Tyrrany versus Freedom

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

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

Indeed, and this is part of what I intend to show as the difference. Fascists are merely 'responsible anarchists' and 'right-wing conservatives' with larger boundaries.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

QUOTE

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?

Indeed. The 'Neo-cons' would get Dr. Seuss to peddle heroin if they could own stocks in the company. Look at medical marijuana...the neo-cons cry "No, it is a terrible drug! Lets get a large pharmaceutical company (that I own stock in) make something that does exactly the same thing, then it'll be ok!".

[Hugo]

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

Not really. Pfizer is not state-run and is not particularly interested in furthering the interests of the ruling class, at least, not any more than any other company, which is to say that they will help the state if the state will help them. Hence lobbying. The state is basically used as an attack dog and people struggle to try and get control of the leash.

A closer analogy to soma is probably the state education system: a wonderful tool for indoctrination into the state at an early and impressionable age. Consider that public schooling was introduced in the 17th Century by puritanical colonies in the interests of furthering theocratic ideals. Prussia led Europe in establishing state schooling, which furthered the rapid German slide into despotism. England was among the last states to introduce compulsory public schooling, and remained liberal much longer than other European states. The same pattern was also followed in North America, the most statist colonies and states were the first to introduce public schools, the most libertarian ones were the last.

Nazis wre nationalists: Communists were internationalists.

Only in theoretical Marxist dogma has Communism even plausibly been internationalist. Wherever Communism has been applied it has invariably and rapidly become a strong doctrine of nationalism. Consider how many wars have been fought between Communist countries - the cold wars between the USSR and China, the USSR and Yugoslavia, the hot wars between Cambodia and Vietnam, China and Vietnam. Communism is theoretically internationalist in that it favours union of the world proletariat against its enemies, Nazism can be said to be equally internationalist since it favours union of the master race against its enemies. Nazis had no problem accepting Austria, Holland or Denmark into the Reich and regarded them as kindred spirits. It generally wasn't mutual.

Fascists are merely 'responsible anarchists'

Fascists are extreme statists. Anarchists are extreme antistatists. They could not possibly be further apart.

Look at medical marijuana...the neo-cons cry "No, it is a terrible drug! Lets get a large pharmaceutical company (that I own stock in) make something that does exactly the same thing, then it'll be ok!".

The movement to legalise marijuana while also trying to criminalise smoking is similarly ridiculous and self-contradictory.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

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,

The state isn't the ultimate guarantor of the rights, force is, but they are the provider of the overwhelming force.

Pfizer is not state-run and is not particularly interested in furthering the interests of the ruling class, at least, not any more than any other company, which is to say that they will help the state if the state will help them. Hence lobbying. The state is basically used as an attack dog and people struggle to try and get control of the leash.

True, but fascism and nazism used IG Farben and Krupp Steel (and vice versa) the same way. Except Krupp made tanks and Pfizer makes Soma.

This quote is from Capitalism.org...

What is the key principle underlying statism?

In form many of these systems differ, in theory and blood stained practice they all unite upon the same fundamental collectivist ethical principle: man is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of others. Whether those "others" are a dictator's gang, the nation, society, the race, (the) god(s), the majority, the community, the tribe, etc., is irrelevant -- the point is that man in principle must be sacrificed to others.

Note the hypocrisy, in the line...."man is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of others. "

Yet you are trying to say that someone like Donald Trump believes the complete opposite? Sure..(wink wink, nudge nudge;)

Capitalism is absolutely dependent on every individual seeing others in this light.

[Hugo]

The state isn't the ultimate guarantor of the rights, force is, but they are the provider of the overwhelming force.

You still are not addressing my point. I'm telling you that the state uses that force far more to further its own ends and violate rights than anything else. Murders committed by states far, far exceed any amount of murder by private citizens. The value of private theft is nothing compared to the amount of property the government forcibly expropriates every day in taxes and inflated currency. Speaking of which, if you were to print money and spend it, you'd be a counterfeiter, but when the state does it, that's just minting.

You see? Doublespeak. Murder becomes war, kidnapping becomes arrest, slavery becomes conscription, robbery becomes taxation, spying becomes security, and fraud becomes an election campaign.

True, but fascism and nazism used IG Farben and Krupp Steel (and vice versa) the same way. Except Krupp made tanks and Pfizer makes Soma.

There were indeed companies under Communist regimes too. They were just state-run and state-regulated, exactly like Nazism. You can read this column which quotes extensive first-hand accounts of what business was like under the Nazis. William L. Shirer also finds that Nazism was no friend of big business, having used them to get into power, Hitler quickly turned on them and broke them to his will after 1933. The Nazis purged the ranks of the entreprenuers and staffed them with their own bureaucrats. Company directors were stripped of their posts, which were used as rewards to the Party faithful. The similarities to Communist regimes are obvious.

Note the hypocrisy, in the line...."man is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of others. " Yet you are trying to say that someone like Donald Trump believes the complete opposite?

Donald Trump can believe whatever he wants to believe. Anybody can. As a libertarian I believe that is their right. The difference that the author of the CapMag article is trying to show is that the fundamental doctrine of the laissez-faire, libertarian school of thought is individualism and that men should be allowed to determine their own goals and be free to work towards them as far as possible, whereas statism believes that planners, experts or ubermensch should assign goals to other men and coerce them into striving for these goals. Trump can think of other men as tools, but in the libertarian system he actually has to respect their right to self-determination, because without coercion he cannot do with them as he pleases, but only as they mutually agree with him. The state, of course, has no such reservation and is free to use threats and violence to make men comply with the ends they assign. A tool has no choice as to whether or not it is used.

[Guest eureka]

Tose states, Hugo, were no longer communistic but Totalitarian regimes. Communists were still internationalists.

Fascist states remained Fascist since Fascism is totalitarian ab initio,

[Hugo]

Tose states, Hugo, were no longer communistic but Totalitarian regimes.

All Communist states become totalitarian, and this is not coincidence but is because of an actual flaw in Communist doctrine, yet another way in which it does not understand human nature. In the second stage of Communism (the stage that actually destroys any chance of ever reaching the mythical third stage), the state gains control over the means of production, and necessarily over everything else too in the lives of the citizenry. There can be no real freedom of speech when the state controls every printing press and meeting hall, no real freedom of movement when the state provides all cars, trains, and airplanes. What the state represents at this stage is a massive concentration of power, since to its planners and bureaucrats it grants power to control the lives of thousands or millions of people - where they work, where they live, what they eat, who they marry, what they read etc.

In such a system that grants such vast power, the people attracted to government positions will be those with a taste and a lust for such power, just as surely as in the business world, those who are attracted to entrepreneurship are those with a lust for wealth. A lust for power rarely accompanies such attributes as compassion, sensitivity, and tolerance, and is usually accompanied by greed, ruthlessness, and other egregious traits. Furthermore, those who possess such traits will, by their greater cunning and ruthlessness, tend to ouster those who do not. Posts in the state become filled by egregious, power-hungry and ruthless people.

Hitler was not the start of a process but the end of it. Socialism and statism had begun in Germany more than sixty years before he came to power, and in Prussia, even longer. The lesson to Hitler, and indeed to the German people, was that the state was power to do what you wanted. He just took that to its logical conclusion. This is why communist states always become totalitarian and despotic.

[Guest eureka]

I would agree with you that Communist states, in practise, have become totalitarian. They are then no longer communist. Communism does not havt to become so but Communism, and Marx, did not take human nature into account.

Fascism, though, is totalitarian of itself. It begins as a totalitarian ideology.

[Hugo]

I would agree with you that Communist states, in practise, have become totalitarian. They are then no longer communist.

Totalitarianism, however, is built into Communism. Not by conscious design, at least not permanently (since Communist doctrine advocates "temporary" totalitarianism in order to put the Communist programme into effect) but by flaw. Communism cannot become anything other than totalitarianism. The doctrine is self-defeating: putting Marxism into practice destroys Marxism.

Communism, like Nazism, does teach totalitarianism. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat concept shows that. Both ideologies believe that the goals of their Chosen People are best achieved with an all-powerful state, and both believe that the state should be supreme in all human activity. Therefore, Communism is of its very nature totalitarian. If you claim that a society where the state does not control and dominate every single field of human activity is not totalitarian, and that an ideology that teaches this is not teaching totalitarianism, I should like to hear your justification.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka and Hugo,

I would agree with you that Communist states, in practise, have become totalitarian. They are then no longer communist. Communism does not havt to become so but Communism, and Marx, did not take human nature into account.

I would concur also, howver 'communism' has come to represent the Marxist-Leninist ideology, and Lenin was the one to introduce totalitarianism into the equation. Marx's theory was that all the 'workers' pool their income into one large bank account, and would trust everyone to only spend what they needed. Lenin came along and said, "I'll decide what you need, how much you'll need, and when you'll need it".

Fascism is merely base conservativism with a strong father figure and a very large family, the whole country, usually.

[Hugo]

Marx's theory was that all the 'workers' pool their income into one large bank account, and would trust everyone to only spend what they needed. Lenin came along and said, "I'll decide what you need, how much you'll need, and when you'll need it".

This shows a real lack of understanding. Marx specifically talks about the abolition of property by the state and concentration of state power. In the Communist Manifesto he states that the proletariat must "win the war of democracy", and after that concentrate all power in the hands of the new ruling class, themselves. He speaks of "despotic inroads on the rights of property" (emphasis mine). Either he knew that this was totalitarianism, or he was literally a complete idiot with not the foggiest idea what he was saying. My instinct says the former, because despotism is a hard sell. The most brutal regimes on the planet have existed in the name of "the people". I think Marx believed that while democracy might bring Communists to power, their reforms would be so unpopular that democracy would have to be shut down soon after in order to bring Communist programmes to their conclusions without interruption.

Fascism is merely base conservativism with a strong father figure and a very large family, the whole country, usually.

"Conservatism" is not a fixed ideology. Conservatism is a reactionary ideology of preservation of the status quo against perceived radicalism.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

"Conservatism" is not a fixed ideology. Conservatism is a reactionary ideology of preservation of the status quo against perceived radicalism.

Yes, I realize this, but I meant the 'tory party' rather than the literal definition. They must stand for something more than the fear or hatred of change. What I mean by conservative or neo-con, is their wish for the re-integration of church and state, combined with a laissez-faire economy. The good old 'god-fearin' redneck way, where the wife stays at home and men go off to work or to war to fight the 'pinko-commies'.

My instinct says the former, because despotism is a hard sell. The most brutal regimes on the planet have existed in the name of "the people".

You are quite right, 'the people' or those that use this subterfuge to gain power have always been the greatest murderers. Doesn't mean Marx and Trotsky were totally wrong, though.

[Hugo]

Yes, I realize this, but I meant the 'tory party' rather than the literal definition. They must stand for something more than the fear or hatred of change. What I mean by conservative or neo-con, is their wish for the re-integration of church and state, combined with a laissez-faire economy.

And this is a fundamental self-contradiction, for how can a person be economically free when socially, he is not (or vice versa)? Also, the only actual method for social control is economic monopoly over at least some things since if the state controls religious life, then the state must exercise control over religious buildings and clergy.

You are quite right, 'the people' or those that use this subterfuge to gain power have always been the greatest murderers. Doesn't mean Marx and Trotsky were totally wrong, though.

No, I'm sure they said it was raining sometimes when it actually was. However, in their political-economic works it's easier and faster to point out where they were right, than where they were wrong.

Marx's theory was that all the 'workers' pool their income into one large bank account, and would trust everyone to only spend what they needed. Lenin came along and said, "I'll decide what you need, how much you'll need, and when you'll need it".

That is the only way Marxism can be interpreted. Communist property rights can basically be summed up as saying that property belongs equally to all, that every person on earth has a one-six-billionth share of every thing on earth. Since this system is completely unworkable, property inevitably comes to be interpreted by proxy, and said proxy must be all-powerful. And you have tyranny.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

That is the only way Marxism can be interpreted. Communist property rights can basically be summed up as saying that property belongs equally to all, that every person on earth has a one-six-billionth share of every thing on earth.

This goeas back to 'what is ownership?', and it could be said that the 'property' belongs equally to none. This goes back to your 'nugget in the wilderness' example, and the simple answer is that you own neither the nugget nor the wilderness, you simply control them. According to the buddhists, "what of their rights'?

[Hugo]

This goeas back to 'what is ownership?', and it could be said that the 'property' belongs equally to none.

If nothing belongs to anyone in any measure, they we should all just die, as a species, because we do not have any right to continue our own existences.

This goes back to your 'nugget in the wilderness' example, and the simple answer is that you own neither the nugget nor the wilderness, you simply control them.

Now you are back to your self-contradiction: you are arguing that there is no such thing as morality, only practicality, which runs completely against a lot of other things you have said on this forum, so I know this is not your sincere belief.

According to the buddhists, "what of their rights'?

You see how desperate the arguments are that statists have to resort to? So far, I have heard, in the last few days:

1) We cannot assume that the physical world exists, and rights theory must somehow take into account the possibility that everything we sense is an illusion.

2) Nobody has any rights whatsoever and the only ethical code is that the strongest person may take what and do as he pleases.

3) Rights theory must also take into account the equal rights of non-human creatures and even inanimate objects, and we must respect the rights of soil, rocks and minerals.

4) Nobody can own anything or even a part of anything, so ethically, even breathing is wrong.

Is this collection of tragic crap seriously the best you can come up with? Frankly, I would be surprised if you could turn any of it into an argument for the existence of a state anyway! I think you're just making this nonsense up as you go along, because if you think about it, all of the above four arguments are mutually exclusive anyway - if you adopted any one theory it would automatically invalidate the other three, so it's my interpretation that you have no theory of rights or property and are just being argumentative and petty, so I suggest you go away and think about the position you want to take before you match wits with a person who has a well-developed theory of rights and property.

[gradkiss]

My exchanged look, that look in and out, is simular to the difference of what we see...here the immunities and priveleges of anyone comes to mind,yet in the pure sense that is construed by the very veiw of money itself, in any situation where there is immoral, unjust,war,social ill, unpaid debts, jealousy, ridicule, a situation of unease, disease, money seems to be the cause the cure the focus the blindness or the removal is the cure of all social ills this earth has ever wanted to see...yet, the difference had to be known before we could know our right or our left....imagine a society tied together in lines abreast...or the comical same same smile....I would....with no money I would with no trouble at all anywhere now...we could pretent that money, pretend that order for the replacement of something we had picked up freely and never had the need for the want of education, we could have an intrance exam with only the rquirement of our name and how long we had rememebered that name to inter college or any university and why? we are perfect here....in the us we are for sure we are....that contract we have with our declared unaliable right to share that flesh to flesh birth we all share as the very first that walked this earth may share this too....with the original colonists we do...that same flesh we do...a removal of money gets the redeem of all before us, with a living contract here that proves... we beat that devil the one that said he had title to this place....we get it all the way flesh to flesh......George

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

1) We cannot assume that the physical world exists, and rights theory must somehow take into account the possibility that everything we sense is an illusion.

I don't recall being such a 'Doubting Thomas", and certainly don't hold to any of the theories 'We're all just molecules in a giant's toenail'. However, it is perfectly plausible and logical that all of your thoughts, including your notion of God, reside exclusively in your own head, as (assumably) identifiable chemical formulae.

Nobody has any rights whatsoever and the only ethical code is that the strongest person may take what and do as he pleases.

"Survival of the fittest' naturally precludes ethics, so you either have them or you don't. What I find odd is that Statists and anarchists polarize themselves to the extreme, and say that anyone straying towards the middle from either extreme is de facto hypocritical.

Rights theory must also take into account the equal rights of non-human creatures and even inanimate objects, and we must respect the rights of soil, rocks and minerals.

I saw the Dalai Lama speak once on a TV documentary, and he said that all things are sentient, including the 'rocks and birds and plants and things'. I am not quite so extreme as to imagine that these things have self awareness, but where do you draw the line at where you dispense your theory of rights? Or the majority's, where do you think they should draw the line? I personally go beyond humans when I assign the 'right to exist', but you don't seem to. I truly think it is the way to go.

Nobody can own anything or even a part of anything, so ethically, even breathing is wrong.

There you go, leaping to the exteme again. If you saw two neighbors building a garage in one of their yards, and found out one was volunteering to help the other, without a 'mutually beneficial contract', you seem to think that they then must actually be building a gas chamber for Jews and 'undesirables'. If they aren't, then they eventually will, 'cause they're commies.

To reiterate, ownership is an invention in the mind of man, all one does is pay for, or provide for themselves, the overwhelming force to keep something or to take it. (The police will actually work for you to take something back that was taken from you if you are in their good books) Even if it is the ingestion of air, if it becomes a daily doubt, you've been paying the wrong person/group.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

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

[Hugo]

I don't recall being such a 'Doubting Thomas", and certainly don't hold to any of the theories 'We're all just molecules in a giant's toenail'. However, it is perfectly plausible and logical that all of your thoughts, including your notion of God, reside exclusively in your own head, as (assumably) identifiable chemical formulae.

That was actually Terrible Sweal's idea. My view is that if we're going to be scientific about this, the evidence before us overwhelmingly confirms that the physical world exists as we perceive it. To believe otherwise would be to accept the least logical idea, supported by the least evidence, which isn't scientific or rational at all.

"Survival of the fittest' naturally precludes ethics, so you either have them or you don't. What I find odd is that Statists and anarchists polarize themselves to the extreme, and say that anyone straying towards the middle from either extreme is de facto hypocritical.

Not hypocritical, just self-contradictory. Revisit my examples of statist doublespeak.

I am not quite so extreme as to imagine that these things have self awareness, but where do you draw the line at where you dispense your theory of rights? Or the majority's, where do you think they should draw the line? I personally go beyond humans when I assign the 'right to exist', but you don't seem to. I truly think it is the way to go.

You can make a case that humans are innately superior to animals and thus, their rights would exceed those of animals. Aristotle had some very good ideas on why humans were superior beings, for instance, that mankind is the only creature who will philosophise and question the nature of his own existence. And also, I don't seem to have noticed cats building any pyramids, or elephants splitting the atom. Clearly humans are able to use their brains to far greater capacity than any other creature. Even animals with larger brains than ours, like elephants or whales, don't seem to be anything like on the same plane of intellect as humans. Elephants don't use tools in anything like the same capacity we do, although they have the physical capacity. Whales may have far larger brains, but their society is incredibly primitive compared to ours.

There you go, leaping to the exteme again. If you saw two neighbors building a garage in one of their yards, and found out one was volunteering to help the other, without a 'mutually beneficial contract', you seem to think that they then must actually be building a gas chamber for Jews and 'undesirables'. If they aren't, then they eventually will, 'cause they're commies.

And you think I'm leaping to the extreme? You are being quite laughable. First off, in this situation there does not need to be a contract because it is an act of charity and not an exchange. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with voluntary socialism. If a whole bunch of people in an anarchist society want to band together and form a collective of some kind, there is no reason to and no force that would stop them. It's imposed socialism I am opposed to.

To reiterate, ownership is an invention in the mind of man

So is government.

Just a thought... If I walk by your house, and see that you've gone out and accidentally left the front door open...then I see your plasma TV...is it your belief on who the 'rightful owner' is that decides who has it tomorrow, or mine?

My belief does not decide it either way. Even if you take it, it's still my plasma TV. Once again, to apply another example to this argument, if the Nazis take over in Germany and the Jews are not organized against them, is it the Nazi belief in racial purity or the Jewish belief in their right to live that decides whether they will go to the gas chambers? And what are the implications of that?

In order to live by the rights you believe in, you must coerce or convince others to concur.

Coercion is the initiation of force. You are confusing coercion with violence. To use violence strictly in the defence of one's rights is not coercive. Again, using the Holocaust example, I believe you would say the Warsaw ghetto uprising was coercive. I would say it was not, that the Warsaw Jews were merely defending their rights with violence against people who had already initiated violence (or coerced) them. I believe the Warsaw Jews had every moral and ethical right to take up arms against the Nazis, but you cast those rights into serious doubt.

You should read Alexander Solzhenitzyn. One of his key points is that every time a group comes along and attempts to "reset" morality, announcing that they will redefine ethics and morals starting from zero - "morality begins with us" - such a move inevitably ends up in gas chambers and gulags. You can't just abandon received morality and make up your own, and as I have shown you, your attempts at this can be used as justification for the most horrible crimes in history. My rights theory does not prevent such crimes, but it does say, a priori, that they were wrong. Yours does not. My rights theory also has its foundations in thousands of years of human development, starting with Aristotle and taking a great deal from Anglo-Saxon ethics and law. I don't know where you are taking yours from, but it seems to be a collection of post-modern nonsense to me.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

You should read Alexander Solzhenitzyn

I have, and have read, "The Gulag Archipelago" albeit quite some time ago. Yes, some people's interpretation of 'rights' are wosre than deplorable.

My view is that if we're going to be scientific about this, the evidence before us overwhelmingly confirms that the physical world exists as we perceive it. To believe otherwise would be to accept the least logical idea, supported by the least evidence, which isn't scientific or rational at all.

The definition of 'truth' is "that which does be". Truth exists regardless of mankind, and in fact mankind is probably the only creature ever to deny or disbelieve truth.

You can make a case that humans are innately superior to animals and thus, their rights would exceed those of animals. Aristotle had some very good ideas on why humans were superior beings, for instance, that mankind is the only creature who will philosophise and question the nature of his own existence. And also, I don't seem to have noticed cats building any pyramids, or elephants splitting the atom. Clearly humans are able to use their brains to far greater capacity than any other creature.

You seem to make the case for 'the rights of the superior' supercede those of the inferior. Hitler did this, at first with the 'mentally deficient' (who, arguably, do not or cannot examine their own existence, build things, etc) and then broadened his classification of what is 'inferior, and therefore without rights'. In some cases, it could be said that some animals are 'morally superior' to some humans, given the outcome of certain choices made by each.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I don't recall being such a 'Doubting Thomas", and certainly don't hold to any of the theories 'We're all just molecules in a giant's toenail'. However, it is perfectly plausible and logical that all of your thoughts, including your notion of God, reside exclusively in your own head, as (assumably) identifiable chemical formulae.

That was actually Terrible Sweal's idea.

Which you have naturally misrepresented and distorted.

My view is that if we're going to be scientific about this, the evidence before us overwhelmingly confirms that the physical world exists as we perceive it.

Of course, we assess the evidence with the same tool we perceive the universe. Lo and behold, the outcomes match!

To reiterate, ownership is an invention in the mind of man

So is government.

Indeed. As the automobile to the wheel.

To use violence strictly in the defence of one's rights is not coercive.

Fallacy. Presumes the conclusion.

Who says it's defence? What says they're one's rights?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Once again, to apply another example to this argument, if the Nazis take over in Germany and the Jews are not organized against them, is it the Nazi belief in racial purity or the Jewish belief in their right to live that decides whether they will go to the gas chambers? And what are the implications of that?

It was the use of overwhelming force that decided.

First, the Nazis took away the 'rights' of Jews to be citizens, then the 'right' to attend schools, own businesses, and even to 'own' their property. Then they took away their 'right to life'.

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

[Hugo]

Which you have naturally misrepresented and distorted.

I really have not. Look, here is your original contention, made on May 12th:

Hugo: 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.

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

And my interpretation of that was:

We cannot assume that the physical world exists, and rights theory must somehow take into account the possibility that everything we sense is an illusion.

If you were not saying we must consider the possibility that the world does not exist independently of human perception, then why would you have been so argumentative when I posited such an idea?

Of course, we assess the evidence with the same tool we perceive the universe. Lo and behold, the outcomes match!

Of course they do. You see, being scientific, you make judgements based upon the best evidence and the most likely theory that the evidence supports. It is always possible that the evidence is dead wrong and therefore, the theory is dead wrong, but in science one goes with the preponderance of evidence.

You are tying yourself up in knots here. In arguments about the existence of God, you have taken a very scientific approach: the evidence suggests that God does not exist, therefore, he does not exist, and you won't consider that he might. In this, however, you are taking the exact opposite approach: the evidence suggests that the world exists, however, you insist that we consider the possibility that it does not.

Indeed. As the automobile to the wheel.

This is a very poor example. Thelonius and I have been quite right in asserting that ownership and government exist in the minds of men, there is no physical thing that you could ever point to and say "that is ownership" or "that is government." However, there are plenty of physical things you could identify as wheels and automobiles. Wheels and automobiles can exist independently of the minds of men. If the entire human race was to be wiped out tomorrow by some terrible blast of solar radiation or an unimaginably potent plague, there would be no more government, and no more ownership, but the wheels and automobiles we had created would still clutter the surface of the planet.

Fallacy. Presumes the conclusion.

Who says it's defence? What says they're one's rights?

Again? I say it's defence because in a universe that exists independently of human minds there would have to be one party that initiated force, therefore, the one that didn't has used force as defence. I say they are rights because to say otherwise is self-contradictory, because that would still assign rights, but rather than assigning them to human beings as a rule (which are objectively impossible to differentiate between in any way that would suggest different rights be applied to any), not to would effectively assign rights only to those able to defend them, and that theory makes a nonsense of itself.

You seem to make the case for 'the rights of the superior' supercede those of the inferior. Hitler did this, at first with the 'mentally deficient' (who, arguably, do not or cannot examine their own existence, build things, etc) and then broadened his classification of what is 'inferior, and therefore without rights'.

You are ignoring my argument completely. I am saying that it is possible to objectively differentiate humans from animals, but not humans from humans. Therefore the same theory used to assign humans greater rights than animals cannot be used to assign humans greater rights than other humans. We can all agree that a human is a superior being to a cat by dint of his thoughts and actions. As a general rule, humans will behave in a superior way to cats (we think further ahead in the future, use tools, philosophise etc). We cannot all agree that an Aryan is a superior being to a Jew. Aryans do not behave in any objectively superior fashion to Jews, even as a general rule. In fact, one of the problems the Nazi "philosophers" ran into was that it's very hard to even determine who is Aryan and who is Jewish, which certainly is not a problem facing anybody who would distinguish humans from animals!

[Hugo]

It was the use of overwhelming force that decided.

First, the Nazis took away the 'rights' of Jews to be citizens, then the 'right' to attend schools, own businesses, and even to 'own' their property. Then they took away their 'right to life'.

If you are claiming that only the state can assign rights, then you are telling me that the Holocaust and the Stalinist purges were perfectly acceptable. No murders took place because those "murdered" had no right to live. To exterminate the Jews is the same as taking antibiotics to kill a bacterial infection: neither the Jews nor the bacteria have a right to live.

If you instead believe that the Holocaust was still murder, then that means the state does not assign rights but merely violates or respects them, in which case the Nazis did not strip any rights from the Jews but merely chose to violate the rights they possessed irrespective of Nazi ideas.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

If you are claiming that only the state can assign rights,

I am not saying 'only they', but they (the state),as you say, have a monopoly on violence (or coersion), so they decide as to where overwhelming force should be applied.

I am not sure who said this, but there is an old axiom of "Sir, I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it". Now, this implies, and I believe correctly, that rights are conferred to you by others. They come from the fact that someone else is willing to either

a) use overwhelming force to change what they see as 'your rights', or

b)use force to defend what they see as 'your rights' against those who disagree, and are trying to use force to change the definition of 'your rights.

In both cases, it is usually a 'state', or a large collection of individuals who have the means to use overwhelming force to defend or impose that 'will'. I believe Israel was created with just this kind of thinking in mind. The phrase "Never Again" would ring hollow if the Jews didn't have some sort of force (and they do now have a formidible one) to uphold this notion.