Fundamental Question #4

[moderateamericain]

I don't think I made my poasitionon rand clear enough earlier: she was a kook. Her writing was turgid, self-congratulatory and rife with contradictions.

Anyway, ModAm, I'm very flattered by all the attention you've been giving me, but you should realize that this is a discussion board and, as such, all views expressed herin represent the opinion of the poster. That said, some opinions are closer to the mark than others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

dont flatter yourself 2 much, your one of 4 people that post regularly

[The Terrible Sweal]

Dear Terrible Sweal,

...I think this may warrant an independent thread, as you have been doing, with your "Fundamental Questions". I have been thingking of some format to have these and other basic theories examined in their 'theorectical, pure form', ...

I notice a lot of peeps avoid such opportunities.

[Guest eureka]

Personal attack! Don't be silly.

[Hugo]

The problem with this formulation is that it implies a state which has an existence/agency separate from the collected individuals comprising it. Such separation is imaginary.

Indeed, the "state" is comprised of the people within the institution, i.e. the rulers. All democracy does is (in theory) allow the entry of any ruled person into the ranks of the rulers.

The market, and any law it "provides", is a collective undertaking.

So what?

Any practical uderstanding of the concept of rights necessarily implies that violations thereof will be coercively prevented if necessary.

I would not call it coercion to respond to the initiation of coercion in like kind.

But anyway, Hugo, what are your answers to the fundamental questuons of this thread?

My personal answer would be that rights are negative, that they must be assignable to the lowest common denominator of humanity, and basically amount to self-ownership and property rights, the right not to have violence or fraud committed against one's person or against one's property as an extension of the person. This right can apply equally to all. I would challenge most other "rights" because they generally favour some people over others, which makes them privileges, not rights.

E.g. the right to financial security favours the recipient over he who is going to be forced to provide it. The right of the former to financial security violates the right of the latter to financial security, so it's just a privilege.

Unfortunately, there is no discernible meaning in that sentence, until some sensible understanding of 'proprerty' and 'rights' is acheived.

I'll say to you what I said to Thelonius. Read Murray Rothbard, who has developed the best property-rights theory yet written. You can even get his works as e-books.

No. The state arises from the claim that an individual's 'rights' end where those of the others begin. The state is the means of enforcing this principle.

No, it isn't. The Second Amendment is the means of enforcing this principle (or rather, the idea behind it). The state is the means for some to impose their ideas, vision, morals and goals on others. There is essentially no difference between the state and the mafia.

Yet again, this ignores the essential: what makes it yours?

Homesteading or free trade, generally. If I own my body and therefore my labour, that which my labour produces should also be mine. I can also sell or lease my labour and its products.

Or are you going to challenge the assertion that I own my body?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Hugo wrote:

Indeed, the "state" is comprised of the people within the institution, i.e. the rulers. All democracy does is (in theory) allow the entry of any ruled person into the ranks of the rulers.

Alright, so let's accept for the moment your definiton: the state is comprised of the ruling class. The solution of democracy (that all join the ruling class) would seem to address that problem adequately.

The market, and any law it "provides", is a collective undertaking.

So what?

So it cannot be tendered to demonstrate the merits of extreme individualism.

I would not call it coercion to respond to the initiation of coercion in like kind.

Of course it is coercion: the application of force to another against his will to obtain an objective.

Anyway, without a legitimisation structure or an arbiter of some kind, one man's 'initiation' is merey another man's 'response'

But anyway, Hugo, what are your answers to the fundamental questuons of this thread?

My personal answer would be that rights are negative, that they must be assignable to the lowest common denominator of humanity, and basically amount to self-ownership and property rights, the right not to have violence or fraud committed against one's person or against one's property as an extension of the person. This right can apply equally to all. I would challenge most other "rights" because they generally favour some people over others, which makes them privileges, not rights.

Sorry to say, I cannot see how this comment responds to the essential question about the source/nature of 'rights'.

... Read Murray Rothbard, who has developed the best property-rights theory yet written. You can even get his works as e-books.

How about you give me the essentials of what YOU think, so we can have a discussion here.

No. The state arises from the claim that an individual's 'rights' end where those of the others begin. The state is the means of enforcing this principle.

No, it isn't. ... The state is the means for some to impose their ideas, vision, morals and goals on others. There is essentially no difference between the state and the mafia.

Sigh. You have merely recited your position without responding to the theoretical challenge posed by my comment. I've noticed our conversations go better when you can keep your head out of the arsehole of dogma, so I urge you to try.

Yet again, this ignores the essential: what makes it yours?

Homesteading or free trade, generally.

HOW does homesteading make a 'right' to property?

If I own my body and therefore my labour,...

Indeed, IF. WHY do you 'own' your body?

... that which my labour produces should also be mine.

Say your labor alone produces X, while your labour combined with the labor of two other workers is 5X. Who 'owns' the excess and why. Also, If I can come along and take it all from the three of you, why shouldn't I?

Or are you going to challenge the assertion that I own my body?

Well, I ask you to explain it. But really, to avoid circular discussion of superficalities, I'd like if you could give specific, responsive, replies to the particular questions I have put to you.

BTW, Ive tried 4 times now to get these f*ckin quotes to work, and I give up now. :angry:

[Hugo]

Alright, so let's accept for the moment your definiton: the state is comprised of the ruling class. The solution of democracy (that all join the ruling class) would seem to address that problem adequately.

It does not. Not all in a democracy are in the ruling class. You aren't, I am not, nobody in this forum is. None of us can make law. Therefore we are ruled, not rulers.

So it cannot be tendered to demonstrate the merits of extreme individualism.

Define "extreme individualism." To me, individualism does not exclude the potential for and the natural tendency towards voluntary collectivism.

Of course it is coercion.

But you have not explained why. Ergo you have no point.

Anyway, without a legitimisation structure or an arbiter of some kind, one man's 'initiation' is merey another man's 'response'

Why do we need a state to provide a legitimisation structure or to be an arbiter?

Sorry to say, I cannot see how this comment responds to the essential question about the source/nature of 'rights'.

The source of rights is the human individual. The right to be and to be left alone is a right which recognises that humans are not inherently superior to one another in any objective way. Of course, the very nature of the concept of rights implies human action and judgement, so the source of rights is human beings.

How about you give me the essentials of what YOU think so we can have a discussion here.

Essentially we own ourselves, our bodies. So therefore we also own what our body produces, our labour. Everything else stems from that.

Sigh. You have merely recited your position without responding to the theoretical challenge posed by my comment. I've noticed our conversations go better when you can keep your head out of the arsehole of dogma, so I urge you to try.

Still trolling and barking out insults as usual, Sweal. Grow up. Besides, this is just a lie. I have clarified my position. The means by which men prevent others from impinging upon their rights is by their own action, individual or collective. The state is absolutely unnecessary for protecting rights, and worse, it is the main source for the violation of rights. By its very nature, the state must violate the rights it purports to uphold. Taxation is a violation of the right of self-ownership and labour-ownership.

Now that is just a recitation of my position. But your failure to understand my last post is to blame.

[Greg]

Problem with quotes,

see,

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...t=0entry52549

Cheers,

Greg

[The Terrible Sweal]

Alright, so let's accept for the moment your definiton: the state is comprised of the ruling class. The solution of democracy (that all join the ruling class) would seem to address that problem adequately.

It does not. Not all in a democracy are in the ruling class. You aren't, I am not, nobody in this forum is. None of us can make law. Therefore we are ruled, not rulers.

Your argument is inconsistent. You just said democracy made everyone a 'ruler' and now you say it doesn't. Which is it. Perhaps you mean that 'true' democracy does so but faulty democracy does not? In which case, my point remains valid (as regards 'true' democracies), and your exceptions (the faulty democracies) fall outside the rule.

Of course it is coercion.

But you have not explained why. Ergo you have no point.

Go back one step. You did not explain why not. Anyway, I did explain why in a later edit. I said it is coercion because it involves the application of force to obtain an end from someone otherwise unwilling.

Anyway, without a legitimisation structure or an arbiter of some kind, one man's 'initiation' is merey another man's 'response'

Why do we need a state to provide a legitimisation structure or to be an arbiter?

You have it backwards. Any legitimisation structure or arbiter is serving in the function of a state.

The source of rights is the human individual.

This doesn't hold water. Does a man alone on an island have 'rights'? If so, what is the practical content of such 'rights'?

How about you give me the essentials of what YOU think so we can have a discussion here.

Essentially we own ourselves, our bodies. So therefore we also own what our body produces, our labour. Everything else stems from that.

Around in a circle again. What do you mean when you say we 'own' ourselves? From whence does it arise. How and by whom is it given effect and why?

Besides, this is just a lie.

I advise you against making false accusations.

The means by which men prevent others from impinging upon their rights is by their own action, individual or collective.

Right. And the state is one of the leading methods of such collective action.

The state is absolutely unnecessary for protecting rights, ...

The state is the method of providing rights. True, it can be corrupted and missused, and has been.

Hugo, despite my pleas I notice you did not respond to the specific questions I asked you.

[Hugo]

HOW does homesteading make a 'right' to property?

Well, as Locke had proposed, unclaimed natural resources are not owned by anyone, and homesteading is simply the process by which a person mixes his labour - his property - with those resources, thus giving him a far better claim to it than any other person, making it his.

Consider that English Common Law holds ownership as being relative rather than absolute. The question in that law is not "who owns this?" but "who owns this most?" or "whose claim is the strongest?" In this case, the case of the man who has mixed his labour with natural resources is far stronger than that of the man who has not.

Indeed, IF. WHY do you 'own' your body?

Ownership is simply the claim or title to do as you please with something (bound, obviously, by the laws of physics and so forth). I can do as I please with my own body, I control it. Even allowing for slavery, I cannot really even give up my control of my own body. I can work for another but I cannot grant control of my body to him in the same way that I control my body (even if I could, it wouldn't change anything). Therefore, since naturally and without the intervention of any other human it is only I who controls my body, I therefore own my body.

Say your labor alone produces X, while your labour combined with the labor of two other workers is 5X. Who 'owns' the excess and why.

If I combine my labour with two others then it follows that we have cooperated, in which case we would have figured out the division of the fruits of our labour as part of the compact by which we laboured, or we would figure it out afterward, which is fully in accordance with property rights theory. If we can't agree, we can seek arbitration, or we can go to war over it, in which case whoever first violates the right not to be harmed of another has violated the property-rights code.

[Hugo]

Your argument is inconsistent. You just said democracy made everyone a 'ruler' and now you say it doesn't.

Where did I say that democracy made everybody a ruler? Quote, please.

I said it is coercion because it involves the application of force to obtain an end from someone otherwise unwilling.

But that someone has already applied force to obtain an end from someone otherwise unwilling who did not first use force against them. Therefore, violence in response to coercion is not coercion. This is the difference between shooting a man in the street and shooting an armed intruder in your home.

Any legitimisation structure or arbiter is serving in the function of a state.

We've been over this before and you were unable to defend this definition, because it makes marriage counsellors 'states', and professional arbiters "states", and priests, and schoolteachers, and notary publics, and so on and so forth. Ultimately it makes everybody a state and the planet into 6 billion states of one, because we are all the legitimisers of our own actions. We justify what we do to ourselves.

Ultimately this is the difference between self-government and imposed government. Self-government is part of being human, and perfectly compatible with anarchy. Imposed government, however, is not. This is like economic planning. Self-economic-planning is perfectly compatible with the free market, this is what people do when the save for their retirement, invest, make a budget and so forth. Imposed economic planning is not.

This doesn't hold water. Does a man alone on an island have 'rights'? If so, what is the practical content of such 'rights'?

No, he does not have rights, and he does not need rights because he is alone. Rights theory depends upon there being a universe with many different objects and acting agents.

I advise you against making false accusations.

I advise you to prove that they are false. I already made my case.

Right. And the state is one of the leading methods of such collective action.

No, it is not. Voluntary collective action is not at all the same thing as imposed collective action. Ten man can band together to form a company, that is voluntary collective action. The state can tax ten men on pain of imprisonment or death to fund a state enterprise, that is imposed collective action.

The state is the method of providing rights.

Explain how. I have already made my case for the opposite (i.e. that the very existence of the state requires the violation of the rights it 'upholds'). In order to have an argument you have to actually say something besides "no it isn't", you know.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Where did I say that democracy made everybody a ruler? Quote, please.

Post #29 on this thread. You said: "All democracy does is (in theory) allow the entry of any ruled person into the ranks of the rulers." I extrapolate that if it allows 'any' it must allow 'all'.

I said it is coercion because it involves the application of force to obtain an end from someone otherwise unwilling.

But that someone has already applied force to obtain an end from someone otherwise unwilling who did not first use force against them.

SEZ THEM! The identity of the instigator depends on which party you ask.

Any legitimisation structure or arbiter is serving in the function of a state.

We've been over this before and you were unable to defend this definition,

False. You have been unable to refute it, and you have offered no sensible alternative.

This doesn't hold water. Does a man alone on an island have 'rights'? If so, what is the practical content of such 'rights'?

No, he does not have rights, and he does not need rights because he is alone.

Well then, your position that rights spring from the individual must be wrong.

Ten man can band together to form a company, that is voluntary collective action.

Ten men alone in the woods can band together and form a village. That is voluntary collective action too.

The state is the method of providing rights.

Explain how.

I have, repeatedly, and at length. Individuals form an implicit agreement constituting the conditions of relations among themselves (their 'rights', if you will). The means by which they carry out this collective intention (provide and defend the 'rights') is their state. If they don't have collective means, they have no 'rights'. Ergo, if they have 'rights', they have a state.

[Hugo]

Post #29 on this thread. You said: "All democracy does is (in theory) allow the entry of any ruled person into the ranks of the rulers."

No. The potential for entry into the ranks of rulers does not make one a ruler, just a potential one. You seem to understand the difference between the potential and the actual perfectly well when it comes to abortion, so I find your sudden pretended ignorance here rather amusing.

I extrapolate that if it allows 'any' it must allow 'all'.

Wrong again. Consider a scenario in which the entry of one candidate into an institution necessarily excludes the other candidates. For instance, when sperm are fertilizing an ovum, all have the potential to fuse with the ovum, yet when one sperm actually does, all the others are excluded. In this case, we can say "any sperm can fuse with the ovum." We cannot say, "all sperm can fuse with the ovum."

SEZ THEM! The identity of the instigator depends on which party you ask.

No, it does not. If you accept that there is a physical world which exists independently of human perceptions of it, then there is a "correct" version of events in which one party was the first to use violence. For instance, my sons come to me and say, "He hit me!" "Well, he hit me first!" "No, he hit me first!" and so on. Both are claiming that they are the victims of coercion, but only one actually is.

Well then, your position that rights spring from the individual must be wrong.

Rights are rules for human interaction. Without more than one human there cannot be human interaction, and without human interaction there cannot be rights. Human individuals come up with rights but they do so because they are not alone. There might be ten people in the universe and each might have a unique rights theory. They only develop them, though, because there are other people with whom they have to interact.

Ten men alone in the woods can band together and form a village. That is voluntary collective action too.

So what?

Individuals form an implicit agreement constituting the conditions of relations among themselves (their 'rights', if you will). The means by which they carry out this collective intention (provide and defend the 'rights') is their state.

Yet again, Sweal, your definition of "state" cannot distinguish between the Federal Government of Canada, and a private company, or a gentleman's club, or a casino, or a family, or pretty much any other method of human interaction for that matter.

So your definition of "state" is useless and derelict, because it cannot describe a state as the term is understood in the English language. You have made your argument first and then defined your terms, which is backwards, and why you are stuck in a terrible self-contradiction. You have said that a state is necessary for rights and society, and when asked what a state is, you basically say, "everything."

I'll give you an analogy. "Motor oil is necessary for human life. Why? Because I call air 'motor oil'."

If they don't have collective means, they have no 'rights'.

Do you mean that collectivism is essential to the enforcement of rights, or that rights can only exist in collectives?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The potential for entry into the ranks of rulers does not make one a ruler, just a potential one.

If this potential is not given merely for the asking, then you are no longer talking about democracy.

I extrapolate that if it allows 'any' it must allow 'all'.

SEZ THEM! The identity of the instigator depends on which party you ask.

No, it does not. If you accept that there is a physical world which exists independently of human perceptions of it, then there is a "correct" version of events in which one party was the first to use violence.

IF. And IF you accept that humans are able and willing to come a correct impression of it. Lots of IFs.

Well then, your position that rights spring from the individual must be wrong.

Rights are rules for human interaction. Without more than one human there cannot be human interaction, and without human interaction there cannot be rights. Human individuals come up with rights but they do so because they are not alone. ...

So you agree now? Good.

... Sweal, your definition of "state" cannot distinguish between the Federal Government of Canada, and a private company, or a gentleman's club, or a casino, or a family, or pretty much any other method of human interaction for that matter.

Indeed, I use other words for such distinctions, like "federal government" or "gentlemans' club".

...when asked what a state is, you basically say, "everything."

Clearly you have not been paying attention to my comments at all, or perhaps you are smply unable to grasp these concepts. Be that as it may, I don't say the state is everything.

If they don't have collective means, they have no 'rights'.

Do you mean that collectivism is essential to the enforcement of rights, or that rights can only exist in collectives?

No, I mean what I wrote.

[Hugo]

If this potential is not given merely for the asking, then you are no longer talking about democracy.

How can it be? Once one man becomes Prime Minister, the office is closed to all other candidates. Sure, it will be open again at some point in the future, but the same could be said of Stalin's government too.

IF. And IF you accept that humans are able and willing to come a correct impression of it. Lots of IFs.

So your contention rests upon the possibility that the physical world does not exist?

Indeed, I use other words for such distinctions, like "federal government" or "gentlemans' club".

But all those things can also be called a state, according to your definition. I can say, and be perfectly correct: "I went down to the state early today and played cards. Then I went to the state, confessed and was absolved. Then I went home and my state served me lunch. Then I went to the state office and paid my taxes. Afterward I went to the state and bought an MP3 player."

[I Miss Trudeau]

Hugo, correct me if I'm wrong, but all of this ballyhoo prety much amounts to the following claim:

"People should not have any other restrictions placed upon their actions than the ones which I prefer."

[Hugo]

Hugo, correct me if I'm wrong, but all of this ballyhoo prety much amounts to the following claim: "People should not have any other restrictions placed upon their actions than the ones which I prefer."

That's basically the creed of statism, yes. "You can do whatever you want so long as I approve of it first."

[I Miss Trudeau]

That's basically the creed of statism, yes. "You can do whatever you want so long as I approve of it first."

Kind of ironic, then, that that is exactly what you're saying here.

[Hugo]

Kind of ironic, then, that that is exactly what you're saying here.

It would be ironic if I said that, but I did not. What I say is that you can do whatever you please, so long as it doesn't interfere with my doing whatever I please - and vice versa.

The difference is that to the libertarian, any action that involves only the actor, or any consensual multi-party action, is no grounds for intervention or objection. The statist argues that it is. Libertarians mind their own business, statists meddle in other people's affairs.

Which are you? Consider that there is no fundamental difference in telling somebody he can't take cocaine from telling him that he may not worship God, or between telling him he can't sell a certain product and telling him that he can't have gay sex, or between telling him he must pay for the food of the poor or for the food of the King, or between telling him he cannot hire certain people as employees and telling him he must march into a gas chamber and be exterminated.

Basically, "You do what we tell you, and your interests and desires be damned."

[I Miss Trudeau]

Basically, "You do what we tell you, and your interests and desires be damned."

So why can't I beat you up and steal your property? You've avoided answering that for many posts, presumably because you can't yet think of a "non-statist" response to it.

Edit: quote format

[Hugo]

So why can't I beat you up and steal your property? You've avoided answering that for many posts, presumably because you can't yet think of a "non-statist" response to it.

I've actually provided an answer in another thread. You can't morally beat me up and steal my property because such a position means that you would have to be better and superior to me in order to have any moral justification for so doing, and such a position is not objectively defensible.

If you think you can make such a position, by all means, try. Just realise before you start that you are doing exactly the same thing as the Nazis, and the philosophers who fell in with and inspired them, did.

[The Terrible Sweal]

If this potential is not given merely for the asking, then you are no longer talking about democracy.

How can it be? Once one man becomes Prime Minister, the office is closed to all other candidates. Sure, it will be open again at some point in the future, but the same could be said of Stalin's government too.

In a democracy, office holders are not rulers, they are citizns volunteering to serve.

[Hugo]

In a democracy, office holders are not rulers, they are citizns volunteering to serve.

Then you have a very confused idea of "service". Is the government serving me by stealing my property on a regular basis, telling me I can't do what I want with my own body and property, that I shall not buy or sell certain products, that I shall not say certain things, that I shall not print certain words, etc.? By that standard, are the Mafia not also citizens volunteering to serve?

Those who get to dictate to others are rulers. The office holders of a democracy are rulers. Your argument is just a string of meaningless, apologetic catchphrases. It amazes me that when it comes to religion, you will decry blind faith in favour of a scientific, normative approach, however, when it comes to the state, you will abandon the scientific approach in favour of blind faith, twist words around to their opposite meaning, and be so self-contradictory as to offer arguments that depend upon the possibility that the physical world does not exist, or that wholly contradict your cries for equality elsewhere in this forum with calls for oligarchy and privilege, or that bely your claims that, say, the Iraq war was illegal and unjust by calling into question the very ideas of legality and justice on which you base those earlier statements - hardly scientific or even consistent at all! Indeed, I could take what you have said on these threads on anarchism and use it to systematically destroy or at least call into serious doubt everything else you have ever claimed here, without adding a single word of my own.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You can't morally beat me up and steal my property because such a position means that you would have to be better and superior to me in order to have any moral justification for so doing,

Morally? What the hell does tha have to do with it?

[Hugo]

Morally? What the hell does tha have to do with it?

What the hell does anything have to do with anything, Sweal? You're the one who thinks that arguments ought to take into account points of insane solipsism such as the possibility that the entire physical world does not actually exist.

Anyway, I know that you are feigning ignorance for the sake of petty argument. I have seen you argue that the invasion of Iraq was immoral and wrong (here, here, and a great many other posts besides - use the search function) although it was clearly possible by dint of the fact that it was done, so I am fully aware that you can see a difference between moral and practical imperatives, and I am also aware that you will argue that morality is important and should guide at least some human actions - so don't even bother pretending the opposite now.

Remember how I said I could demolish all your previous arguments using your own words? That's an example.

[I Miss Trudeau]

You can't morally beat me up and steal my property because such a position means that you would have to be better and superior to me in order to have any moral justification for so doing, and such a position is not objectively defensible.

But why shouldn't I be allowed to do it? It doesn't violate my morality, just yours. Why do you get to make the rules for me to live by?