Tyrrany versus Freedom

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

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

I argue that true 'enlightenment' means extending the 'rights' you have (especially the right to exist) to include the so-called 'inferior'.

Therefore the same theory used to assign humans greater rights than animals cannot be used to assign humans greater rights than other humans

I agree with the statement, but it is not the theory I hold.

[Hugo]

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".

Voltaire.

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'.

So am I correct in interpreting your statements as saying that only the state may grant rights, and therefore the Holocaust was not murder? You are being quite vague. I suspect this is because you are caught between seeming morally reprehensible and between recanting your argument. If that is the case I would urge you to be intellectually honest, it takes a great man to admit he was wrong. Don't get caught defending Nazism because you can't admit you were wrong.

I argue that true 'enlightenment' means extending the 'rights' you have (especially the right to exist) to include the so-called 'inferior'.

If that was the case then to extend rights to 'inferior' beings like animals, plants, minerals etc. would mean denying rights to your fellow humans, because without violating the 'rights' of animals and plants we could not exist. Basically, either humans are superior to animals and plants, or animals and plants are superior to humans. You can't have them be equal. I take the former position. Do you take the latter? In which case, how do you morally justify your continued existence?

I agree with the statement, but it is not the theory I hold.

You agree but you disagree? Which one of your personalities am I talking to right now, and could the other one just keep quiet for a while so we can have a rational discussion?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

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."

I am saying that 'rights' also are in this category.

So am I correct in interpreting your statements as saying that only the state may grant rights, and therefore the Holocaust was not murder?

In my mind, it was murder. In the minds (and propaganda) of certain Nazis, they used the term 'destroy'. As though they felt it wasn't murder. However, the attributes of Nazism are beside the point, and for example only. Why do the tree-huggers do what they do?

Let's say, for example, that the Nazis feted Jews as superior, rather than inferior. They could go anywhere they wanted,(tresspassing) and take anything from anyone they wanted (stealing), and the Nazis upheld their 'right to do so' by jailing or killing those opposed. It is the overwhelming force that dictates what a 'right' is, and it would only last as long as that force remained superior.

Now, as we all know, the Nazis had some wacky ideas, and Hitler was a firm believer in 'survival of the fittest'. (He makes a great many references to it in Mein Kampf) His arguments were quite logical, if you held his same viewpoint. Just as your claim to 'rights', it depends on others agreeing, and their willingness to fight and die for the beliefs that are common to you.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

You can't have them be equal. I take the former position. Do you take the latter? In which case, how do you morally justify your continued existence?

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

[Hugo]

In my mind, it was murder. In the minds (and propaganda) of certain Nazis, they used the term 'destroy'. As though they felt it wasn't murder.

Your position is increasingly unclear. I would like you to tell me if you think rights exist regardless of state interpretation or if they exist only by state fiat.

Note that rights can still exist even if violated. It seems to me that you favour the former position of rights existing irregardless of governmental recognition, and if that is the case, this means that the same rights must apply regardless of whether it was government agents or private individuals who violated them, which means taxation is in fact theft, for instance.

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

That argument leads nowhere, because who are you to say how much is too much to take?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I would like you to tell me if you think rights exist regardless of state

Rights exist only in the mind, as does government and ownership. Rights are bestowed upon you by everyone you meet, regardless of state. How can a 'right' protect you against those that disagree? It cannot, it's only power lay within 'the power' of those that agree.

That argument leads nowhere, because who are you to say how much is too much to take?

It depends on what you believe. I believe I actually know the answer. Unfortunately, the 'answer' is only as real as 'rights'.

[Hugo]

Rights exist only in the mind, as does government and ownership. Rights are bestowed upon you by everyone you meet, regardless of state. How can a 'right' protect you against those that disagree? It cannot, it's only power lay within 'the power' of those that agree.

Nobody ever said that a right would protect you. I think that you don't actually know your own position. When speaking in an abstract fashion you will happily tell me that rights have no meaning and even no existence beyond their enforceability or the respect that others hold for them, and when I tell you that this basically justifies the Holocaust, you will quickly backpedal and say that no, you didn't mean that at all.

If that's genuinely your belief, then have the courage of your convictions and come out swinging on behalf of Hitler and Stalin. The fact that you are morally repulsed by this idea shows me that even you don't believe what you are saying.

It depends on what you believe. I believe I actually know the answer. Unfortunately, the 'answer' is only as real as 'rights'.

You believe you know the answer? After 6 pages of debate I think I've managed to determine that you don't even know the question. Again, you're tripping over your own feet. You tell me that animals should have rights like humans, but then imply that rights for animals could be violated by anybody with the power to do so (i.e. humans), and that the ethics that would proscribe such an act are as illusory as the rights themselves, which is basically a statement that animals don't have rights at all and are merely property, which was the position you actually attacked just a few days ago!

As I said before, half in jest, it seems that I'm arguing with two different people posting under one name.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

If that's genuinely your belief, then have the courage of your convictions and come out swinging on behalf of Hitler and Stalin. The fact that you are morally repulsed by this idea shows me that even you don't believe what you are saying.

Please don't switch between examples and theory, I have made it quite clear what 'rights' and 'ownership' are, and my opinion on 'morality' is irrelevant to the discussion.

I thought, even though it is under the wrong thread, that we were discussing the nature of 'rights'.

I find the actions of Hitler and Stalin repugnant, yes. Did the Jews have the 'right' to avoid extermination? It is a loaded question, for according to you and I, we would gladly bestow upon them that right, and in fact we do everyday, by not following, espousing or carrying out the direct actions and/or racist Nazi philosophy that would lead them to their demise. Did Hitler bestow upon them that right? No.

Does a coyote or an alligator have the 'right' to eat you? Do you have the 'right' not to be eaten? It depends on whether the alligator chooses to bestow that right upon you or not.

which is basically a statement that animals don't have rights at all and are merely property, which was the position you actually attacked just a few days ago!

No, I never said 'animals are merely property', for the position I took was that 'ownership' is just as ethereal as 'rights'. Animals have the 'same right to rights' as people because 'rights' are a creation in the mind of man. It is a question of choice, not of fact.

Perhaps my position would become more clear if I took a Nietzschean approach, and said "You humans create the notion of rights, and then you humans then assign the parameters and extremes of how and where they shall be applicable."

[Hugo]

Alright, Thelonius, since you can't provide a consistent position for me to debate with this discussion can go no further.

Did the Jews have the 'right' to avoid extermination? It is a loaded question, for according to you and I, we would gladly bestow upon them that right, and in fact we do everyday, by not following, espousing or carrying out the direct actions and/or racist Nazi philosophy that would lead them to their demise. Did Hitler bestow upon them that right? No.

Does a coyote or an alligator have the 'right' to eat you? Do you have the 'right' not to be eaten? It depends on whether the alligator chooses to bestow that right upon you or not.

This passage is self-contradictory. Replace "eat you" with "gas Jews" and "alligator" with "Nazi". You argue that rights can only be bestowed, but that you believe in a priori rights. Your position is incompatible with what you claim is your rights theory. If you did not believe in a priori rights as you claim, you'd have no problem with Nazi massacres, and you'd also believe that you should be able to do whatever you can get away with, in which case, why aren't you plotting ways to rob and murder people without getting caught right now?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

and you'd also believe that you should be able to do whatever you can get away with, in which case, why aren't you plotting ways to rob and murder people without getting caught right now?

Because that is 'moralizing'. It is a belief, not a contradiction. You claim I am contradictory for saying things in the past, for which you attack me, not the argument. You have failed to disprove my definition, so your only defense is to say I am inconsistent. So I'll ask you, Hugo, what gives 'rights'? What gives Jews the 'right not to be gassed' if not, exclusively, others?

This is one of the reasons I am opposed to anarchy. It is so hugely dependent on trusting Hitlers and Stalins not to do what they did.

[Hugo]

So I'll ask you, Hugo, what gives 'rights'? What gives Jews the 'right not to be gassed' if not, exclusively, others?

Since I evidently cannot explain it to you in a way easy to understand, I shall turn to Murray Rothbard for an explanation:

Natural law theory rests on the insight that we live in a

world of more than one—in fact, a vast number—of entities, and that each

entity has distinct and specific properties, a distinct “nature,” which can be

investigated by man’s reason, by his sense perception and mental faculties.

Copper has a distinct nature and behaves in a certain way, and so do iron,

salt, etc. The species man, therefore, has a specifiable nature, as does the

world around him and the ways of interaction between them. To put it

with undue brevity, the activity of each inorganic and organic entity is

determined by its own nature and by the nature of the other entities with

which it comes in contact. Specifically, while the behavior of plants and at

least the lower animals is determined by their biological nature or perhaps

by their “instincts,” the nature of man is such that each individual person

must, in order to act, choose his own ends and employ his own means in

order to attain them. Possessing no automatic instincts, each man must

learn about himself and the world, use his mind to select values, learn

about cause and effect, and act purposively to maintain himself and

advance his life. Since men can think, feel, evaluate, and act only as

individuals, it becomes vitally necessary for each man’s survival and

prosperity that he be free to learn, choose, develop his faculties, and act

upon his knowledge and values. This is the necessary path of human

nature; to interfere with and cripple this process by using violence goes

profoundly against what is necessary by man’s nature for his life and

prosperity. Violent interference with a man’s learning and choices is

therefore profoundly “antihuman”; it violates the natural law of man’s

needs...

The most viable method of elaborating the natural-rights statement of

the libertarian position is to divide it into parts, and to begin with the basic

axiom of the “right to self-ownership.” The right to self-ownership asserts

the absolute right of each man, by virtue of his (or her) being a human

being, to “own” his or her own body; that is, to control that body free of

coercive interference. Since each individual must think, learn, value, and

choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right

to self-ownership gives man the right to perform these vital activities

without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation.

Consider, too, the consequences of denying each man the right to own

his own person. There are then only two alternatives: either (1) a certain

class of people, A, have the right to own another class, B; or (2) everyone

has the right to own his own equal quotal share of everyone else. The first

alternative implies that while Class A deserves the rights of being human,

Class B is in reality subhuman and therefore deserves no such rights. But

since they are indeed human beings, the first alternative contradicts itself

in denying natural human rights to one set of humans. Moreover, as we

shall see, allowing Class A to own Class B means that the former is

allowed to exploit, and therefore to live parasitically, at the expense of the

latter. But this parasitism itself violates the basic economic requirement

for life: production and exchange.

The second alternative, what we might call “participatory communalism”

or “communism,” holds that every man should have the right to own

his equal quotal share of everyone else. If there are two billion people in

the world, then everyone has the right to own one two-billionth of every

other person. In the first place, we can state that this ideal rests on an

absurdity: proclaiming that every man is entitled to own a part of everyone

else, yet is not entitled to own himself. Secondly, we can picture the

viability of such a world: a world in which no man is free to take any

action whatever without prior approval or indeed command by everyone

else in society. It should be clear that in that sort of “communist” world,

no one would be able to do anything, and the human race would quickly

perish. But if a world of zero self-ownership and one hundred percent

other ownership spells death for the human race, then any steps in that

direction also contravene the natural law of what is best for man and his

life on earth.

This is one of the reasons I am opposed to anarchy. It is so hugely dependent on trusting Hitlers and Stalins not to do what they did.

This must be a joke, it's such a ridiculous point that I have trouble believing you'd even seriously propose it. The Hitlers of the world did what they did using a massive state. They are arguments for anarchy, not against it! The fact is that no tyrant in history created his evil state from anarchy, but from an existing state, the totalitarianism of which they merely perfected but never started. Hitler was concluding a growing Prussian trend to a collectivist state that had begun early in the 19th Century, Stalin brought the centuries-old Tsarist autocracy to its logical conclusion, and Mao became the latest in a series of emperors that had run for thousands of years, his rise to power being no different in length or bloodiness than that which had marked the change of any Chinese dynasty. In fact, as regards the relative number of deaths, Mao's rise to power was not even the worst in Chinese history.

[The Terrible Sweal]

...I shall turn to Murray Rothbard for an explanation:

Natural law theory rests on the insight that we live in a

world of more than one—in fact, a vast number—of entities, and that each

entity has distinct and specific properties, a distinct “nature,” ...

while the behavior of plants and at least the lower animals is determined by their biological nature or perhaps by their “instincts,” the nature of man is such that each individual person must, in order to act, choose his own ends and employ his own means in order to attain them. Possessing no automatic instincts, each man must learn about himself and the world, use his mind to select values, learn

about cause and effect, and act purposively to maintain himself and

advance his life. Since men can think, feel, evaluate, and act only as

individuals, it becomes vitally necessary for each man’s survival and

prosperity that he be free to learn, choose, develop his faculties, and act

upon his knowledge and values. ...to interfere with and cripple this process ... goes

... against what is necessary by man’s nature for his life and

prosperity. ...  interference with a man’s learning and choices is

therefore profoundly “antihuman”; ...

... elaborating the natural-rights statement of the libertarian position ... divide it into parts, and to begin with the basic axiom of the “right to self-ownership.” The right to self-ownership asserts the absolute right of each man, by virtue of his (or her) being a human being, to “own” his or her own body; that is, to control that body free of coercive interference. Since each individual must think, learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation.

Okay for a normative argument: What rights SHOULD individuals establish among themselves.

But this fails as a descriptive argument. To 'own' is to 'control free of coercive interference'. But this says nothing about how such freedom is established against someone willing to coerce.

Also, btw, the argument for self-'ownership' doesn't translate very well as a basis for general property rights.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Natural law theory rests on the insight that we live in a

world of more than one—in fact, a vast number—of entities,

My theory agrees that there is more than one, but the number isn't vast, it is merely two.

Possessing no automatic instincts, each man

Untrue. 'Fight or Flight syndrome' affects mankind, even as some would freeze like 'a deer in the headlights'. Blind panic etc., 'base instinct', still rules the actions of man more than you'd care to admit.

The Hitlers of the world did what they did using a massive state. They are arguments for anarchy, not against it!

Then I believe Rothbard misuses the term 'Anarchy', for using Occam's Razor it means 'the absence of any law whatsoever' (including Natural Law, for both Hitler and Rothbard chose to arbitrarily decide, though they both present their chosen logic for it, as to whom or what should be included when they demarcated and dispensed 'rights') Rothbard's theory should really be called 'Anti-Socialism'.

According to Hitler, (from Mein Kampf pg 286)

"The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following:

(a) Lowering of the level of the higher race;

( Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness.

To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but a sin against the will of the eternal creator".

Whereas Rothbard writes

choose, develop his faculties, and act

upon his knowledge and values. This is the necessary path of human

nature; to interfere with and cripple this process by using violence goes

profoundly against what is necessary by man’s nature for his life and

prosperity. Violent interference with a man’s learning and choices is

therefore profoundly “antihuman”; it violates the natural law of man’s

needs...

Rothbard doesn't deny the use of violence in this sentence, he simply demarcates where he thinks it's useage should be applied. With Hitler it was race, with Rothbard it is species. He offers nothing about why this would 'naturally replace' base nature, that being 'of force'. 'Reason and choice', you might say, but if you expect all humans to take a minute out of their day and all, suddenly and to a person, arrive at the same momentous choice on how the world should truly be, that choice would surely be better than anarchy.

This must be a joke, it's such a ridiculous point that I have trouble believing you'd even seriously propose it.

I'll admit my point was ambiguous. Anarchy prevents the individual from realistically possessing the 'power to enforce said arbitrary rights' against those that would use their owverwhelming power to transgress them. People like Hitler and Stalin would have found it way easier to rise to power under an anarchist system because under the (natural law, or 'survival of the fittest') theory of 'divide and conquer', the division would already be in place.

Rothbard's dream is no different than Marx's, for it depicts an ideal situation in an tragically imperfect setting.

All entities share something whether they realize it or not. That is existence. With it comes 'belonging', something that 'Anarchy' inherently excludes. So, my theory is that there is but two de facto entities, you and the one who is not you. So, the choice we face is to endeavor to belong to 'the one' or 'the two'.

[Hugo]

But this fails as a descriptive argument. To 'own' is to 'control free of coercive interference'. But this says nothing about how such freedom is established against someone willing to coerce.

It requires no other people or level of society to maintain this freedom. Therefore, violence against it is a transgression against the norm rather than the norm.

My theory agrees that there is more than one, but the number isn't vast, it is merely two.

Rubbish. Right here, there's you, me, and Sweal. That's three. And there's our computers. That's six. And our chairs. That's nine - and so on. The universe contains probably an infinite number of entities, and the earth contains around six billion people. To say that there are only two is insane. Your idea that there is only "you and the one who is not you" is similarly deranged, because if "that which is not you" was a coherent entity as you claim, there could be no difference, but I will treat you differently to Sweal, and either one of us could die without it affecting the other, so how could Sweal and I be the same entity?

Untrue. 'Fight or Flight syndrome' affects mankind, even as some would freeze like 'a deer in the headlights'. Blind panic etc., 'base instinct', still rules the actions of man more than you'd care to admit.

What Rothbard means is that, unlike the lower animals, man has no instincts that tell him what he should do with his life. His instincts merely help him preserve it.

Then I believe Rothbard misuses the term 'Anarchy', for using Occam's Razor it means 'the absence of any law whatsoever'

Anarchy: Absence of any form of political authority. (American Heritage Dictionary)

It doesn't mean the absence of law. It means the absence of monopoly on law held by violence.

Rothbard doesn't deny the use of violence in this sentence, he simply demarcates where he thinks it's useage should be applied. With Hitler it was race, with Rothbard it is species.

The problem, as I've said, with your Peter-Singer-esque animal rights ideas is that you cannot assign equal rights to animals and people. Humans need to exploit animals in order to live. Either you put animals ahead of people, or vice versa. If you put animals ahead of humans I would want to know why, and furthermore, how you justify your own existence!

The difference between Hitler and Rothbard in this case is that Hitler ignores the possibility that different 'races' could co-operate in favour of creating conflict. Rothbard has to accept that between humans and animals there is no possibility of co-operation, at least, not on a large scale. Animals compete for the same resources, like other humans, but unlike other humans, animals cannot co-operate or strike deals. Try offering to share your dinner with a bear. Make a right-of-passage agreement with a nest of vipers.

Anarchy prevents the individual from realistically possessing the 'power to enforce said arbitrary rights' against those that would use their owverwhelming power to transgress them.

Complete and total rubbish! What you have described is not anarchy, it's government! Under anarchy, there is nothing explicitly preventing a person exercising or gathering equal or greater force to those who would aggress against him. Under the state, the individual may not use the weapons the state has, may not hire armed individuals to help him as the state may, and sure enough, the state uses this power to commit massive rights violations every day.

It seems what you fear most about anarchy is a state, which is the opposite of anarchy. I'd like to ask you why you embrace what it is you fear, hoping that it will defend you from itself? Why would you attack anarchy in favour of what we already have, when your greatest worry about anarchy is that it would return to what we already have?

[The Terrible Sweal]

But this fails as a descriptive argument. To 'own' is to 'control free of coercive interference'. But this says nothing about how such freedom is established against someone willing to coerce.

It requires no other people or level of society to maintain this freedom. Therefore, violence against it is a transgression against the norm rather than the norm.

Huhn? I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand what you wrote there.

Perhaps you or Rothbard could address and answer to a question. How is freedom and/or rights established or maintained in the face of others intent depriving us of these (as we see them)?

[Hugo]

How is freedom and/or rights established or maintained in the face of others intent depriving us of these (as we see them)?

Your terms are wrong. I don't agree that any man can establish rights. They are part of being human and you can no more create or destroy them than you can create or destroy a person's humanity. Similarly, nobody else can deprive us of our rights, they either respect them, or they do not, but they can never destroy them or deprive us of them any more than they can destroy or deprive us of our humanity.

In this case, the two options to defend us against the consequences of a transgression of our rights are either persuasion or the use of responsive force (or the threat to use responsive force).

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I don't agree that any man can establish rights. 

I was under the impression that you understood that 'rights', ownership and gov't were an invention in the mind of man.

Either you put animals ahead of people, or vice versa.

Why do you feel the compulsion to have one ahead or behnd, when they are equal?

You and I and Sweal are animals. A different kind of animal, to be sure, advanced and intellectually superior, certainly. However, we are classified as belonging to the Animal Kingdom.

Order: Primate

Suborder/infraorder: Catarrhine (Old World Monkeys, Apes and Humans)

Superfamily: Hominoidea (apes and humans)

Family: Hominidae (Humans)

Genus: Homo (sapiens)

Nowhere in my Anthropology or archaeology books does it say any species has 'natural rights or laws' over the others. Those are created by choice. Further, as I previously mentioned, some members of our 'superfamily' Hominoidea, Family Pongidae, have, in some specific cases, granted 'ownership and rights of disposal' to other members.

Right here, there's you, me, and Sweal. That's three

It is a 'rights theory' regarding interaction, not meant to be taken literally. When I was younger, and taken to church by my family, we heard of and were taught songs and hymns about some dude named Jesus. One of the hymns went..."Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me". If 'Doubting Thomas' can only be sure of one thing, 'Cogito Ergo Sum', then all external interaction is with 'the one that is not you'. All 'rights', in practice, are invented by the one, and applied arbitrarily.

I'd like to ask you why you embrace what it is you fear, hoping that it will defend you from itself? Why would you attack anarchy in favour of what we already have, when your greatest worry about anarchy is that it would return to what we already have?

I haven't the faith in the 'inherent benevolence' of the Human Race that you seem to have. That a group of 'responsible anarchists' could be trusted to adhere to any sort of moral or legal guidelines on their own is laughable. We've gone through our days of slavery, for example, and I have no wish to see them come back. Edited May 29, 2005 by theloniusfleabag

[The Terrible Sweal]

How is freedom and/or rights established or maintained in the face of others intent depriving us of these (as we see them)?

Your terms are wrong. I don't agree that any man can establish rights. They are part of being human and you can no more create or destroy them than you can create or destroy a person's humanity.

You are contradicting yourself. You agreed earlier that rights only have meaning among persons.

Similarly, nobody else can deprive us of our rights, they either respect them, or they do not, but they can never destroy them or deprive us of them any more than they can destroy or deprive us of our humanity.

I'm not interested in your word-games.

In this case, the two options to defend us against the consequences of a transgression of our rights are either persuasion or the use of responsive force (or the threat to use responsive force).

Took a long time for you to get to the answer, but here we have it:

your answer, like mine, is: force.

[Hugo]

I was under the impression that you understood that 'rights', ownership and gov't were an invention in the mind of man.

I believe in natural-rights theory. That should answer your question.

Why do you feel the compulsion to have one ahead or behnd, when they are equal?

I'm not answering this again. You already know my position, stop wasting time. Your statement effectively says that lions and gazelles should have equal rights. They can't. Without eating the gazelles, the lions die. If the lions are to live, the gazelles must die. You cannot assign equal rights to both, because in so doing you condemn one species to die, and that would mean you had assigned greater rights to the other.

It is a 'rights theory' regarding interaction, not meant to be taken literally.

If it can't be applied, what is its use? The idea that there are only two entities in the universe is, frankly, stupid, because it ignores the undeniable reality that entities other than yourself are separate and independent.

I haven't the faith in the 'inherent benevolence' of the Human Race that you seem to have. That a group of 'responsible anarchists' could be trusted to adhere to any sort of moral or legal guidelines on their own is laughable.

You say this in the full knowledge that governments have wiped out about 120 million people in the 20th Century alone, not including battlefield dead? Are you joking with me? I find it very hard to believe that anarchists would even be capable of breaking all moral or legal guidelines as much as governments have and do.

Your argument ignores all the empirical evidence, which clearly shows that the agents of the state are, even by our own laws, the biggest criminals in existence and history.

We've gone through our days of slavery, for example, and I have no wish to see them come back.

You mean the slavery that was protected by government and law?

You are contradicting yourself. You agreed earlier that rights only have meaning among persons.

Yes, they do only have meaning among persons. Language only has meaning among persons. Does that mean that an individual has no capacity for language?

Took a long time for you to get to the answer, but here we have it:

your answer, like mine, is: force.

That doesn't sound right. I don't remember you agreeing that rights existed independently of force, but often had to be defended by force. Is that what you're saying now?

[The Terrible Sweal]

You are contradicting yourself. You agreed earlier that rights only have meaning among persons.

Yes, they do only have meaning among persons. Language only has meaning among persons. Does that mean that an individual has no capacity for language?

The man alone in the wilderness has use for neither speech nor any notions of claims to 'rights'. The point at which rights become pragmatically relevant (where I say they begin to 'exist', i.e. among other sapient entities) is what interests me.

That doesn't sound right. I don't remember you agreeing that rights existed independently of force, but often had to be defended by force. Is that what you're saying now?

You said: "In this case, the two options to defend us against the consequences of a transgression of our rights are either persuasion or the use of responsive force (or the threat to use responsive force)."

That is, you agree that failing persuasion, the only defence for what you claim as yours is force. Good.

Now the next point I would make is this: Cooperative action is a means of enhancing your ability to defend yourself by force. Grouping together is a rational response to hostility.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Your statement effectively says that lions and gazelles should have equal rights. They can't.

It is not the rights of one over the other that is in question, it is the rights to existence of both that we should grant. I am not saying we should shoot the gazelle on behalf of the lion, or shoot the lion to protect the gazelle. It is what you do, and how you assign rights, that is the key. Loss of habitat, poisoning,etc are the true evils. We should interfere with them as little as possible, and let the lion decide whether or not he will grant the right to exist to the gazelle. You are the one that is saying that it is perfectly fine to kill them both for your own end, because they are lesser beings and therefore unworthy of your rights theory.

I find it very hard to believe that anarchists would even be capable of breaking all moral or legal guidelines as much as governments have and do.

Your argument ignores all the empirical evidence, which clearly shows that the agents of the state are, even by our own laws, the biggest criminals in existence and history.

States always rise out of anarchy. It is not solely because certain people want power over the others, but more because people believe that there is safety in numbers. With the absence of a gov't, and therefore police, those that would transgress (or assign) rights to others would surely band together, to become more powerful. Whether they be slavers, Nazis or cannibals, one either has to field the strength and overwhelming power to keep one's head, or hope that the new group of bandits that arrive at your doorstep grant you 'the right to live'.

[Hugo]

The man alone in the wilderness has use for neither speech nor any notions of claims to 'rights'. The point at which rights become pragmatically relevant (where I say they begin to 'exist', i.e. among other sapient entities) is what interests me.

A man alone in the wilderness can have both rights and language. He just has no particular need for either.

Now the next point I would make is this: Cooperative action is a means of enhancing your ability to defend yourself by force. Grouping together is a rational response to hostility.

Alright.

It is not the rights of one over the other that is in question, it is the rights to existence of both that we should grant. I am not saying we should shoot the gazelle on behalf of the lion, or shoot the lion to protect the gazelle. It is what you do, and how you assign rights, that is the key.

I don't think you're paying attention. You cannot assign equal rights to both, because to assert that one has a right to live is to assert that the other should die for it. A can only exist off of B. If A's right to live is to be defended, B must die. If B's right to live is to be defended, A must die.

So it cannot be the case that they have equal rights. It's like trying to be half-way between dead and alive. There is no half-way. You're either alive or dead. Either the lion may live, or the gazelle. Not both.

We should interfere with them as little as possible, and let the lion decide whether or not he will grant the right to exist to the gazelle.

Didn't you just finish telling me that intervening to oppose Hitler was morally acceptable? How does this fit in with that?

You are the one that is saying that it is perfectly fine to kill them both for your own end, because they are lesser beings and therefore unworthy of your rights theory.

That's right, they are lesser beings. As I said before, I haven't noted any lions building pyramids or gazelles developing rights theories. Man is demonstrably unique and demonstrably superior. We have a far superior intellect to anything else on the planet and that puts us at the top of the food chain.

Now, as I've said before, to assign equal rights to animals is to assign lesser rights to man, because man needs to exploit animals in order to exist. I know that you are very keen to keep dodging this question, but I'd appreciate an answer: what makes animals superior to us that they need superior rights, and how do you justify your own existence?

States always rise out of anarchy.

Example?

I'll give you three that prove you wrong. Holy Experiment Pennsylvania was ended by the invasion of British Redcoats keen on restoring the colony to Crown control. Anarchist Iceland was ended by the military invasion of Haakon IV of Norway. The Anglo-Saxons (neo-anarchist, with an ostensible government that in practice didn't do much of anything) were invaded and conquered by William of Normandy.

Now, I'd like to see your examples, because I believe you don't have any, because you are completely ignorant in these matters. But go ahead and prove me wrong.

With the absence of a gov't, and therefore police

Who said the absence of government means the absence of police? Perhaps you've heard of security guards? Private detectives? Mercenaries?

those that would transgress (or assign) rights to others would surely band together, to become more powerful.

The trouble is that people of that inclination, if sufficiently opposed, stand to lose more than they can gain. It's in their better interests just to co-operate and trade, they can get more. All you need is the threat that you can make a lot of trouble for your enemies, and they'll be inclined to become your friends. Free workers are more productive than slaves. Slaves just take every opportunity to slack off and run away. This is why slavery died out in North America, in the northern states, because of growing capital, slavery just wasn't economically viable any more.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The man alone in the wilderness has use for neither speech nor any notions of claims to 'rights'. The point at which rights become pragmatically relevant (where I say they begin to 'exist', i.e. among other sapient entities) is what interests me.

A man alone in the wilderness can have both rights and language. He just has no particular need for either.

I don't see how he can have rights alone in the wilderness if rights only exist among men. But I suppose that depends on what my definition of 'is' is.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I don't think you're paying attention. You cannot assign equal rights to both, because to assert that one has a right to live is to assert that the other should die for it.

I think you are the one not paying attention. I am saying that your or my interpretation and administration of rights, whether they be for or against, A, B, or both, is irrelevant unless I enter the equation using overwhelming force. Until that time, Darwin's 'theory of rights' rules all things.

A man alone in the wilderness can have both rights and language.

No, he can have thoughts of them (rights), he can imagine he has the right to reproduce asexually and produce his own offspring, he can imagine he 'owns' all that he can and cannot see, but these only exist in his mind. They can only be of any value, and become realized, if someone or something else agrees, or disagrees and yet you win.

Didn't you just finish telling me that intervening to oppose Hitler was morally acceptable?

Indeed. For a while I thought you agreed. But, you seem to hold the same prejudice as Hitler,

That's right, they are lesser beings. As I said before, I haven't noted any lions building pyramids or gazelles developing rights theories. Man is demonstrably unique and demonstrably superior. We have a far superior intellect to anything else on the planet and that puts us at the top of the food chain.

the superior power gains, (and you say rightfully so), superior rights. Hitler held his theories of race, too, as Aryans being demonstrably 'superior'. However, to simplify things a bit, what of the 'mentally retarded'? Many cannot even live on their own, let alone build a pyramid or develop 'rights theories'. Are they superior just because they (barely) fit into the family Hominiodea?

Robert Latimer, for example, chose to euthanize his severely handicapped daughter and went to jail for it. (His justification was that she was in terrible and constant pain. For some, there is no justification) Should he have just wheeled her down to the end of his driveway when she turned 18 and 'set her free'? It might have earned him public scorn for eternity, but it would have been well within the rules of 'natural law', (and would have been an entirely different criminal case) for she would have been an adult, and solely responsible for her own keeping. The Terry Schiavo case is another example of 'artificially granting superiority' to those that don't possess it. Therefore, anywhere you draw that line is arbitrary.

Now, as I've said before, to assign equal rights to animals is to assign lesser rights to man, because man needs to exploit animals in order to exist. I know that you are very keen to keep dodging this question, but I'd appreciate an answer: what makes animals superior to us that they need superior rights, and how do you justify your own existence?

How do you go from 'equal to lesser' so easily? Do you mean 'lesser' because it would be less than what you have already decided to allot yourself?

Very well Hugo, I justify my existence because I share it with, and am an equal part of, all things that exist.

if sufficiently opposed

Now you are admitting that 'sufficient force' (In my words, overwhelming force) is the crux of the 'rights' matter.

[Hugo]

I am saying that your or my interpretation and administration of rights, whether they be for or against, A, B, or both, is irrelevant unless I enter the equation using overwhelming force. Until that time, Darwin's 'theory of rights' rules all things.

Of course. However, I am saying that the respect or disrespect of rights does not affect their existence. For instance, returning to the Holocaust, I would say that the violation by the Nazis of the Jewish right not to be harmed did not change or abrogate that right.

No, he can have thoughts of them (rights), he can imagine he has the right to reproduce asexually and produce his own offspring, he can imagine he 'owns' all that he can and cannot see, but these only exist in his mind. They can only be of any value, and become realized, if someone or something else agrees, or disagrees and yet you win.

No, actually, things like rights will always be in the mind. They never become realised any more than they will in the mind of one man.

But, you seem to hold the same prejudice as Hitler,

Based upon what?

However, to simplify things a bit, what of the 'mentally retarded'? Many cannot even live on their own, let alone build a pyramid or develop 'rights theories'. Are they superior just because they (barely) fit into the family Hominiodea?

Define "mentally retarded."

Robert Latimer, for example, chose to euthanize his severely handicapped daughter and went to jail for it. (His justification was that she was in terrible and constant pain. For some, there is no justification) Should he have just wheeled her down to the end of his driveway when she turned 18 and 'set her free'? It might have earned him public scorn for eternity, but it would have been well within the rules of 'natural law'

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.

Therefore, anywhere you draw that line is arbitrary.

No, that's you. I'm discussing human beings as distinct from other lifeforms, and human beings are objectively distinguishable and separate from other lifeforms.

On the other hand, you are bandying about extremely subjective terms like "mentally retarded" and "severely handicapped". How are you deciding who falls into these groups? Let me guess - a line drawn arbitrarily? Fall below a certain IQ and you are "mentally retarded"? Lose more than a given percentage of the average faculties and you are "severely handicapped"?

Very well Hugo, I justify my existence because I share it with, and am an equal part of, all things that exist.

But you don't. A great many things are consumed and destroyed to keep you alive and happy. You are not sharing and equal with a great many things. Have you died and been mulched so that you could feed a cabbage lately?

Now you are admitting that 'sufficient force' (In my words, overwhelming force) is the crux of the 'rights' matter.

For the umpteenth time, I am saying that the enforcement of rights (which often hinges upon force) is separate from the existence of rights (which does not).