Tyrrany versus Freedom

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Define "mentally retarded."

According to my 'Standard College Dictionary', Canadian edition, (1963)

mental deficiency:

a condition including all types of idiocy, imbecility, and moronism, characterized by subnormal intelligence to the extent that the individual is handicapped from participating fully in ordinary life.

retarded: Slowed down or backward in mental development or school achievement.

retard: to hinder the advance or course of; impede

[Hugo]

a condition including all types of idiocy, imbecility, and moronism, characterized by subnormal intelligence to the extent that the individual is handicapped from participating fully in ordinary life.

This just raises further questions. What is meant by "idiocy", "imbecility", "moronism", "subnormal", "handicapped" and "ordinary life"?

retarded: Slowed down or backward in mental development or school achievement.

Again: slowed down or backward relative to what and by how much?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

This just raises further questions. What is meant by "idiocy", "imbecility", "moronism", "subnormal", "handicapped" and "ordinary life"?

from the same dictionary,...

idiot: syn. Idiot, imbecile and moron denote a person who is mentally deficient. The idiot is incapable of learning and understanding, and is completely helpless. An imbecile may learn to communicate with others, but is incapable of earning his own living. A moron may take a normal place in society, but needs constant supervision.

As to the parameters of these labels, I am not the one to ask, for I didn't create them.

Interesting, though, both 'natural law and natural rights' were in this dictionary, and here is what it says...

natural law: A rule of conduct supposed to be inherent in man's nature and discoverable by reason alone.

natural rights: Rights with which mankind is supposedly endowed by nature

Have you died and been mulched so that you could feed a cabbage lately?

Not lately, but when I do die, that is what will happen. I desire no pine or oaken casket, nor a crypt. The peoples of The First Nations call it 'the cycle of life', and hold that man's lot isn't to interfere with it or alter it, but to be a part of it.

To say that it was unlawful is to say that a person has a claim on another to support them against their will. If Mr. Latimer was not able to do that, that would have meant that he would have been his daughter's slave.

It would seem that you think Latimer's motivation is the key. If he did what he did out of 'compassion' (to end her suffering) then it was wrong, for he transgressed her 'rights'. If he did what he did out of selfishness, then it was merely 'justifiable homocide', for he freed himself by killing his 'slave-owner', by using overwhelming force to defend his 'right' to freedom.

[Hugo]

As to the parameters of these labels, I am not the one to ask, for I didn't create them.

This is your problem: all of the terms you have given me are vague, arguable and ill-defined. I'm arguing that a person has rights on the basis of being a member of the species homo sapiens. That is objectively definable. One can scientifically arrive at a definition of homo sapiens, and no debate rages in the scientific community about whether or not something is human any more than they argue about if something is made of lead or copper - it's easy to establish.

On the other hand, you're claiming that my definitions are subjective - which they aren't - and attempting to shoot them down by asking if I'd include or exclude groups that are extremely subjective in their definition, as we've established by your attempts to define them. The words you've used in these definitions are extremely difficult to apply and very easy to argue over. If I'd asked you to define copper, for instance, you could simply tell me that it was a transition metal with a density of 8920 kg/m3, an atomic weight of 63.546 amu, an electron configuration of 3d104s1, melting at 1357.6 K, boiling at 2840 K, with a molar volume of 7.11 ×10-6 m3/mol, a specific heat capacity of 380 J/(kg·K), and even more statistics with can all be objectively verified. But I've asked you to define "mentally deficient" and the definition you've come up with is no less vague than the original term! This is why there is no argument amongst academics about what "copper" is, although there's plenty of debate about what "retarded" is or what "mentally deficient" is.

Not lately, but when I do die, that is what will happen. I desire no pine or oaken casket, nor a crypt.

How many animals and plants do you think you will eat in your lifetime, and how many do you think your death will feed? I don't see anything approaching equality here. Furthermore, cabbages and other food sources are culled before the end of their natural life-span to feed you. You, however, will wait until you cannot possibly live any more before giving your body to them. That doesn't seem particularly egalitarian either, since animals and plants are killed in the prime of life to feed and clothe you.

The peoples of The First Nations call it 'the cycle of life', and hold that man's lot isn't to interfere with it or alter it, but to be a part of it.

Isn't that an argument against medicine? Isn't it even an argument against the use of fire, spears, or huts with roofs?

It would seem that you think Latimer's motivation is the key. If he did what he did out of 'compassion' (to end her suffering) then it was wrong, for he transgressed her 'rights'. If he did what he did out of selfishness, then it was merely 'justifiable homocide', for he freed himself by killing his 'slave-owner', by using overwhelming force to defend his 'right' to freedom.

No, it was Latimer's right to abandon his daughter whatever his motivation. She had no right to live at his expense without his consent. However, it would be wrong for him to actively cause her death. It's quite possible that he could have abandoned her and someone else would have taken her in, without her needing to die.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

although there's plenty of debate about what "retarded" is or what "mentally deficient" is.

Just to clarify, another of my dictionaries defines 'idiot' as someone with the mental capacity equivalent to a child under 3. 'Imbecile' was as a child 3-8, and 'moron' was a child 8-12. I would think it a safe assumption that the parameters were the median intellect of said groups at the time of the classification.

and no debate rages in the scientific community about whether or not something is human any more than they argue about if something is made of lead or copper - it's easy to establish.

The debate rages within the abortion crowd. However, I do understand that a fetus will become a human, and not a penny.

We have a far superior intellect to anything else on the planet and that puts us at the top of the food chain.

But not all of us, as I pointed out. You claim 'all humans are superior' when they are not. The vast majority are, indeed, superior the the majority of any other species, and I'll agree. However, the notion of language, using tools and even a rudimentary 'rights theory' exist among other species.

There are certain animals that have the capacity to perform tasks such as guiding the blind, etc. and they can outperform certain humans at said tasks. I have heard of the 'handicapped' (or differently-abled, or whatever the PC term is now) being assisted in daily life by 'helper-monkeys', but I have never heard someone desiring a 'helper-retard'.

You seem to say that 'rights should only be extended to the 'superior', and I say that that definition is subjective and arbitrary. I understand that humans are unique. What I am saying is that rights are defined in the mind of the individual, and are therefore always subjective. It is akin to saying "I'm better than you are, so I have a right to exist but you don't". That would be almost understandable if there was a specific goal in mind that needed to be obtained, but we share the same goal...to be.

[Hugo]

Just to clarify, another of my dictionaries defines 'idiot' as someone with the mental capacity equivalent to a child under 3. 'Imbecile' was as a child 3-8, and 'moron' was a child 8-12. I would think it a safe assumption that the parameters were the median intellect of said groups at the time of the classification.

How was intellect measured, exactly? What units is a man's intellect measured in? How do these units take into account the differences between various sorts of intelligence (artistic and creative, mathematical, analytical, lateral etc) and explain phenomena like idiot-savantism? Are you aware that IQ is widely derided into the scientific community because it favours certain types of intelligence and is even culturally biased, for instance?

You see? You've been flailing around for a few posts now and you are absolutely no closer to providing a subjective definition of any of these things. Can we put this point of yours to rest yet?

The debate rages within the abortion crowd. However, I do understand that a fetus will become a human, and not a penny.

You're clutching at straws.

But not all of us, as I pointed out. You claim 'all humans are superior' when they are not.

The difference is that you can objectively separate humans from everything else, and say that humans are definitely superior on the whole. With 'human' described as an exclusive group we can make an average of anything and say that we are better than animals. However, since you can't objectively separate humans from other humans in any objective way, you can't make exclusive groups to measure against one another. Your definitions of "retard" are useless for this purpose, for instance, because we can't say with any certainty or agreement who is a retard, and who isn't, therefore, we can't assess the abilities of "retards" versus "everyone else".

You seem to say that 'rights should only be extended to the 'superior', and I say that that definition is subjective and arbitrary.

I said that rights should be extended to humans, and there is nothing subjective and arbitrary about the definition of humanity. I say this because, as I have demonstrated, there is no equality to be found between humans and animals (or plants, or minerals), and forced to make a choice, I make the choice for the more intelligent, more adaptable, more philosophising humans.

It'd be nice if we could all co-operate with each other in this universe, however, this isn't the way that God or Nature or whatever you believe in seems to have laid things out. Since pretty much anything living on this planet must kill something else in order to live, there's no possibility of equal rights.

If you ask by what rationale I put humans first, I ask by what rationale do you put non-humans first?

What I am saying is that rights are defined in the mind of the individual

Are you sure? That wasn't what you said a while back. I think it would be best if you'd clearly articulate your rights theory once and for all. I'm just getting piecemeal snippets so far and they don't gel well together. For instance, you tell me that we should assign equal rights to animals, but then that rights only exist in the mind. Well, animals don't have any rights in their minds, because they're not capable of thinking such abstract thoughts. These two ideas are mutually contradictory.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Can we put this point of yours to rest yet?

Certainly. I shall freely admit that the 'median intellect' of humans is superior to that of any other species. My point was merely that certain attributes that make humans 'superior' can be found outside of 'homo sapiens', although admittedly, to a lesser degree and with more rarity.

I think it would be best if you'd clearly articulate your rights theory once and for all. I'm just getting piecemeal snippets so far and they don't gel well together.

I would be glad to, but I don't have the time today. All I can say for now is that I believe my 'theory' has been reasonably consistent. I have long been looking for, and thinking of, a 'theory of being' that is beyond refutation. Religion hasn't done it (for me) and Rothbard hasn't done it. So far Darwin and Nietzsche, in my opinion, have come the closest to 'seeing it as it is'.

For instance, you tell me that we should assign equal rights to animals, but then that rights only exist in the mind. Well, animals don't have any rights in their minds, because they're not capable of thinking such abstract thoughts. These two ideas are mutually contradictory.

I have said in the past that 'rights' are bestowed, so it doesn't matter if you are aware of them or not. ('a' grants or bestows 'rights to b')

For example, are you aware that in Canada, you are now allowed to keep your head if you are found wearing a disguise in the woods? You have been granted a right you probably weren't even aware you had. Evidently, a long time ago, the gov't (the Crown) had a big problem with 'highwaymen' and banditry, so a law was passed that 'being found in the woods while wearing a disguise' was a capital offense. Only recently was it discovered that this 'law' was still on the books! The point is, rights come from the issuer, not the issuee.

[Hugo]

For example, are you aware that in Canada, you are now allowed to keep your head if you are found wearing a disguise in the woods? You have been granted a right you probably weren't even aware you had.

No, the government has now recognised a right that I always had. That's my stance. Rights aren't conferred, they're a part of being human. What's conferred is the respect or lack thereof others have for them. If I kill you, that doesn't annul your right to live. I know this point is getting tired, but you've yet to explain away the fact that your rights theory essentially makes the Holocaust into eleven million suicides, since murder is by definition the intentional violation of the right of another human being not to be killed (so as to differentiate it from euthanasia, for instance). What you've said is that the right not to be killed comes from others, so if others don't 'confer' it, that right does not exist, which means the victims of the Nazis weren't murdered at all.

I have long been looking for, and thinking of, a 'theory of being' that is beyond refutation. Religion hasn't done it (for me) and Rothbard hasn't done it. So far Darwin and Nietzsche, in my opinion, have come the closest to 'seeing it as it is'.

The problem with the ubermensch aspect of Nietzscheian thinking is that it is self-contradictory. He rejected traditional 'slave' morality because it is supposedly suited to the 'herd-animal' and suppresses the superior man, and believed that there should be a 'master morality' for the ubermensch where good and evil were replaced by good and bad. This can be interpreted as might makes right, that the will to power will decide who gets on top, but Nietzsche gives us no clue as to how we might establish who the superior men are and, moreoever, ignores the fact that those with the will to power will ultimately end up suppressing anyone who might be or become superior to themselves, thus defeating the whole purpose of Nietzsche's master morality. Morality that favours the weak is reprehensible in his view, however, he does not account for the fact that the superior may well suppress the would-be supreme. There's the further self-contradiction that Nietzsche proclaimed that there was no truth, only interpretation, but yet spent so much of his philosophical career pursuing truth.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

If I kill you, that doesn't annul your right to live.

It sure does, for only the 'murderer' could have bestowed the right, so he/she annulled it within themselves before the act (if it was ever there). Besides, if it existed anywhere else, (as within the murdered) how could 'it' live on without the person? Answer: It cannot. The notion of that right ceases to exist when that person ceases producing that thought (dies). Then certainly, and with the hindsight of the hypothetical, we can say where is that it could still and only could exist. In others. What if I asked you which one matters most?

I know this point is getting tired, but you've yet to explain away the fact that your rights theory essentially makes the Holocaust into eleven million suicides, since murder is by definition the intentional violation of the right of another human being not to be killed (so as to differentiate it from euthanasia, for instance).

Murder and suicide are by definition different from each other anyway, (and euthanasia is still considered murder unless state law allows for it) for suicide is the intentional taking of one's own life, while murder is the intentional taking of any life apart from your own. 'Rev.' Jim Jones was not Hitler, though they both caused multiple deaths. Very few of 'Rev.' Jones' 'victims' were murdered by him.

By definition (at least according to the several dictionaries I have) murder is 'the unlawful' taking of life, and no mention of 'rights violation' is present. That is your take.

What you've said is that the right not to be killed comes from others, so if others don't 'confer' it, that right does not exist, which means the victims of the Nazis weren't murdered at all.

It is in the eye of the beholder and the 'bestower'. The statement is correct, from the point of view of the Nazis.

Morality that favours the weak is reprehensible in his view, however, he does not account for the fact that the superior may well suppress the would-be supreme.

I believe Hitler must have read Nietzsche, though he never mentions it in Mein Kampf. Perhaps, as an egomaniac, he felt 'ubermensch' (or the Aryan Superman) was his idea. In his book "Inside The Third Reich", by Albert Speer, Speer himself wanted to limit destruction and 'the scorched earth' policy ordered by Hitler near the end of the war to save hope and materiel for future Germans. Hitler countered this by saying "If Germany loses the war, then the German people have 'failed the test', and therefore do not deserve to live anyway".

and believed that there should be a 'master morality' for the ubermensch where good and evil were replaced by good and bad.

Again, this depends on a goal. I am not in disagreement with the statement, just the 'purpose'. (We're getting back to what I haven't written yet, lol)

[Hugo]

It sure does, for only the 'murderer' could have bestowed the right, so he/she annulled it within themselves before the act (if it was ever there). Besides, if it existed anywhere else, (as within the murdered) how could 'it' live on without the person? Answer: It cannot.

Quite simply, I can say that there was a person whose right to live free from aggression was violated. Now they are dead, they no longer have a right to live because they are not alive, but that does not abrogate the crime of the murderer.

euthanasia is still considered murder unless state law allows for it

I thought you said that rights exist in the mind of the bestower? Euthanasia is only considered murder by the state. Surely if the euthaniser does not consider it murder, it isn't murder, according to you?

It is in the eye of the beholder and the 'bestower'. The statement is correct, from the point of view of the Nazis.

The statement is correct from the point of view of you. You're flailing around because, like Sweal, you're caught in a trap where your moral relativism is forcing you to apologise for the most terrible crimes in history. Basically, you profess a theory, and then repeatedly shrink from applying it to any real-world or historical examples.

If it wasn't a crime from the point of view of the Nazis, then what right would the Allies have punishing the Nazis? Why should the idea of 'rights' in the Allied mind supersede the idea of 'rights' in the Nazi mind? If that is justifyed only by the Allied 'overwhelming force', how does that make the Allies any better than the Nazis, since both basically imposed their ideas on others using violence?

Your arguments boil down to an awful mess, Thelonius. Essentially what you are saying is that anyone who can impose his will on anyone else shall impose it without restraint, and nobody has any a priori rights. The most ridiculous thing about you is that you say that this is why you fear anarchy, yet according to your arguments, "anarchy" as you think of it is perfectly right and just, the only natural and correct order of things. You fear anarchy because you fear the absence of the Rule of Law, and then tell me that you don't believe in the Rule of Law.

Basically, you put forward a theory, and repeatedly shoot it down yourself. All I've been doing so far is supplying you with the ammunition.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Now they are dead, they no longer have a right to live because they are not alive, but that does not abrogate the crime of the murderer.

You seem to keep on referring to 'crime' from the point of view of 'what did it mean?', rather than 'what happened'? Crime is a lawful thing, and though it also sometimes encompasses 'rights', they are different animals. They are also often very similar, though, for they are both man-made and therefore arbitrary.

The statement is correct from the point of view of you.

This is why I, and I dont doubt also Sweal, have been reluctant to discuss exact scenarios such as the Holocaust. Certain people would say "See, you are sdaying that you are happy those Jews are dead, because you approved of what happened, because you say that there is no 'inherent right to live' which includes, solely, the human race above all things.

Surely if the euthaniser does not consider it murder, it isn't murder, according to you?

Again, no, according to the euthanizer. My opinion is outside the equation of 'what happened'.

You're flailing around because, like Sweal, you're caught in a trap where your moral relativism is forcing you to apologise for the most terrible crimes in history. Basically, you profess a theory, and then repeatedly shrink from applying it to any real-world or historical examples.

I think I have made my stance quite clear, on several occasions. Basically, the Nazis took away any 'rights' they had previously bestowed on the Jews, had, and in a piecemeal fasion I might add, up to and including what the Jews collectively thought was the 'right' to live. Then another group (the allies) came in and said "We will use our overwhelming force to, in our minds, re-bestow upon you the right to live"

If that is justifyed only by the Allied 'overwhelming force', how does that make the Allies any better than the Nazis,

It only mattered at the end of the day "who won'. You seem to retreat from the definiton of a 'right' to a stance of 'what is right?' Should 'good' people hog 'what is right' to themselves, and not share with anyone?

Thelonius. Essentially what you are saying is that anyone who can impose his will on anyone else shall impose it without restraint, and nobody has any a priori rights.

Replace the word 'shall' with 'can' and you have Nietzsche's 'will to power'. Most everything takes place above this, for everything else is choice.

For the individual, a 'right' is nothing more than a wish. If you wield sufficient power, you can make either one 'come to life'. As an old friend of mine used to say, "You can wish in one hand and shit in the other, but which hand do you think will get filled up first?"

[The Terrible Sweal]

... like Sweal, you're caught in a trap where your moral relativism is forcing you to apologise for the most terrible crimes in history.

Hugo is a dirty rotten liar.

[Hugo]

You seem to keep on referring to 'crime' from the point of view of 'what did it mean?', rather than 'what happened'? Crime is a lawful thing, and though it also sometimes encompasses 'rights', they are different animals. They are also often very similar, though, for they are both man-made and therefore arbitrary.

Well, I think of 'crime' as meaning a violation of rights. I don't see how any other definition can be valid or reasonable.

This is why I, and I dont doubt also Sweal, have been reluctant to discuss exact scenarios such as the Holocaust. Certain people would say "See, you are sdaying that you are happy those Jews are dead, because you approved of what happened, because you say that there is no 'inherent right to live' which includes, solely, the human race above all things.

That's very nice, but again, you're shrinking from actually applying your theory to the real world. Morals and rights are about human thoughts and actions, and if your theories about them remain divorced from thought and action, they're completely useless. As Nietzche would say, where's the life-value?

Again, no, according to the euthanizer. My opinion is outside the equation of 'what happened'.

You're avoiding the question. Your theory would seem to dictate that whether a killing was murder or euthanasia depends upon the opinion of the euthaniser. Again, wouldn't this make the Holocaust into eleven million mercy killings, since the Nazis get to decide whether it's murder or not? They would argue that it wasn't murder because what they were killing wasn't human.

I think I have made my stance quite clear, on several occasions. Basically, the Nazis took away any 'rights' they had previously bestowed on the Jews, had, and in a piecemeal fasion I might add, up to and including what the Jews collectively thought was the 'right' to live. Then another group (the allies) came in and said "We will use our overwhelming force to, in our minds, re-bestow upon you the right to live"

Ah. So the Jews had no right to live beyond what those with power were willing to grant them. What you are saying, then, is that the Holocaust, the Purges, the Cultural Revolution etc. were all perfectly just (or amoral, if you prefer, just actions without moral implications) because nobody has any rights, they may only live according to the whim of those with power.

And you think my theories sound like Hitler's!

It only mattered at the end of the day "who won'. You seem to retreat from the definiton of a 'right' to a stance of 'what is right?'

Yes, Thelonius, that's what rights are. You're talking about rights in terms of 'what is possible', which isn't discussing rights at all. Anything within the laws of the physical universe is possible. Not everything within the laws of the physical universe is just. That's where 'rights' come in. You're confusing the physical and the metaphysical.

[August1991]

Can I weigh in, perhaps wrongly?

A discussion of "rights" invariably is a discussion of "ownership of property".

It seems to me that if I own property, then I have the right to use it or to destroy it as I want.

Really? Ownership refers to property rights. It must. And property rights are anything but obvious. If I own a car, I don't have the right to drive where I want. If I own land, I don't have the right to forbid you digging underneath it.

So, how do we define property? It is a bundle of rights. People don't own property; they own a bundle of rights. A Charter of Rights is the State's promise that it will not infringe on certain bundles.

----

Now, the really tough part. Defining property rights seems to be a discussion about what is fair or just. Such discussions will never end. Do I own myself and who says so anyway? It is just as "fair" to say that I own you, you own me or we own ourselves.

In fact, IMV, defining property rights or ownership has nothing to do with fairness but it has everything to do with a discussion of trade - since the reason we own property is to trade it. We define rights so that we can trade them.

Our so-called sense of fairness and justice, what rights should be, is really a first approximation of the rules necessary to trade easily.

----

Let me be practical. If I own you, I will likely make a bad trade if I exchange you for something else. Why? I know poorly what you can do. I would expect that slavery will quickly be considered "unfair" or "unjust" in any trading society. I would expect that ownership of oneself, certain property rights, would quickly be the norm in advanced trading societies.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Can I weigh in, perhaps wrongly?

A discussion of "rights" invariably is a discussion of "ownership of property".

You are not wrong. I did a bit of reading on the weekend, and it appears that the 'libertarian' stance indeed boils down to 'property rights' (at it's base, of one's own person) while it appears The Terrible Sweal and I have been arguing from the stance of 'moral relativism'.

In fact, IMV, defining property rights or ownership has nothing to do with fairness but it has everything to do with a discussion of trade - since the reason we own property is to trade it.

This is only partly true. If one 'owned' enough property and resources, (including slaves) one might, in fact, have no need for trade.

Defining 'property rights' is an issue of equality and fairness, to be sure, but these are man-made things. As is law. That is why I have argued against the existence of 'natural law', for while I don't dispute mankind's overall 'superiority (taken on the average), I disagree that such superiority creates 'laws' inherently.

QUOTE

... like Sweal, you're caught in a trap where your moral relativism is forcing you to apologise for the most terrible crimes in history.

Hugo is a dirty rotten liar.

Not exactly, Sweal, though the 'trap' is of Hugo's design. He is the one applying the 'moralism' to the argument, and while we have made no such judgement, we have argued that 'amoralism' can, and does rule by force.

[The Terrible Sweal]

QUOTE

... like Sweal, you're caught in a trap where your moral relativism is forcing you to apologise for the most terrible crimes in history.

Hugo is a dirty rotten liar.

Not exactly, Sweal, though the 'trap' is of Hugo's design. He is the one applying the 'moralism' to the argument, and while we have made no such judgement, we have argued that 'amoralism' can, and does rule by force.

Hugo then goes on and:

-asserts I/we have taken a moral position

-ignores my/our rejection of that assertion,

-asserts with no basis whatsoever that I/we have taken a specific and highly offensive moral position.

He IS a dirty rotten liar.

[Hugo]

Can I weigh in, perhaps wrongly?

A discussion of "rights" invariably is a discussion of "ownership of property".

I don't think you're wrong. In fact, I think you're dead on. Rothbard asserts that the right to life, etc. is actually self-ownership: the proposition that we own our own bodies, therefore, we treat our bodies as our property and a violation of the sanctity of our person by another is a violation of our property right in ourselves. It also follows that if we own our bodies, we own what it produces (labour), and ownership rights over things stem from that.

Our so-called sense of fairness and justice, what rights should be, is really a first approximation of the rules necessary to trade easily.

I'm going to borrow from one of your earlier posts, August. Infants are born selfish, but as they learn to accomodate other people the theory of rights that children arrive at is distinctly libertarian. "I had it first" is the essence of property rights and homesteading, he who finds or creates something before anyone else is the owner of it. "He started it" is the essence of nonaggression, the transgressor is not he who fights but he who began fighting.

Of course, parents soon override the natural rights theory of their children. To be good citizens it is necessary to instil the ideas that sometimes, what you create or discover doesn't belong to you and can be confiscated and sometimes, initiating aggression against someone else is morally acceptable. These contradictions may be the cause of a lot of angst in children, frankly, I don't know. Being asked to accept a worldview that runs very contrary to your own is difficult.

This is another argument for the libertarian rights theory: left alone, humans even at an early age will develop it by themselves. Non-libertarian, or statist, rights theories evolve to justify states which have themselves originally arisen through violations of libertarian rights theory. For example, the Canadian government exists through the conquest and colonisation of Canada by the British, who inherited their Parliamentary state through usurping the power of a monarchical system, which traces its roots back to William of Normandy, who began it by conquering the Anglo-Saxons. States begin not by some social contract or mutual agreement, but by violence, conquest and the systematic violation of rights. Oppenheimer's work on this is well worth reading.

He is the one applying the 'moralism' to the argument, and while we have made no such judgement, we have argued that 'amoralism' can, and does rule by force.

There are two possible explanations: either you are leaving your ideas of morality out of the equation and talking only of what is practically possible, which is essentially not a disagreement at all - I'm saying that it is possible to violate rights by force, but that force does not make right. Or you are telling me that you believe there are no rights at all, in which case, it puzzles me that you are so averse to actually applying that in the real world to situations such as the Holocaust.

As to Sweal's blathering, I have repeatedly demonstrated how his arguments lead to the conclusions that he finds so uncomfortable. Not once has he even tried to refute that. Tirelessly bleating "liar!", "sh*tbag!" and so forth does not an argument make. Not only is Sweal a de facto Holocaust-apologist, but he is also foul-mouthed, incoherent and self-contradictory. I see no reason to pay him any further heed, and I am sure that he will get short shrift from Greg when he returns from his travels.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

either you are leaving your ideas of morality out of the equation and talking only of what is practically possible,

Yes, this is what I am doing, and also out of 'rights theory', which then nullifies the theory of 'rights'. Moral relativism is merely looking at an event with a 'dispassionate eye'. The reason I referred to Nietzsche on this one is his writings in Ecce Homo, (which was his last one, just before he went cuckoo (or it was discovered that he was cuckoo all along) whereby a human can look at things from above (or outside), and that all moral judgement is a choice. Just like Albert Camus in his book "The Outsider", we are all just voyeurs capable of taking sides, or not.

Good and evil are 'religious' moral compass points, while 'good and bad' have to do with whether or not those choices lead one toward or away from one's end goal, and by what degree they shall 'stray from the path'. The biggest question mankind faces, is 'What should be our end goal?' As I have previously stated, I hope mankind chooses more than 'anarchy'.

I believe the end goal to be much simpler, for it is or has to do with, the meaning of life. And the meaning of life is, to be.

Evolution, then, is merely 'to be, more efficiently'.

[Hugo]

Yes, this is what I am doing, and also out of 'rights theory', which then nullifies the theory of 'rights'. Moral relativism is merely looking at an event with a 'dispassionate eye'.

Then I have to ask: is it that you aren't discussing 'rights' but are simply telling me what is practical - in which case, why are you bothering, since I think we all know that John can shoot Bob if John has a gun and Bob is unarmed! Or is it that you are saying there are no such things as 'rights' and anything goes, in which case, why have you argued against anarchy because of your repulsion to that idea?

The biggest question mankind faces, is 'What should be our end goal?' As I have previously stated, I hope mankind chooses more than 'anarchy'.

There is no objective way to decide what the goal of mankind should be. Anarchy allows each person to pursue what he sees as that goal, with the caveat that he must not aggress against others and so prevent them form pursuing their goals. Anything else means that somebody must decide what the goal of humanity must be, and hey presto - tyranny. Because of the fact that there is no objective goal for humanity, that latter position also has the ugly problem of being logically indefensible.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

There is no objective way to decide what the goal of mankind should be.

Sure there is, for it is 'to be', or, more specifically, to continue 'being'. All things pursue this goal, with or without an awareness of it. Evolution is proof that all things try, and many succeed, at adapting to environment, with the goal of 'continued being' in mind.

Or is it that you are saying there are no such things as 'rights' and anything goes, in which case, why have you argued against anarchy because of your repulsion to that idea?

Because I believe we must choose otherwise. I have a slightly different definition of 'Anarchy' than you, for to me it is 'every man for himself and no laws (at least no enforcement) of constraint save what you impose on yourself'. I am not sure there is a definition for this, but perhaps it would be 'chaos'.

Anything else means that somebody must decide what the goal of humanity must be, and hey presto - tyranny.

Most people think this, but I say it is merely a reflection of most of mankind's limited imagination. Further, it lacks imagination because it only deals with 'the here and now', with no regard to the future of being, or beings.

[Hugo]

Sure there is, for it is 'to be', or, more specifically, to continue 'being'.

Tell that to the Buddhists. I'm sure you'll hear 350 million mouths laughing. If it was possible to arrive at an objective meaning for life, don't you think we'd have found it after at least five millenia of philosophising? Some questions just don't have any answers.

I have a slightly different definition of 'Anarchy' than you, for to me it is 'every man for himself and no laws (at least no enforcement) of constraint save what you impose on yourself'. I am not sure there is a definition for this, but perhaps it would be 'chaos'.

You're describing the Hobbesian war of all against all. This is the colloquial meaning of anarchy, but not the actual meaning of it. Anarchy just means an absence of imposed political authority or government.

Most people think this, but I say it is merely a reflection of most of mankind's limited imagination. Further, it lacks imagination because it only deals with 'the here and now', with no regard to the future of being, or beings.

I don't think so. How many savings and investment accounts are held in Canada right now? All of those people are thinking of the future. They're just not thinking of the future the way you are and the way you want them to, however, there's no objective reason for your thinking to be superior to theirs. Who says they have to think of the future anyway? If a man lives entirely for the here and now, why is he less wise than you? Perhaps he's wiser.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Anarchy allows each person to pursue what he sees as that goal, with the caveat that he must not aggress against others and so prevent them form pursuing their goals.

So, in other words, the caveat itself is precisely the sort of thing that it intends to prevent.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear I miss Trudeau,

So, in other words, the caveat itself is precisely the sort of thing that it intends to prevent.

No, as I understand it the 'caveat' must be voluntary and from within. It would be 'wrong', according to the anarchist, to actually 'enforce' it on another.

[Hugo]

So, in other words, the caveat itself is precisely the sort of thing that it intends to prevent.

You seriously can't get your head around this, can you? In order for all humans to have liberty the natural ending-points of that liberty are 1) where it infringes on another's liberty (the only way around that is to say that some humans are more deserving than others, which is logically indefensible) and 2) where it contradicts physical laws. It doesn't even need saying. If you think you can construct an argument against this, please try.

No, as I understand it the 'caveat' must be voluntary and from within. It would be 'wrong', according to the anarchist, to actually 'enforce' it on another.

It isn't enforcing. Such a situation is merely a defence against aggression and the defender would not be trying to enforce anything on the aggressor, just to prevent an infringement of his rights without reciprocation.

So far, Thelonius (and Trudeau) your only avenue of attack against libertarianism has been that you think there is no such thing as morality and human action should be limited by nothing but practical possibility. Therefore, you reject a priori rights. However, your arguments elsewhere in this forum clearly show that you don't take this argument seriously. If you two don't pay any attention to your arguments, why should I, exactly?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Tell that to the Buddhists. I'm sure you'll hear 350 million mouths laughing

Not really, I heard the Dalai Lama speak on TV a while back espousing the idea that every thing on the planet is 'sentient' (including rocks, trees, etc), and therefore deserving of existence.