Tyrrany versus Freedom

[The Terrible Sweal]

What ownership has been created?

My ownership of the nugget.

Please don't waste time with sophomoric nonsense. I know the nugget is the object, but what right has been created over the nugget. You have it in your possession, but what says you "own" it?

You mean that is YOUR definition.

Yes, that's right. Until you find an insurmountable problem with it, or you provide a better definition, it's the one I'll go with.

Done and done.

Problem: for the purpose of this analysus, your definition does not include all necessaily relevanr cases.

Better definition: see my post in numerous prior threads.

Since when [can monopoly only be held using violence or the threat thereof ?]

Since forever. The definition of monopoly is the control of a good, service or commodity held by force (against the customers, against potential competitors).

Sophistry. You posit an absurdity , then create special personal defintions in support of the absurdity. Monopoly, Hugo, means 'one seller'. It can readily exist in the absence of violence, for example where a unique skill or process is involved, where one seller has out competed its rivals, or in cases of mature 'natural monopolies'.

If I possess something, do I not have a de facto right of disposal?

A "de facto right" is an oxymoron and effectively meaningless.

I can possess something and (if no other human attempts to intervene) dispose of it as I please without violence. If another human does attempt to intervene, then the violence is on his part, not mine, and pertains not to ownership but to the attempt to usurp ownership.

Nonsense. Presuming the conclusion. You have not established that you own it (or indeed what you even mean by 'owning' it).

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

and one cannot claim that such aggression is wrong unless one has a better claim to the object of aggression than the aggressor.

The 'better claim' is the superior force. Provided one has the will to use it, of course.

This is, logically, nonsense. Violence is a transgression of property rights, i.e. the right to self-ownership and the right to property ownership. One cannot claim that one has been a victim of violence if one's own person or property has not been aggressed against,

Then what is the name for aquiesence and reliquishment of ownership in the face of the threat of violence?

That isn't pragmatism, that's resignation. It is not that you believe it is the best and most practical way, it is that you believe it is unjust but are unwilling or unable to do anything about it.

It is only resignation if it happens to me. Let's take Canada for example. Were it to be invaded and conquered, the 'conquistadors' would then become the owners and be able to sell it, or parcels of it, as they saw fit. How can anyone say it is unfair, when that is how it came to be owned thus far? One either has to continue fighting or resign oneself to one's fate.

[Hugo]

Please don't waste time with sophomoric nonsense. I know the nugget is the object, but what right has been created over the nugget. You have it in your possession, but what says you "own" it?

What says I don't? I want to hear your alternative theory. You can read my all-too-brief summary of Lockean-Rothbardian natural rights theory below.

Problem: for the purpose of this analysus, your definition does not include all necessaily relevanr cases.

Which cases does it not include?

Better definition: see my post in numerous prior threads.

You still have not addressed the massive failing of your definition which, according to you, makes the following paragraph 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."

You still have not replied to that post.

Monopoly, Hugo, means 'one seller'.

Seller of what? I am the only possible seller of everything I own, including my labour. In fact, everything on the planet is exclusively owned, so that means everything on the planet is monopolised, and everybody alive is a monopolist.

Another completely useless definition from The Terrible Sweal (so-called).

A "de facto right" is an oxymoron and effectively meaningless.

Demonstrate why. I notice plenty of nit-picking from you and a complete lack of coherent counter-argument. To be honest, I'm getting tired of your sniping from the sidelines and would like you to make your position known - if you have one.

Presuming the conclusion. You have not established that you own it (or indeed what you even mean by 'owning' it).

Clearly I'm going to have to run over the entire property-rights theory for you since you haven't been bothered to read about this subject before you shot your mouth off.

Let's start with the Lockean theory. Basically, it goes like this. The universe is made up of many separate entities with various properties. With inanimate things, plants and particularly the lower animals, physical properties and instincts guide their actions exclusively. Human action and thought is not governed by physical properties and instincts. In discovering what we should think and do we have no instincts to guide us, and our physical properties do not force us into any of the myriad alternatives of action and thought open to us. There is no "right" way to think and act since no human is innately superior to another and no superhuman solution has been revealed. Therefore, a human being should be allowed to think and act with the fullest freedom that can be accorded to him, because anything else is antihuman and would mean that some people must be innately superior (they who get to restrict freedom), which cannot be objectively supported.

This is self-ownership. It therefore follows that when a man takes natural resources and mixes his labour with them they become his. By working with something he extends his own self into them and he has a claim over them. A person who has not mixed his labour with a natural resource cannot claim ownership.

There are two alternatives to this. Firstly, that some people have the right of ownership over things that others, not they, have mixed their labour with: the right of expropriation. If this is the alternative you support I would like to hear your moral argument for this.

The second is that we all equally share everything, and that every person alive owns a six-billionth share of everything. The main problem with this is that it is impossible to meaningfully exert ownership over a part of everything, which means that such ownership basically becomes the first alternative again: ownership by a privileged group with the right of expropriation. If this is the alternative you support, I would like to hear how you propose to make a workable system out of equal, one-six-billionth ownership of everything on and in the planet.

So, I would like you to tell me which of the alternatives to natural-rights property theory you espouse and why.

[Hugo]

The 'better claim' is the superior force. Provided one has the will to use it, of course.

So once again, you tell me that might makes right, and you see this as ethically acceptable. Otherwise you are very confused. I would say that superior force gives one an ability to expropriate, but not the moral right. What you have have given me is apologia for the Holocaust, the Great Terror, the Cultural Revolution and so forth. I don't think that's where you stand - is it?

Then what is the name for aquiesence and reliquishment of ownership in the face of the threat of violence?

Appeasement.

How do you justify your self-contradiction, now? I would like an answer, and not another dodge, please.

It is only resignation if it happens to me. Let's take Canada for example. Were it to be invaded and conquered, the 'conquistadors' would then become the owners and be able to sell it, or parcels of it, as they saw fit. How can anyone say it is unfair, when that is how it came to be owned thus far?

That is a bad example. You are deliberately obfuscating the issue by talking about the expropriation of previously expropriated property, which is not what we are discussing at all. We are talking about the expropriation of rightfully obtained property.

So let's take a non-obfuscatory example. Let us say you go into unclaimed wildnerness, say, Antarctica. You dig in the ground and find some gold. Then a man turns up with a gun, shoots you and takes that gold. What you have said to me is that this man has committed no crime, and that the gold is now rightfully his.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Have to go, big party coming up tonight. I'll make this a short one.

So let's take a non-obfuscatory example. Let us say you go into unclaimed wildnerness, say, Antarctica. You dig in the ground and find some gold. Then a man turns up with a gun, shoots you and takes that gold. What you have said to me is that this man has committed no crime, and that the gold is now rightfully his.

I do not say no crime was commited, nor do I use the term 'rightfully'. All I say is "The gold is now his".

[Hugo]

I do not say no crime was commited, nor do I use the term 'rightfully'. All I say is "The gold is now his".

Then I must confess, I have not the faintest idea why you are even bothering to post this stuff. To summarise, what you have told me is, "it is possible to steal things with violence, but that doesn't make it right."

I hate to say it, but... Duh!

[The Terrible Sweal]

Please don't waste time with sophomoric nonsense. I know the nugget is the object, but what right has been created over the nugget. You have it in your possession, but what says you "own" it?

What says I don't? I want to hear your alternative theory.

Enough evasion and prevarication. I want to hear you actually try to defend your position for once.

Answer the question.

Monopoly, Hugo, means 'one seller'.

Seller of what?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Seller of whatever they have a monoploy in.

Another completely useless definition from The Terrible Sweal (so-called).

Must you behave like a complete berk?

A "de facto right" is an oxymoron and effectively meaningless.

Demonstrate why.

There's my answer, I guess. Hugo, I am NOT going to demonstrate to you why 2 is 2 and not three. Look up the meaning of "de facto" for yourself.

Clearly I'm going to have to run over the entire property-rights theory for you since you haven't been bothered to read about this subject before you shot your mouth off.

I've asked you repeatedly to articulate whatever mad theory of property leads you to make your absurd postings. If you are finally willing to put your money where your lips flap, GOOD.

...Human action and thought is not governed by physical properties and instincts.

!!!Not at all????? That's very questionable.

There is no "right" way to think and act since no human is innately superior to another and no superhuman solution has been revealed.

Most of that sentence is open to question too. Is it true that no human is inatley superor to another?? Sez who? Even if it's true, it would not preclude there being a Right way to think.

... This is self-ownership.

What you have actually described is support for a claim to self-dtermination. Inserting "ownership" at this juncture is (a) meaningless, and ( again presumes the conclusion.

[quot

It therefore follows that when a man takes natural resources and mixes his labour with them they become his.

It only "follows" because you have fallaciously slipped the word 'ownership' in here without any sensible definition.

After numerous attempts to get at what you think you mean, I conclude tha you are unable to be intelligible on this topic.

[Hugo]

Enough evasion and prevarication. I want to hear you actually try to defend your position for once.

Really? I tell you what, then: I'll "try to defend" my position when you actually have a position. That sounds fair to me. I'm not a rhetorical punching-bag.

Must you behave like a complete berk?

I'm sorry that it offends you to have the massive holes in your arguments illustrated to you. Perhaps if I were a "complete berk" you could demonstrate it by shooting down my arguments, rather than ignoring them completely in favour of insults.

Hugo, I am NOT going to demonstrate to you [why]... a "de facto right" is an oxymoron and effectively meaningless.

Then you concede the point. If you can't defend it I will regard it as indefensible and move on. If you don't feel it's worth defending then I will regard it as weak enough to be overlooked, and move on.

!!!Not at all????? That's very questionable.

Then make a case for it.

Most of that sentence is open to question too. Is it true that no human is inatley superor to another??

Is it not? Make a case for it.

Even if it's true, it would not preclude there being a Right way to think.

Really? Then make a case for it.

What you have actually described is support for a claim to self-dtermination.

Self-determination is a property right. You can't determine your course of action if you are not free to use your body as you see fit, and right of disposal is ownership. Conversely, if you have full freedom to use your body as you see fit you are perfectly able to determine your own actions. Therefore, self-determination is simply another term for self-ownership.

After numerous attempts to get at what you think you mean, I conclude tha you are unable to be intelligible on this topic.

Whatever.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... I tell you what, then: I'll "try to defend" my position when you actually have a position.

You can't defend your position except through a pretense that I dn't have one? Pathetic. Why don't you just acyually attempt to be responsive to the point I ask? (Because your ideas are crap, tha's why.)

...If you can't defend it I will regard it as indefensible and move on.

You have no idea how foolish you appear, I guess.

Most of that sentence is open to question too. Is it true that no human is inatley superor to another??

Is it not? Make a case for it.

It's YOUR assertion. YOU defend it. Only a complete berk doesn't understand that protocol.

[Hugo]

It's YOUR assertion. YOU defend it.

You've asserted nothing throughout this thread, then? Either you're lying in your teeth, or you really don't understand how to debate at all. Anyway, human beings are not objectively superior to one another since there are no objective measures for intelligence, wisdom, beauty, or anything else that may make one human superior to another. About all we can objectively measure are things such as size, weight, skin colour and so forth, but these have no bearing on judgement and wisdom - unless you are going to tell me some kind of Nazi racial superiority claptrap. Are you?

You can't defend your position except through a pretense that I dn't have one? Pathetic. Why don't you just acyually attempt to be responsive to the point I ask? (Because your ideas are crap, tha's why.)

And so the so-called Terrible Sweal concedes another thread (like this one) in his usual inelegant and clumsy fashion.

Why don't you go troll somewhere else? Babble is suitably full of dimwits who won't challenge your prejudices too much and embarrass you.

[August1991]

Hugo, the problem isn't really violence. Something else is.

How insightful. Is it that you don't know what it is, or just that you aren't willing to discuss it at this time?

Sorry about that. But my oblique comment leads to a longer discussion and I didn't feel like going into it then. I was curious too to see if anyone would pick up on it.

So let's take a non-obfuscatory example. Let us say you go into unclaimed wildnerness, say, Antarctica. You dig in the ground and find some gold. Then a man turns up with a gun, shoots you and takes that gold. What you have said to me is that this man has committed no crime, and that the gold is now rightfully his.

This strikes me as a good example. If we say the second man has the right to "shoot and own", then why not a third man or a fourth man and so on? Potentially, the whole world would be involved in shooting and owning. And no one would be looking for new minerals in Antarctica - which is where the real value-adding occurs.

We do not want people wasting their time stealing from others. We want rather people to create something of value, and that includes looking for nuggets.

How to achieve that? A pretty good but imperfect rule is to say: if you find it first, and it belongs to no one else, then it's yours and you can keep it. But if someone else owns it, then that's theft.

Now, I can think of better rules but as a first approximation, that's not bad. It also imitates the basic sense of fairness of schoolchildren.

Government is not synonymous with social order. The best theory for the rise of government is that during the agricultural revolution, pastoral nomads would raid agricultural settlements during hard times to steal their grain. After a while, they realised it would be better to just make the agriculturalists work for them and protect them against other pastoralist raiders, taking a tribute of grain which they could obtain with a lot less effort. In effect, they made the agriculturalists their wards like their herds. And hey presto, you have a government: a body of armed men that expropriate by force in exchange for monopolised services.

But you would agree that this "government" provides a protection service to the agriculturalists? I imagine it could provide other services too. The tribute to be paid is a question of negotiation.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Then I must confess, I have not the faintest idea why you are even bothering to post this stuff. To summarise, what you have told me is, "it is possible to steal things with violence, but that doesn't make it right."

I hate to say it, but... Duh!

Gee, you asked me to clarify what the base nature of property ownership was, and now you say you knew it all along....

I will reiterate the fundamental:owwnership means one has either the power to take something or the power to keep it. In an anarchist system, the individual would be responsible for providing their own means of projecting that power. In a 'governed society', the state (actually the police) use the threat of the use of force on your behalf to defend your 'right of ownership' of your plasma TV. If there was a dispute over who 'owned' your TV, and they (or you) lose the battle, you also lose your 'right of ownership'. It is only 'your right to own it' as long as the police (or whomever is in control of the 'overwhelming force or threat of violence) agree.

[Hugo]

But you would agree that this "government" provides a protection service to the agriculturalists?

No, because the people who the agriculturalists need protecting from most are their government! Who will police the police? As it is with us in our time, those who commit the most crimes against us are our government, not those they profess to protect us from.

The tribute to be paid is a question of negotiation.

Negotiation is not necessary when you exercise a monopoly by brute force. Have you tried negotiating your taxes? What makes you think that the agriculturalists would have had more luck?

Gee, you asked me to clarify what the base nature of property ownership was, and now you say you knew it all along....

I'm just wondering why we had to have that argument when you have basically ended up confirming my position.

I will reiterate the fundamental:owwnership means one has either the power to take something or the power to keep it.

And you're right back to contradicting yourself again. You have just denied that right is synonymous with power, and now you are affirming it again. Settle on one position, please.

In a 'governed society', the state (actually the police) use the threat of the use of force on your behalf to defend your 'right of ownership' of your plasma TV.

The problem is that in this 'governed society' the state uses the threat of force overwhelmingly to further its own interests and goals. This is effectively what happens if you allow thieves to have coercive power over you. They might work for you sometimes, particularly if they understand the economic expediency of allowing their slaves to produce something that they can steal in the future, but they will generally work for themselves at your expense.

If there was a dispute over who 'owned' your TV, and they (or you) lose the battle, you also lose your 'right of ownership'. It is only 'your right to own it' as long as the police (or whomever is in control of the 'overwhelming force or threat of violence) agree.

I see. So your rights only hold as long as the state is willing or able to defend them? You are telling me, then, that six million European Jews actually committed suicide between 1933 and 1945, and were not murdered at all, since once the state refused to defend or uphold their right to live they no longer had a right to live?

That is the position you have just outlined for me.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

So your rights only hold as long as the state is willing or able to defend them? You are telling me, then, that six million European Jews actually committed suicide between 1933 and 1945, and were not murdered at all, since once the state refused to defend or uphold their right to live they no longer had a right to live?

The Nazis did not recongize their right to live. Ergo, in Nazi Germany (and elsewhere as it expanded by means of overwhelming force) the right did not exist. Only elsewhere, in the 'free world' did we recognize that right, and we had to use overwhelming force to defeat the Nazis and re-establish it. Sadly, almost six million Jews and more millions of others were murdered before it could be done. It is estimated that Poland alone lost some six million civilians during WWII, ( many were because ofthe USSR, and those after were because of Stalin) but the only 'right' to freedom from occupation came because of treaty obligations to Poland from France and the UK.

Imagine your 'anarchist rights' theory, and expound it to include a state. Did the Allies in WWII violate the rights of Nazi Germany to do with the Jews as they pleased, within their own borders? I can only say... Thank Goodness Canada wasn't merely a collection of anarchists, who, to an individual said, "Well, they haven't violated my rights, so it would be wrong for me to try to impose my morals and values, by physical force, upon them".

And you're right back to contradicting yourself again. You have just denied that right is synonymous with power, and now you are affirming it again. Settle on one position, please

Not sure where the contradiction is, unless it is where I said the violence need not occur, when the threat is enough. You claim the gov't has a monopoly of violence, and they steal from you (taxes), yet I doubt the gov't beats a cheque out of you every year. They don't have to, as long you know that they can.

The problem is that in this 'governed society' the state uses the threat of force overwhelmingly to further its own interests and goals. This is effectively what happens if you allow thieves to have coercive power over you. They might work for you sometimes, particularly if they understand the economic expediency of allowing their slaves to produce something that they can steal in the future, but they will generally work for themselves at your expense.

I love this bit, I find bitterly ironic allegory humorous. But you seem to think that the individual derives absolutely no benefit from the gov't. I don't think it's quite so devoid of the positive.

I hope to start a thread about morals soon, but here is a quick bit of it's content...Is it wrong to profit (let's say hugely) from a retarded person? If the right-wing believe that individual wealth is the greatest good, then no such thing as 'rights' or 'morality' need exist. There aren't any columns for morality on any ledger book that I have ever seen. (Nor for legerdemain, for that matter)

[August1991]

So your rights only hold as long as the state is willing or able to defend them? You are telling me, then, that six million European Jews actually committed suicide between 1933 and 1945, and were not murdered at all, since once the state refused to defend or uphold their right to live they no longer had a right to live?

Hugo, your argument is tantamount to saying: Because our house burned down, we must never, ever use fire.

You have shown that government can be bad. But you haven't shown that it is never good.

A good system requires a series of checks and balances to hem in the arbitrary whims of the brutes. Under your crazy Icelandic/Somalian system, something similar would exist - in fact, I have a suspicion that it would eventually ressemble a modern democratic constitution.

Negotiation is not necessary when you exercise a monopoly by brute force. Have you tried negotiating your taxes? What makes you think that the agriculturalists would have had more luck?

That's why we have elections, and places like the Cayman Islands. Incidentally, I have the suspicion that the relatively high taxes of modern democratic states are not sustainable in the long run. IOW, this is a negotiation in progress.

But you would agree that this "government" provides a protection service to the agriculturalists?

No, because the people who the agriculturalists need protecting from most are their government! Who will police the police? As it is with us in our time, those who commit the most crimes against us are our government, not those they profess to protect us from.

Then you are describing an exortion racket. What prevents another "government" from offering protection at a lower "price"?

[Hugo]

The Nazis did not recongize their right to live. Ergo, in Nazi Germany (and elsewhere as it expanded by means of overwhelming force) the right did not exist.

So you are saying that Nazis get to decide who has rights, and what they are? Why does nobody else - like the Jews - get to decide?

Your argument basically comes back to the idea that the state gets to assign rights. My question therefore, is by what right does the state assign rights?

Imagine your 'anarchist rights' theory, and expound it to include a state. Did the Allies in WWII violate the rights of Nazi Germany to do with the Jews as they pleased, within their own borders? I can only say... Thank Goodness Canada wasn't merely a collection of anarchists, who, to an individual said, "Well, they haven't violated my rights, so it would be wrong for me to try to impose my morals and values, by physical force, upon them".

Let me ask you, Thelonius, if you could tell me the difference between a state that rounds people up under threat of violence, dresses them in khaki uniforms and sends them to be massacred on some beach in Normandy; and one that rounds people up under threat of violence, dresses them in striped uniforms and sends them to be massacred at some death camp in Poland?

Not sure where the contradiction is

First you said that property (i.e. the right to dispose of) was dictated by violence. Then you said that property could be stolen by violence, but not dictated by violence. Then you told me the former again.

Note that I am drawing a distinction between that which is ethically right and that which is practically possible.

You claim the gov't has a monopoly of violence, and they steal from you (taxes), yet I doubt the gov't beats a cheque out of you every year. They don't have to, as long you know that they can.

Hence the reason why coercion is defined as violence or the threat thereof. The only device the state has is murder. If I don't pay my taxes, the government will threaten me with jail. If I still refuse, they will send the police to arrest me. If I resolve to defend myself, they will physically attack me. If I am determined to resist to the death, they will murder me.

But you seem to think that the individual derives absolutely no benefit from the gov't.

The only individuals who derive benefit from government are in government. I would define the state as being the rulers and those citizens who have managed to maneuver themselves into a position of net benefit from the extortions of the state (net tax-beneficiaries), who are not unlike medieval courtiers and retainers. Everybody else - the net taxpayers - are actually suffering from the attentions and efforts of the state.

I don't think it's quite so devoid of the positive.

Aldous Huxley said that the ends cannot justify the means because the means become a part of the ends. As the only means the state has is violence or the threat thereof, no outcome of state action can be morally positive. Everything it does is wrong, just as surely as all property that is stolen from its rightful owner is ill-gotten, even if all that property was donated to charity or some other laudable cause.

If the right-wing believe that individual wealth is the greatest good, then no such thing as 'rights' or 'morality' need exist. There aren't any columns for morality on any ledger book that I have ever seen.

Morality is something that the individual must decide for himself. This is why nonaggression is so important - without it, there can be no morality, not for the aggressors (who are immoral) or those coerced (who are amoral).

[Hugo]

You have shown that government can be bad. But you haven't shown that it is never good.

I have made this argument to Thelonius. As I have said to him, the only device government has is the threat of or actual initiation of violence. Ultimately, all the state can do or threaten is murder.

What murder can be good, August? What initiation of violence, or aggression, can be ethical?

A good system requires a series of checks and balances to hem in the arbitrary whims of the brutes.

The trouble is that states will appropriate all the checks and balances for themselves. In the USA and Canada, for instance, the devices by which the state shall supposedly be checked and balanced are themselves part of the state.

This violates the second most important principle of Anglo-Saxon law: nobody shall be a judge in his own case. In the case of the state, when the legitimacy of an action of the state is brought into question, the state itself is the arbiter. This explains why the US government has grown from the minarchist, libertarian state it initially was into the massive, bloated Leviathan it is today. Clearly, the checks and balances in the Constitution do not work worth a damn.

Under your crazy Icelandic/Somalian system, something similar would exist - in fact, I have a suspicion that it would eventually ressemble a modern democratic constitution.

The Icelandic system existed for far longer than the modern USA has - several centuries - and never reached such a point. Why would a society without government need a constitution of government? Why would a society without legitimised coercion need democracy? In anarchy, the establishment of government becomes a public goods problem. Those who would establish a state will not necessarily be able to share in the benefits of it any more than those who sit idly by and watch them. Therefore, the only way a state will be fashioned in anarchy is the way all states have been founded, namely conquest and aggression, because that is the only way that the founders of the state can avoid that public goods problem.

That's why we have elections, and places like the Cayman Islands.

Elections are not negotiations. The majority of the people do not have a power of attorney from you, and you do not have one from them. Elections basically empower a majority to appoint dictators. As history has shown, and as Blackdog said earlier in this thread, it is easy for a majority to tyrannize.

Then you are describing an exortion racket. What prevents another "government" from offering protection at a lower "price"?

Because the existing government would aggress against these competitors and destroy them. This is the nature of monopoly. If you do not believe this, try setting yourself up in competition to Canada Post. You will be imprisoned. It is not permitted to compete with the state.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It's YOUR assertion. YOU defend it.

You've asserted nothing throughout this thread, then? Either you're lying in your teeth, or you really don't understand how to debate at all. Anyway, human beings are not objectively superior to one another since there are no objective measures for intelligence, wisdom, beauty, or anything else that may make one human superior to another. About all we can objectively measure are things such as size, weight, skin colour and so forth, but these have no bearing on judgement and wisdom - unless you are going to tell me some kind of Nazi racial superiority claptrap. Are you?

You can't defend your position except through a pretense that I dn't have one? Pathetic. Why don't you just acyually attempt to be responsive to the point I ask? (Because your ideas are crap, tha's why.)

And so the so-called Terrible Sweal concedes another thread (like this one) in his usual inelegant and clumsy fashion.

Why don't you go troll somewhere else? Babble is suitably full of dimwits who won't challenge your prejudices too much and embarrass you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Incredible. You really have no idea.

[August1991]

All of those arguments are, once again Hugo, describing the terrible effects of fire. Save bandwidth - we know all that. And it's not the issue.

I have made this argument to Thelonius. As I have said to him, the only device government has is the threat of or actual initiation of violence. Ultimately, all the state can do or threaten is murder.

What murder can be good, August? What initiation of violence, or aggression, can be ethical?

When people marry, they sign a longterm, undefined contract that has, in some cases, the famous phrase "for better or worse".

In many cases, this contract imposes an awful form of servitude that signatories regret terribly. Why would anyone ever sign such a contract? Why accept unknown future conditions?

Clearly, individuals perceive that the potential benefits are greater than the potential costs. So too government.

If you dispute the voluntary nature of the social contract, then I'll ask you why most children maintain good relations with their parents. Parents chose to have children, although not the specific children they have. Children certainly didn't ask to be born.

We maintain family ties because the potential benefits are greater than the potential costs. There is an implicit contract.

----

Hugo, I know you have an ideological objection to government. Let me try another line of attack.

People benefit from cooperation. But cooperation is prone to cheating. There are methods to overcome this problem and government is one of the methods. To work, government requires coercion - just as marriage traditionally forbade divorce.

Your argument basically comes back to the idea that the state gets to assign rights. My question therefore, is by what right does the state assign rights?

Who cares who decides property rights as long as the method used doesn't lead to wasteful efforts as people try to steal other people's property. The State is ideally suited to such a role - but I would argue that it should sell the property rights to the highest bidder.

IOW, Hugo, your insistence on creating a society without government is akin to creating a universe without the colour blue, or without fire. Why would you want to give up a mechanism that can be useful?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Your argument basically comes back to the idea that the state gets to assign rights. My question therefore, is by what right does the state assign rights?

By the use of, or threat of, overwhelming force. Is that ethical? No, but ethics and morality are an invention of man, save one exception in the animal kingdom.

Here's a question you asked August1991 that I missed...

What murder can be good, August? What initiation of violence, or aggression, can be ethical?

The allies in WWII (at least those not under direct attack) chose to initiate aggression against Nazi Germany, and murder even those not responsible ('terror bombing') to change the Nazi's 'right' to dispense 'rights'.

[Hugo]

If you dispute the voluntary nature of the social contract, then I'll ask you why most children maintain good relations with their parents.

The answer is in your question: most children. Some do not. The relationship is voluntary. Either party can opt out. The child did not opt to be born and to live, so they can commit suicide. They did not choose their parents, and they can disown them.

One cannot disown the government. The "social contract" is a myth, concocted by Renaissance-era thinkers to replace the increasingly-rejected notion of "divine right" that justified government until that point. Social contract theory is itself becoming obsolescent, and the current argument for statism is the idea that human affairs and economics are far too important and arcane to be left in the hands of the masses and must be directed by experts.

People benefit from cooperation. But cooperation is prone to cheating. There are methods to overcome this problem and government is one of the methods.

Government is cheating, August, it operates by coercion. You propose that the solution to cheating be further cheating, presumably, that the solution to murder be more murder, to theft, more theft, and so forth. In essence, you are telling me that two wrongs make a right.

Who cares who decides property rights as long as the method used doesn't lead to wasteful efforts as people try to steal other people's property. The State is ideally suited to such a role

I think it is disingenuous of you to continue to insist on such a line without refuting or addressing my arguments against it. The state is actually ideally suited to the role of repeatedly violating such property rights as you have described, and to a fault, that is what it does! Both theoretical argument and empirical evidence show that the actual best guarantor of property rights are the property-holders themselves.

Hugo, your insistence on creating a society without government is akin to creating a universe without the colour blue, or without fire.

No, it is akin to creating a society without coercion. And it has been done.

Why would you want to give up a mechanism that can be useful?

Again, I say to you, nerve gas and nuclear weapons are useful. It depends upon your objectives. The objectives of the state are the continued power and privilege of the state, so yes, it is very useful for a select group of individuals. Everyone else suffers and chafes under it.

By the use of, or threat of, overwhelming force. Is that ethical? No, but ethics and morality are an invention of man, save one exception in the animal kingdom.

But your arguments elsewhere in this forum state that you are lying here - or there. You decry the war in Iraq. Clearly it was within the power of the USA to invade Iraq, yet you protest on moral grounds - however, according to this argument, there are no moral grounds to protest on.

The allies in WWII (at least those not under direct attack) chose to initiate aggression against Nazi Germany

No, actually Hitler declared war on all of the allies first.

Will you answer my other questions now?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

No, actually Hitler declared war on all of the allies first.

You are right, to a certain degree. Germany beat USA to the punch, and declared war out of treaty obligation to Japan before the US declared war. Some of the other countries (that greatly contributed) such as Canada and Australia, took votes in parliment and decided to follow the UK into battle, though they did have a choice.

Now, while I may seem disingenuous on the rights and morality issue, I do have a 'moral stance' and I think it is a good one. It doesn't matter what it is, though, unless others agree. Your and my theories of what rights should be (and Rothbard's and Thoreau's)aren't worth a fart in the wind unless there is overwhelming force to defend them should they need it.

I protest the war in Iraq on a moral ground because I believe the tenets and dogma (not what was written once upon a time, but how it is now practiced) of the USA are amoral. They do not invade Saudi Arabia because they favour them, brutal thought they may be, for reciprocal but exclusive benefit.

As to Huxley, I thought "A Brave New World" was what the right-wing conservatives are working toward....for I disagree with you (and TokyoTarakazuka) as to where fascism lies on the political spectrum. I believe it is far right, and hopefully soon I'll explain why...on another thread.

I suppose this argument should have taken place in the thread "what is a right', but these two mirror each other, for tyranny has the power to grant rights, and one man's freedom can take them away from others.

yet you protest on moral grounds - however, according to this argument, there are no moral grounds to protest on.

As Iv'e said, if one is far-right wing, and only holds the balance sheet and ledger as 'keeping score' of what is 'good', there are no columns for morals or ethics. Only profit and/or loss.

By the way, the example in the animal kingdom of 'granting rights'...evidently chimpanzees are awfully fond of meat. Sometimes, a chimp that is 'lower in the social order' will come into possession of some fresh meat. Normally, with mating, etc, the structure of the social order dictates that those with the overwhelming power get first pick, and so territory, mating rights, etc are decided 'Darwin-style'. Not so with meat. The other chimps, even the ones that could take the meat away if they wanted to, 'grant the de facto right of disposal' to that chimp. He can share it, eat it, whatever he wants, and no one will take him to task. It is the only 'anarchist right' I have ever seen a true example of. We can't even count on humans to do this every time.

[Hugo]

Now, while I may seem disingenuous on the rights and morality issue, I do have a 'moral stance' and I think it is a good one. It doesn't matter what it is, though, unless others agree. Your and my theories of what rights should be (and Rothbard's and Thoreau's)aren't worth a fart in the wind unless there is overwhelming force to defend them should they need it.

I am willing to accept that rights are not decided by force, but can and sometimes have to be defended by force. However, logic and evidence clearly show that the state is no fit guarantor of rights, is the greatest violator of rights, and that individuals defending their own rights without the state make for far fewer violations of rights.

As to Huxley, I thought "A Brave New World" was what the right-wing conservatives are working toward

Brave New World is very sexually liberal and has legitimised and normalised drug abuse, which is definitely not in the agenda of neo-cons.

for I disagree with you (and TokyoTarakazuka) as to where fascism lies on the political spectrum. I believe it is far right, and hopefully soon I'll explain why

Hopefully. I wish you luck, though, because you are dead wrong. The very labels 'left' and 'right' are misleading. During and after the French Revolution, the defenders of the ancien regime sat on the right of the hall, and its opponents on the left. Thus, conservatives were 'right' and radicals, 'left'. This meant that the libertarians and anarchists were also 'left'. With the transformation of the big state from monarchy to welfare-warfare state, which began its heyday under Bismarck in Germany, the conservatives under their new creed managed to change their label to 'left', and to label the classical liberals as 'right', which was a complete reversal. Now, of course, it is even more muddled - economically statist social liberals are the 'left', and economically liberal, social statists are the 'right', which really leaves the classical liberal with nowhere to be.

As regards the creeds of Nazism and Communism, they are virtually identical. The viciousness with which they fought is easily explained: each side views themselves as True Believers, and the others as Heretics. Their war is a religious war, fought with all the hatred that all wars between Communists have always been fought. Each favours extreme statism, the state as all-powerful in all parts of life: economic, social, religious (state as religion), etc. Each favours the abolition of family in favour of the state. Each has a select group they regard as the Chosen Ones (the proletariat, the master race). Each will use violence to destroy their opponents, and many of those opponents are identical: capitalists and businessmen, Jews, banks, foreigners, classical liberals and democrats, etc.

for tyranny has the power to grant rights

I disagree. Tyranny has the option of respecting or disrespecting rights, but it does not grant or create them. Otherwise, again, there would be nothing wrong with the Holocaust.

As Iv'e said, if one is far-right wing, and only holds the balance sheet and ledger as 'keeping score' of what is 'good', there are no columns for morals or ethics. Only profit and/or loss.

There are no columns, but they are reflected on the bottom line. Consumers will reject companies they regard as unethical and immoral.

By the way, the example in the animal kingdom of 'granting rights'...evidently chimpanzees are awfully fond of meat.

Humans are unique creatures. I don't think you can make a comparison to chimps. As my wife says, the funny thing about humans and animals is that we are always the ones wearing lab coats and studying them.

[Black Dog]

Brave New World is very sexually liberal and has legitimised and normalised drug abuse, which is definitely not in the agenda of neo-cons.

Well, in Huxley's dystopia, both the sex and drugs are instruments of state control. Today? Pfizer=Soma?

[Guest eureka]

Nazis wre nationalists: Communists were internationalists. Seems like a substantial difference to me!