories, but I don't necessarily agree with his final jump. Yes, public land has a tendancy to get fucked, and that is qute a good argument against the government owning more land than is absolutely necessary for the fufillment of it's duties.

The next jump, that government is plundered because no one has a stake in it, is only superficially true. The problem we have here isn't one that is inherant in government, it is a problem of scope. There are a handful of things that governments are better able to do because of their power of coercive taxation: the construction and upkeep of roads(far from perfect but better at maintaining freedom of movement than a private system), the enforcement of law and prosecution of criminals, and defense against foreign invaders.

The reason governments have the kinds of problems that it does is because it often times extends that scope. I agree that it is an imperfect and highly flawed system, I just haven't seen another that I think would work better.

Nah, you're still thinking like a statist. Why can't there be contracts, just like you contract to have your carpet cleaned or to have a house built?

Because all you're managing to do is push the problem down to a lower level. Civil servants(especially elected ones) are contract employees. Society in general seems to forget this. They aren't hereditary rulers, they are officals that are hired and paid to do a specific job for a specific period of time. We just don't limit the scope of their job descriptions enough, and even when we do(the US constution did a good job) we have a tendancy of letting them spread out when we're scared. Once we let them have that power, it is very hard to take it away.


No, it actually isn't. All I saw were examples of emergencies. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know that I'm not), but emergencies aren't the norm. That's why they're called emergencies.

Emergencies are the norm when you have a large enough society. Police, fire, and paramedics are on duty 24 hours day not just because they need to be ready in case an emergency happens, but because emergencies happen continually. Granted, these are small, personal emergencies, but as you increase the scale of society, you see the larger emergencies happening. Yes, emergencies are beyond the norm, but when you have the sheer volume of society we have, they happen quite often. We live on a planet with over 6 billion people, high speed movement, and instant audio-visual communication, rare no longer means the same thing it did

A one in a million bet isn't quite so daunting if you know there is likely to be two or three million iterations of a given event.



Prove it.

Why don't you. I'll even set the bar low. Tell me how the law can be enforced without some kind of coercion.

If you admit that coercion is necessary for the enforcement of law, then the coercive entity needs a monopoly on coercive force in order to maintain legitimacy. Otherwise all you have is a system that is able to enforce laws only against those weaker than itself.


That's not possible. The two are intertwined.

The two are intertwined, and I agree that property rights are the basis of personal liberty. The problem with anarchocapitalism is that it seeks to protect individual liberty by focusing on the protection of property rights, and in it's quest to protect property rights creates a system that would fail to prevent the strong from abusing the weak. The reason I called it an utopian system is because it excises government in order to completely protect property rights, but in the absence of government all you really have to prevent law breaking is hope and force.



So we shouldn't do it because it's too hard. Wow. Let's just sit in front of the TV and zone out because thinking is just too fucking hard.

[snip the rest, since you disgust me at this point]

*Shrug* I grew out of being a revolutionary a long time ago. I really couldn't care if that disgusts you. Still, I'm a fan of choice, so have fun tilting at those windmills if thats what makes ya happy.