SPC (and other libertarians) Political Views Discussion Thread

[SPC]

There are lots of societies where we can go to see this all privatized, no services states. The easiest to access are in central america though. Somalia is the classic example of this with the DRC being a second one.

The DRC is a totalitarian dictatorship. Somalia, while a terrible situation, is still better off than it was 20 years ago.

[Matt Damon™]

Democratic Republic of Congo not North Korea.

[Хahar 🤔]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

[SPC]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

[Хahar 🤔]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

[SPC]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

[Matt Damon™]

Feudalism is the logical outcome of anarchocapitalism.

[JohnFKennedy]

Where do natural rights come from?

Not from government, clearly.

Then where?

[Matt Damon™]

Where do natural rights come from?

Not from government, clearly.

Then where?

Allah.

[Franzl]

Where do natural rights come from?

Not from government, clearly.

Then where?

Allah. The Cookie Monster

[Хahar 🤔]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

However, money is hereditary. Four of the richest people in the United States are Sam Walton's children. What have they done that comes even close to being proportionate to their wealth?

[SPC]

Where do natural rights come from?

Not from government, clearly.

Then where?

God, though that is not meant to say that atheism and natural law are incompatible. The idea of "God-given rights" is meant that only fate itself can strip you of your rights.

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

However, money is hereditary. Four of the richest people in the United States are Sam Walton's children. What have they done that comes even close to being proportionate to their wealth?

Well, Sam Walton made all of that money by being a successful entrepeneur, in other words, he helped inprove the lives of millions of people. Thus, Sam Walton thought his money would be used best in the hands of his next-of-kin.

[Хahar 🤔]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

However, money is hereditary. Four of the richest people in the United States are Sam Walton's children. What have they done that comes even close to being proportionate to their wealth?

Well, Sam Walton made all of that money by being a successful entrepeneur, in other words, he helped inprove the lives of millions of people. Thus, Sam Walton thought his money would be used best in the hands of his next-of-kin.

And what about Bhumibol Adulyadej?

[SPC]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

However, money is hereditary. Four of the richest people in the United States are Sam Walton's children. What have they done that comes even close to being proportionate to their wealth?

Well, Sam Walton made all of that money by being a successful entrepeneur, in other words, he helped inprove the lives of millions of people. Thus, Sam Walton thought his money would be used best in the hands of his next-of-kin.

And what about Bhumibol Adulyadej?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a great book about democracy vs. monarchy, that I hope to read sometime. It's called Democracy: The God That Failed

[Хahar 🤔]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

However, money is hereditary. Four of the richest people in the United States are Sam Walton's children. What have they done that comes even close to being proportionate to their wealth?

Well, Sam Walton made all of that money by being a successful entrepeneur, in other words, he helped inprove the lives of millions of people. Thus, Sam Walton thought his money would be used best in the hands of his next-of-kin.

And what about Bhumibol Adulyadej?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a great book about democracy vs. monarchy, that I hope to read sometime. It's called Democracy: The God That Failed

I hope to read it, but it doesn't answer my question.

[SPC]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

However, money is hereditary. Four of the richest people in the United States are Sam Walton's children. What have they done that comes even close to being proportionate to their wealth?

Well, Sam Walton made all of that money by being a successful entrepeneur, in other words, he helped inprove the lives of millions of people. Thus, Sam Walton thought his money would be used best in the hands of his next-of-kin.

And what about Bhumibol Adulyadej?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a great book about democracy vs. monarchy, that I hope to read sometime. It's called Democracy: The God That Failed

I hope to read it, but it doesn't answer my question.

Well, being a monarch, if he became wealthy through theft/taxation, then that money deserves to be given back to its rightful owners. Same with those who use corporate welfare.

[Хahar 🤔]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

However, money is hereditary. Four of the richest people in the United States are Sam Walton's children. What have they done that comes even close to being proportionate to their wealth?

Well, Sam Walton made all of that money by being a successful entrepeneur, in other words, he helped inprove the lives of millions of people. Thus, Sam Walton thought his money would be used best in the hands of his next-of-kin.

And what about Bhumibol Adulyadej?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a great book about democracy vs. monarchy, that I hope to read sometime. It's called Democracy: The God That Failed

I hope to read it, but it doesn't answer my question.

Well, being a monarch, if he became wealthy through theft/taxation, then that money deserves to be given back to its rightful owners. Same with those who use corporate welfare.

However, as he has an army that he can keep loyal with his immense wealth and godlike status, that is extremely unlikely.

[JohnFKennedy]

Where do natural rights come from?

Not from government, clearly.

Then where?

God, though that is not meant to say that atheism and natural law are incompatible. The idea of "God-given rights" is meant that only fate itself can strip you of your rights.

So how do we justify it for those who don't believe in God? You say they aren't incompatible, but can you explain why they aren't incompatible?

I think you hit the nail on the head though when you call it the 'idea' of 'God-given rights'. Can an abstract idea be proved to be true? If natural rights exist, they only do so because we believe they exist. In other words, if there were no human society, then how can we say there would be natural rights?

[SPC]

Where do natural rights come from?

Not from government, clearly.

Then where?

God, though that is not meant to say that atheism and natural law are incompatible. The idea of "God-given rights" is meant that only fate itself can strip you of your rights.

So how do we justify it for those who don't believe in God? You say they aren't incompatible, but can you explain why they aren't incompatible?

I think you hit the nail on the head though when you call it the 'idea' of 'God-given rights'. Can an abstract idea be proved to be true? If natural rights exist, they only do so because we believe they exist. In other words, if there were no human society, then how can we say there would be natural rights?

I think I explained it well in the second sentence of that post. The idea that rights come from society is false, since no individual could infringe on your rights. That would be slavery. Thus, if no individual can infringe on your rights, how could a group of individuals infringe on your rights? For example, if someone told each of his kids that they couldn't draw on the walls, why would they be permitted to draw on the walls if both of them were doing it together?

[JohnFKennedy]

Where do natural rights come from?

Not from government, clearly.

Then where?

God, though that is not meant to say that atheism and natural law are incompatible. The idea of "God-given rights" is meant that only fate itself can strip you of your rights.

So how do we justify it for those who don't believe in God? You say they aren't incompatible, but can you explain why they aren't incompatible?

I think you hit the nail on the head though when you call it the 'idea' of 'God-given rights'. Can an abstract idea be proved to be true? If natural rights exist, they only do so because we believe they exist. In other words, if there were no human society, then how can we say there would be natural rights?

I think I explained it well in the second sentence of that post. The idea that rights come from society is false, since no individual could infringe on your rights. That would be slavery. Thus, if no individual can infringe on your rights, how could a group of individuals infringe on your rights? For example, if someone told each of his kids that they couldn't draw on the walls, why would they be permitted to draw on the walls if both of them were doing it together?

Why is it false? Why can no individual infringe on your rights? Do these rights exist in a state of nature? How can they exist without a society to recognise them? If that is the case, how can they be 'natural'?

Equally, I could just as easily say that positive freedoms are natural rights; that everybody has a right to freedom from want and freedom from hunger and as these rights will not be ensured in a state of anarchy, government is necessary in order to ensure that everybody's natural rights are catered for.

If I went and talked to members of a South Sea island society of the early twentieth-century and tried to tell them about their natural rights to privacy and property they would laugh at me because community is valued above individual freedoms. If these rights are natural, surely they would be recognised by all? The fact that they are only deemed to be natural by Western societies surely tells us something.

I don't think it is as clear cut as society being simply a group of individuals and it is something that philosophers have argued over many times. As I have said here before; I think it is more than the sum of its parts. I also have reservations about your example of the man and his child. Foucault theorised that power is omnipresent and I think that he is probably correct on that. In the case of the example you gave, the power dynamic is very different from the relationship between a man and the society he lives in; while the man may tell his children what they can and cannot do, I don't think he can say the same to society of his equals.

EDIT: Just thought I'd add - because I know how found you are of logical fallacies - that your argument seems to be circular. You say that these rights are natural because they are inalienable and then say that they are inalienable because they are natural.

I'd also just like to add a quick question on your court theory: if I know I have committed a crime and know that all the evidence is there to convict me, why would I ever agree to a court? I can simply avoid the punishment by refusing to agree to any court and they can't hold me in the meantime because that would be breaching my rights without a fair trial. Thus, I go free. Without some means of coercion, the court system wouldn't work.

[SPC]

Why is it false? Why can no individual infringe on your rights? Do these rights exist in a state of nature? How can they exist without a society to recognise them? If that is the case, how can they be 'natural'?

Using this logic, if you believe that an individual can infringe on your rights, which would include the right to life, than you believe that an individual can infringe on your right to life, meaning that you support murder. Since no civilized person could possibly support this, obviously individuals have no right to infringe on your rights, meaning that no group of individuals have a right to infringe on your rights either. Yes, they exist in a state of nature, since man evolved to the point where he realized that his chances of survival are better if he cooperates with his neighbor than they would be if he killed his neighbors. As for the society question, this gives way to the old question about the tree in the forest. One could argue that since hearing sounds requires humans to be in the area, that sounds are just a human invention, and not a natural phenomenon. Of course, this is false, and the same scenario applies to rights. Just because there is no one to hear sounds doesn't mean that they don't exist, and just because there is no one to recognize rights doesn't mean that they don't exist. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, positive rights cannot be natural, since they inherently infringe on other rights. Freedom from want cannot be enforced without infringing on the right to liberty. Also, since government inherently infringes on the rights to life, liberty, and property, it cannot be trusted as an enforcer of natural rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could make the same example regarding Antebellum slavery. I doubt most slaves would consider themselves as possessing the rights to life, liberty, and property, but all that means is that someone is illegitimately infringing upon their natural rights. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since you argue that society is greater than the sum of its parts, could I not make the same argument for any other group of people? Is a marriage any more than the sum of its parts? If such is the case, then would divorce be illegal? Also, the man & child example isn't representing one man and the rest of society. I was using it to represent laws & society. If one person is prohibited from doing something, then he is not permitted to do the act when joined by millions of others prohibited from the same activity.

[SPC]

I'd also just like to add a quick question on your court theory: if I know I have committed a crime and know that all the evidence is there to convict me, why would I ever agree to a court? I can simply avoid the punishment by refusing to agree to any court and they can't hold me in the meantime because that would be breaching my rights without a fair trial. Thus, I go free. Without some means of coercion, the court system wouldn't work.

If he was evidently guilty and refused to go to court, I doubt anyone would have an objection to the insurance company enforcing the restitution themselves. The neutral court is only used to grant legitimacy to the punishment, to ensure that the company won't face future lawsuits.

EDIT: I found a good Youtube video about private courts.

[JohnFKennedy]

Once again you’re appealing to western notions of ‘civilisation’ which are by no means universal. Personally I do believe that some rights should be inalienable, but I don’t think this is because they are natural, I think that it is because it is important for a functioning society to do so. On balance, I don’t view all rights as being equal; if a man were to steal a loaf of bread because he was starving to death then I would view the preservation of his right to life as far more important than the property rights of the individual he stole from.

You say that ‘man evolved to the point where he realized that his chances of survival are better if he cooperates with his neighbour than they would be if he killed his neighbours’ but in no way does that prove that these rights you speak of are natural; countless civilizations have evolved with completely different moral standards and notions of rights, if it is natural that societies would develop a fixed notion of rights, why is it that only some societies have done? Equally, I could just as easily use your argument to argue that the state is the product of natural law because it evolved from a state of nature in a similar way. If these rights are to be regarded as natural because they ‘evolved’ from a state of nature, then so must the state.

I don’t think your comparison with sound is a particularly apt one; sound is more than an abstract construct and can be represented visually as sound waves. Animals other than humans hear sound and computers can be programmed to recognise it, yet, neither recognise and share the same concepts of rights that we do. I also think you rather missed my original point with your comparison to slavery. What I was saying was that it seems strange that these rights can be natural and yet societies can develop in a completely different way in which these rights are totally alien to them.

I’m also unsure about your comparison with slavery; my original point was that it seems strange that these rights can be natural and yet many can have no real concept of them and would laugh when they were suggested.

I also do not see why positive rights cannot be natural. You say that they cannot be because they infringe on other rights (by which you mean negative rights), yet, it is entirely plausible to suggest that positive rights are the natural ones and negative rights are not. Why are the rights you describe more natural than others?

I do think that any relationship between people is more than just two individuals together because there is a stronger connection than that. That’s not to say that an individual cannot absent themselves from that relationship and your suggestion on divorce is rather flippant. If the man and child example is meant to represent the law and society then I have greater qualms with it; laws are made by society and clearly not above and outside of society because so many different legal systems and societal codes exist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On court theory, I should imagine the individual in question would have a great objection to an insurance company enforcing restitution. Whose insurance company is this anyway? Are you not effectively suggesting that ‘insurance companies’ should be able to form a quasi-state which is less accountable to society than an actual democratically elected government? I find it strange that someone who so strongly believes in individual rights could simply say that if a man is clearly guilty then the trial is unnecessary and his rights can be infringed. Is that not a tad contradictory to the rest of your ideology? Whatever happened to due process and the rule of law? Is that not effectively the rule of the rich and powerful? I think you're setting a dangerous precedent there.

[SPC]

Once again you’re appealing to western notions of ‘civilisation’ which are by no means universal. Personally I do believe that some rights should be inalienable, but I don’t think this is because they are natural, I think that it is because it is important for a functioning society to do so. On balance, I don’t view all rights as being equal; if a man were to steal a loaf of bread because he was starving to death then I would view the preservation of his right to life as far more important than the property rights of the individual he stole from.

While it would be wise for a starving man to steal a loaf of bread, that does not make it moral. In any case, he would need to provide restitution to the man whose bread he stole from. However, the point of what I was saying was not to say that all rights are equal. What I was getting at was that rights are a package deal. You can't have one without the other two, and you can't lose one without losing the other two. Any infringement on the right to property would have to be enforced with lethal force or the threat of lethal force, and it would deprive you of your liberty to use your property in the manner you see fit. A slave cannot own property, and his life is dependent upon the benevolence of his master. Obviously a corpse can have neither property nor liberty. Ultimately, since they are inseperable, it seems pointless to try to rank rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

However, the state and natural rights are mutually exclusive, since the former must live at the expense of the latter. With regard to other societies, I don't see any reason to force other cultures to recognize natural rights, so long as there is unanimous consent within that culture of their system. So long as everybody is consenting, I have no problem with attempts to make a collectivist "utopia".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point was that just because society has evolved in a different way doesn't mean that natural rights don't exist there. Shall we take the few remaining African countries that still have legalized slavery and use that as an example that slavery isn't against natural law?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ultimately, if we were to judge positive rights as natural and negative rights as unnatural, then we would live in a society where everyone is free to rob, enslave, and kill everyone else, which would be a lawless society, and would not accomplish the stated goals of positive rights. Because is this, negative rights must be natural and positive rights unnatural, because that would preserve order.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you believe that there is more to a relationship than just two individuals, than could you not say that God exists as the excess of the relationship between all of the religious people of the world? Knowing that you are an atheist, I doubt that you believe such to be the case. Since you believe the divorce example to be void, could you apply that situation to the "laws are made by society" example? Thus, since you say that an individual can absent themselves from a relationship, and society is ultimately a relationship of all the humans in a general area, and that, in your words, laws are made by society, then does that not mean that secession is perfectly legal? Thus, if I do not like society's laws, could I not just nullify that law?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be the suspect's insurance company, and if he had an objection to the insurance company's enforcing restitution, then he should have showed up in court. In fact, the insurance company wuld be more accountable to its customers, since, as opposed to current monopoly government, if an individual thought he was getting crappy service, he could discontinue his current insurance and get new insurance. Under monopoly government, if he doesn't like his service, he can wait two to four years, and hope that his literal one vote in a million will make a difference. I didn't say that if the man was clearly guilty, then the trial is unneccesary. If there is no conflict of interest, then the trial is unneccesary. If the man is as clearly guilty as you say he is, then I doubt anyone would be willing to defend him in court.

BTW, did you watch the video?

[JohnFKennedy]

Okay, here is the major problem I have with your line of argument: first you said that rights were natural because no individual or group of individuals could infringe upon them. As a result of their natural status, nobody may infringe upon them. That is circular. Then I asked whether they exist in a state of nature and you said that of course they do because man evolved to a state where he recognised that they did. Yet, the fact is that not all societies have developed in the same way and thus not all societies recognise the ‘natural rights’ that you speak of. In response to this you say that the rights still exist there even if they don’t think they do. Yet, your justification for them existing is that society has developed to a point where it recognises them. Surely you recognise the contradiction there?

You also state that the state cannot be natural since it and natural rights are mutually exclusive. Yet, the state has emerged through the same process that you claim justifies natural rights as being natural. What is more, every society that has developed a concept of rights even approaching the ones you suggest has also developed a functioning state mechanism. If you argue that the naturalness of ‘natural rights’ derives from their development from a state of nature, then you cannot simply dismiss the state because it does not conform to what you want it to. There is no justification in your argument to regard natural rights as being more natural than the state.

You then go on to suggest that the enforcement of positive rights would simply lead to people robbing, enslaving and killing others. Yet, that would clearly be an infringement of the victim’s positive rights so you are saying that positive rights cannot be natural because people could infringe upon others’ rights. Equally, positive rights seem to fit in nicely with that other institution that developed from a state of nature: the state. Following on from that, you argue that negative rights must be the natural ones because they are more necessary to an ordered society. Firstly, I don’t think that your proposed society would be one built on order by any stretch of the imagination and secondly, why is order more natural than chaos?

I also have doubts about your suggestion that these rights are inseparable and thus equal. Even if they are linked to one another, that does not mean they are necessarily equal. Given the choice between losing the right to life or the right to property, I would wager that most would choose to lose their property rights which would suggest that they do not regard these two rights as equal. Many societies fully recognise the right to life of an individual without recognising their right to hold property. If these rights were so inseparable then that surely could not happen or could not be accepted.

As to your point on relationships, you could say that God exists as the relationship between the members of a church and I would have no problem with that because that is not some omniscient, omnipotent force. You would simply be giving a name to a form of human relationship. As I have said countless times before, I believe in a democratic society; if you do not like the laws that exist then there is always the possibility of legal redress of grievances. However, if you are still unhappy with it then I have no problem with you leaving it and moving to another. Of course, if you choose to remain in it then you should recognise that if you do not live by the rules it lays down then you will probably be punished for it.

-----------------------------------------------

If it is the suspect’s insurance company that is to enforce restitution then surely it is in my interest not to have insurance if I am going to commit a crime. That way, there is nobody who has legal leverage over me to ensure that I provide restitution. Problem solved. Alternatively, as soon as they attempt to force restitution on me I could simply switch to an alternative insurance company. The problem becomes even greater when it is a corporation that has committed a crime. I watched your video and he makes a great deal out of personal reputation. Yet, the fact of the matter is that many corporations that have pursued illegal or unethical practices have not lost out economically because people will often ignore that when making a decision about what to buy, instead taking price and convenience into greater consideration.

He then talks about the fact that fourteen percent of the ‘free economy’ is underground and suggests that this clearly proves that the law courts and the police are ‘worthless’. If they are so worthless, why is it that eighty-six percent of the ‘free economy’ is not underground? Why is it that the vast majority do not want to take the risks he describes? It strikes me as strange that this fourteen percent can provide so much more compelling evidence to the man responsible for the video while the eighty-six percent can simply be ignored because the fourteen percent provides ‘all the necessary proof’. Personally, I’d like to have a bit more detail about this fourteen percent; precisely what part of the economy is this? Could it perhaps be that this fourteen percent operate outside of police and court protection because their actions are illegal and the police and courts would be pursuing rather than protecting them? He follows on from that by pointing out that there are ‘so many people and so few guns’ that the state cannot act as an effective arbiter of contracts. What I would like to know is, how can these private courts act as a more effective arbiter if force or some form of compulsion is necessary to enforce contracts?

He also talks about a hypothetical situation where a ‘rich man’ is suing a ‘poor man’. He suggests that this could best be solved by submitting it to a ‘parity court’ where the court appoints the lawyers to both sides. Yet, in order for the court to go to this court he suggests that the court the rich man chooses should review the financial situation of the poor man and make a decision as to whether it should go to that court. There is a fundamental flaw there; if the court that decides where the case should be held is the one selected by the rich man, why is it going to choose to send it to a parity court where its client will not be able to exercise its full financial might. You can suggest that it would lose credibility if it did not make a legitimate decision, but it strikes me that any wealthy person worried about losing their assets who wants to be able to employ the best lawyer he can would be happy to turn to such a court to ensure his own interest is catered to. I also liked his conspiracy theory at the end that courts will issue ‘sh**t rulings’ because then when they are appealed it brings in more business for the courts. Strangely enough, judges are not paid that way and juries are not paid at all.