theloniusfleabag

Dear kimmy, A very valid point. I don't know what constitutes 'official recognition', though, (I hope over 50% of those allowed to have an opinion) as some countries do not have 100% of popular 'consent' to 'be'. Juntas and coups have successfully managed countries (for a time) in the past, without major countries recognizing them, but these usually were where either the US or another country used 'proxies' to carry out the coups. They were also usually short-lived.The US and coalition forces never had legitimate legal means to invade Afghanistan either (Iraq), but most people in the world gave the US a 'pass' on this one, out of sympathy for 9/11, and hoped the 'appropriate paperwork' would be filled out later.

Dear Hugo, I was under the impression that you understood that 'rights', ownership and gov't were an invention in the mind of man. Why do you feel the compulsion to have one ahead or behnd, when they are equal?You and I and Sweal are animals. A different kind of animal, to be sure, advanced and intellectually superior, certainly. However, we are classified as belonging to the Animal Kingdom. Order: Primate Suborder/infraorder: Catarrhine (Old World Monkeys, Apes and Humans) Superfamily: Hominoidea (apes and humans) Family: Hominidae (Humans) Genus: Homo (sapiens) Nowhere in my Anthropology or archaeology books does it say any species has 'natural rights or laws' over the others. Those are created by choice. Further, as I previously mentioned, some members of our 'superfamily' Hominoidea, Family Pongidae, have, in some specific cases, granted 'ownership and rights of disposal' to other members. It is a 'rights theory' regarding interaction, not meant to be taken literally. When I was younger, and taken to church by my family, we heard of and were taught songs and hymns about some dude named Jesus. One of the hymns went..."Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me". If 'Doubting Thomas' can only be sure of one thing, 'Cogito Ergo Sum', then all external interaction is with 'the one that is not you'. All 'rights', in practice, are invented by the one, and applied arbitrarily. I haven't the faith in the 'inherent benevolence' of the Human Race that you seem to have. That a group of 'responsible anarchists' could be trusted to adhere to any sort of moral or legal guidelines on their own is laughable. We've gone through our days of slavery, for example, and I have no wish to see them come back.

Dear Hugo, My theory agrees that there is more than one, but the number isn't vast, it is merely two. Untrue. 'Fight or Flight syndrome' affects mankind, even as some would freeze like 'a deer in the headlights'. Blind panic etc., 'base instinct', still rules the actions of man more than you'd care to admit. Then I believe Rothbard misuses the term 'Anarchy', for using Occam's Razor it means 'the absence of any law whatsoever' (including Natural Law, for both Hitler and Rothbard chose to arbitrarily decide, though they both present their chosen logic for it, as to whom or what should be included when they demarcated and dispensed 'rights') Rothbard's theory should really be called 'Anti-Socialism'.According to Hitler, (from Mein Kampf pg 286) Whereas Rothbard writes Rothbard doesn't deny the use of violence in this sentence, he simply demarcates where he thinks it's useage should be applied. With Hitler it was race, with Rothbard it is species. He offers nothing about why this would 'naturally replace' base nature, that being 'of force'. 'Reason and choice', you might say, but if you expect all humans to take a minute out of their day and all, suddenly and to a person, arrive at the same momentous choice on how the world should truly be, that choice would surely be better than anarchy. I'll admit my point was ambiguous. Anarchy prevents the individual from realistically possessing the 'power to enforce said arbitrary rights' against those that would use their owverwhelming power to transgress them. People like Hitler and Stalin would have found it way easier to rise to power under an anarchist system because under the (natural law, or 'survival of the fittest') theory of 'divide and conquer', the division would already be in place. Rothbard's dream is no different than Marx's, for it depicts an ideal situation in an tragically imperfect setting. All entities share something whether they realize it or not. That is existence. With it comes 'belonging', something that 'Anarchy' inherently excludes. So, my theory is that there is but two de facto entities, you and the one who is not you. So, the choice we face is to endeavor to belong to 'the one' or 'the two'.

Dear Army Guy, While you say this is not true, the Taliban did not come into existence until after the Soviet occupation. They did not have 'secret police', the Taliban made no secret of their intentions nor their methods. They publicly flogged people in soccer stadiums for transgressions...you are either making this up or actually have no clue about the history of Afghanistan. (Taken from "Info,please".

Dear August1991, Friggin' Lethbridge. They probably need the money to build a wind barrier around the place. I went to high school there, and used to live on the West Side....I rode my bike home one day and had to pedal to get down the West Side Hill...on a calm day you coud reach 80 kmh down that hill on a 10 speed, but one day I had to pedal to get down...insane.

Dear Hugo, Because that is 'moralizing'. It is a belief, not a contradiction. You claim I am contradictory for saying things in the past, for which you attack me, not the argument. You have failed to disprove my definition, so your only defense is to say I am inconsistent. So I'll ask you, Hugo, what gives 'rights'? What gives Jews the 'right not to be gassed' if not, exclusively, others?This is one of the reasons I am opposed to anarchy. It is so hugely dependent on trusting Hitlers and Stalins not to do what they did.

Dear Hugo, Please don't switch between examples and theory, I have made it quite clear what 'rights' and 'ownership' are, and my opinion on 'morality' is irrelevant to the discussion. I thought, even though it is under the wrong thread, that we were discussing the nature of 'rights'. I find the actions of Hitler and Stalin repugnant, yes. Did the Jews have the 'right' to avoid extermination? It is a loaded question, for according to you and I, we would gladly bestow upon them that right, and in fact we do everyday, by not following, espousing or carrying out the direct actions and/or racist Nazi philosophy that would lead them to their demise. Did Hitler bestow upon them that right? No. Does a coyote or an alligator have the 'right' to eat you? Do you have the 'right' not to be eaten? It depends on whether the alligator chooses to bestow that right upon you or not. No, I never said 'animals are merely property', for the position I took was that 'ownership' is just as ethereal as 'rights'. Animals have the 'same right to rights' as people because 'rights' are a creation in the mind of man. It is a question of choice, not of fact. Perhaps my position would become more clear if I took a Nietzschean approach, and said "You humans create the notion of rights, and then you humans then assign the parameters and extremes of how and where they shall be applicable."

Dear Army Guy, Actually, the Afghanis of the 'seven party alliance' (including two with similar names that translated to "Party of Islam"), and others, that fought the Russian occupation were fighting to have an Islamic country, free of foreign intervention. The following two quotes are from the book "Soldiers of God" by Robert Kaplan(sorry don't have the year, my dog shredded the cover and the first and last few pages but I think it came out in 1990) Under the Heading 'The Seven Party Mujahideen Alliance, and under "fundamentalists", reads: Abdul Haq, who was the book's main point of interest, said something like "I fight only to see Islam rule our country". Haq had later been an invited guest to both Pres. Reagan, and PM Margaret Thatcher, and it was Abdul Haq that was sent to his death back in Afghanistan by the CIA, who thought he could lead a local uprising against the Taliban after 9/11. They were wrong, and Haq was caught and hung in a square in Kabul. Do you think the Mujahideen would have been happy and cooperative with the US against the Russians if they had been told from the beginning "We are only letting you think that this is a war for yourselves, but really it is so the USA can solely benefit.".

Dear Army Guy, Close. These are examples of what terrorists do, not a definition or 'terrorism'. Terrorism can be defined as when one group attacks a second group, with the goal in mind that the actions of the second group will influence a third group into changing it's actions.

Dear Army Guy, No, that is considered aggression, and it is considered illegal. There are different laws governing each. Again, Army Guy, no declaration of war was made. The US is trying to take advantage of both sides of the fence. Article 5 is useless in this case, because no war was declared. There is no 'war', but the US is trying to act as though there was for it's own purposes. How can one have a 'smoking AK in a combat zone' and not be an 'enemy combatant'? According to the US, there are no 'enemy soldiers' at all, so whom are they fighting? How can there be a 'war' without a declared enemy? Again, to refer to your Sect 5, this deals with civilians in an occupied territory, meaning that there was a declaration of war, and one side lost (the country or a portion thereof) and was occupied. Then, if that civilian continues to resist occupation, only then do they forfeit their Geneva rights. Bear in mind, these technicalities depend on a declaration of war. The US is trying to use every technicality in the book without adhering to the laws that govern them, one way or the other. Some Iraqi 'Royal Guardsmen', perhaps, but several of these were held without charge, tortured to death, etc. just like everyone else at Abu Ghraib.

Dear Argus, According to my "World Human Rights Guide", by Charles Humana, (1986) The 'means test' was 40 questions regarding 'human rights', and one of the questions was 'Do personal rights include the right to: Practice Homosexuality between consenting adults?'. A lot on countries said no, in fact in Saudi Arabia the legal maximum sentence is beheading. China said "the practice is not officially admitted to exist, charges would come under 'offensive behaviour'. Gay marriage is only the next, and adoption the last, logical step.

If Hitler were alive today, and living in the States, you can bet he'd like to have Ann Coulter as co-host on his show. And yes, it would have to be on FOX.

Dear Hugo, Rights exist only in the mind, as does government and ownership. Rights are bestowed upon you by everyone you meet, regardless of state. How can a 'right' protect you against those that disagree? It cannot, it's only power lay within 'the power' of those that agree. It depends on what you believe. I believe I actually know the answer. Unfortunately, the 'answer' is only as real as 'rights'.

Dear PatM, Actually, Hugo and I have had a lenghty discussion of what 'rights' are. Please refer to the thread "Tyrrany Vs Freedom", and you will see where Hugo stands.

Dear kimmy, lol. Indeed, the odds are that at least some of their parents were married. The problem is that at least there was a division between 'nazis' and germans, while the 'nips' had no such distinction.

Dear Hugo, But we are equal, for we both exist. We both can continue to exist by only taking what we need, yet humans think it is not only right, but desirable, to have and to take far more than is neccesary. Only one of them is capable of destroying both.

Dear Hugo, I am saying that 'rights' also are in this category. In my mind, it was murder. In the minds (and propaganda) of certain Nazis, they used the term 'destroy'. As though they felt it wasn't murder. However, the attributes of Nazism are beside the point, and for example only. Why do the tree-huggers do what they do?Let's say, for example, that the Nazis feted Jews as superior, rather than inferior. They could go anywhere they wanted,(tresspassing) and take anything from anyone they wanted (stealing), and the Nazis upheld their 'right to do so' by jailing or killing those opposed. It is the overwhelming force that dictates what a 'right' is, and it would only last as long as that force remained superior. Now, as we all know, the Nazis had some wacky ideas, and Hitler was a firm believer in 'survival of the fittest'. (He makes a great many references to it in Mein Kampf) His arguments were quite logical, if you held his same viewpoint. Just as your claim to 'rights', it depends on others agreeing, and their willingness to fight and die for the beliefs that are common to you.

Dear Hugo, This is nonsense. If it were true, televisions would be fantastic and free. Sure, you can get a 'cheap' TV, but they are crap. I personally can't afford a 10,000 dollar plasma TV, (or at least I am unwilling to put that much money towards one and sacrifice other things that could be bought with that money).Technology increases quality, but in order to maximise profit, prices tend to go up and quality must go down, but carefully, so you don't lose customers. For example, Hostess Chips recently were challenged about raising thier prices on a bag of chips, when they decreased the volume in the bag. It was decided that they did nothing wrong, as long as the bag's contents were clearly marked. Fair enough, but they aren't about to advertise "Our chips still come in the same size bag, but now contain 20% less!"

Dear Hugo, I argue that true 'enlightenment' means extending the 'rights' you have (especially the right to exist) to include the so-called 'inferior'. I agree with the statement, but it is not the theory I hold.

Dear Hugo, I am not saying 'only they', but they (the state),as you say, have a monopoly on violence (or coersion), so they decide as to where overwhelming force should be applied. I am not sure who said this, but there is an old axiom of "Sir, I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it". Now, this implies, and I believe correctly, that rights are conferred to you by others. They come from the fact that someone else is willing to either a) use overwhelming force to change what they see as 'your rights', or b)use force to defend what they see as 'your rights' against those who disagree, and are trying to use force to change the definition of 'your rights. In both cases, it is usually a 'state', or a large collection of individuals who have the means to use overwhelming force to defend or impose that 'will'. I believe Israel was created with just this kind of thinking in mind. The phrase "Never Again" would ring hollow if the Jews didn't have some sort of force (and they do now have a formidible one) to uphold this notion.

Dear Hugo, It was the use of overwhelming force that decided. First, the Nazis took away the 'rights' of Jews to be citizens, then the 'right' to attend schools, own businesses, and even to 'own' their property. Then they took away their 'right to life'. The Jews that survived the holocaust either avoided the overwhelming force, or overcame it. It was not that the Nazi's suddenly became 'enlightened despots' or remorseful in any way, they were defeated by an overwhelming force that did not agree with the Nazi's terms and methods of 'dispensing and interpreting rights'. Tragically, it could be argued that the Soviets were worse. Stalin invented the concentration camp, and the mass extermination of 'political enemies'. As Alexander Solzhenitzyn said, one ceases to argue what is 'right' when nine grams (of lead) are administered to the head.

Dear Technocrat, It really can't get much further. Also, it's true, and the US says it repeatedly in the media and through it's actions. The US must have it's security and it's 'peace loving ways' under constant threat, or they wouldn't be able to justify their gigantic military budget. It used to be the cold war, now it is 'terror'. I am sure more than a few CEOs in some of the major weapons suppliers said "Thank God for 9/11".

Dear Hugo, I have, and have read, "The Gulag Archipelago" albeit quite some time ago. Yes, some people's interpretation of 'rights' are wosre than deplorable. The definition of 'truth' is "that which does be". Truth exists regardless of mankind, and in fact mankind is probably the only creature ever to deny or disbelieve truth. You seem to make the case for 'the rights of the superior' supercede those of the inferior. Hitler did this, at first with the 'mentally deficient' (who, arguably, do not or cannot examine their own existence, build things, etc) and then broadened his classification of what is 'inferior, and therefore without rights'. In some cases, it could be said that some animals are 'morally superior' to some humans, given the outcome of certain choices made by each.

Dear Hugo, Just a thought... If I walk by your house, and see that you've gone out and accidentally left the front door open...then I see your plasma TV...is it your belief on who the 'rightful owner' is that decides who has it tomorrow, or mine? (not literally mine, let's say a thief's) In order to live by the rights you believe in, you must coerce or convince others to concur. Luckily, most do anyway.

Dear Hugo, I don't recall being such a 'Doubting Thomas", and certainly don't hold to any of the theories 'We're all just molecules in a giant's toenail'. However, it is perfectly plausible and logical that all of your thoughts, including your notion of God, reside exclusively in your own head, as (assumably) identifiable chemical formulae. "Survival of the fittest' naturally precludes ethics, so you either have them or you don't. What I find odd is that Statists and anarchists polarize themselves to the extreme, and say that anyone straying towards the middle from either extreme is de facto hypocritical. I saw the Dalai Lama speak once on a TV documentary, and he said that all things are sentient, including the 'rocks and birds and plants and things'. I am not quite so extreme as to imagine that these things have self awareness, but where do you draw the line at where you dispense your theory of rights? Or the majority's, where do you think they should draw the line? I personally go beyond humans when I assign the 'right to exist', but you don't seem to. I truly think it is the way to go. There you go, leaping to the exteme again. If you saw two neighbors building a garage in one of their yards, and found out one was volunteering to help the other, without a 'mutually beneficial contract', you seem to think that they then must actually be building a gas chamber for Jews and 'undesirables'. If they aren't, then they eventually will, 'cause they're commies.To reiterate, ownership is an invention in the mind of man, all one does is pay for, or provide for themselves, the overwhelming force to keep something or to take it. (The police will actually work for you to take something back that was taken from you if you are in their good books) Even if it is the ingestion of air, if it becomes a daily doubt, you've been paying the wrong person/group.