Negative and positive rights

Bjxrn
Bjxrn's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2006-07-26
User is offlineOffline
Negative and positive rights

Us libertarians like to discuss rights, and what better way to start the new politics section of the forum than with a discussion about rights. So I have a question to the any minarchist libertarian that wants to answer. Positive rights isn't something that most libertarians like because this implies that people have a right to all sorts of things, rights to medical care, food and to not have to work (unemplyment benefits) and so on.

So my question is: How does a minarchist solve the puzzle of denying positive rights when the minarchist believe that the state should handle things like the police, courts and the army. Do people have a positive right to have police protection at the expense of others?

Is it better to have loved and lost?


Zero
Website Admin
Zero's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
I am no minarchist myself,

I am no minarchist myself, but I agree with Harry Browne in that the ultimate goal of libertarians at this point should be to dramatically reduce the size of the goverment as it stands today. Once it is small enough to fit inside the Constitution, we can start debating the finer points of exactly how big government should be.

That said, I really don't have a problem with having SOME government so long as that government isn't allowed to murder, enslave or steal under ANY circumstances. I do believe that people have a right to NOT be murdered enslaved or stolen from. That said, I think if people care about this principle enough (which I think the majority do), people will voluntarily pay for "justice" that will protect these rights. If people want a "justice" system in their town, state, or country badly enough, then they will pay for it. Some people will get a free ride, but anyone that commits a crime (murder, slavery or property theft/damage) will be subject to the justice system that is paid for by those that would rather have it than total chaos. Some towns will try to avoid having to pay for a justice system...and the free market will teach them rather quickly that it doesn't quite work that way (yet). They will learn from their mistakes, and eventually most of the residents will agree that donating toward a town sheriff or a big community wall is a good idea.

Same with the roads. Let the businesses pay for them. Let property owners pay for them. The businesses that have the nicest paved roads leading to their storefronts will garner the most customers. The communities that have the nicest asphalt will demand the highest property values/prices. There is NO need to force some guy that lives in the forest to pay for some roads that are used by businessess and consumers that he doesn't interact with.

If some people don't like the idea of some people getting a free ride, then they can buy hundreds or thousands of acres collectively, and start their own towns with their own particular rules and taxes (that might be more strict). They can sell property inside these townships so long as the buyer agrees to their statues. It all comes down to property. If it's your property, you can come up with whatever rules you like so long as they don't condone murder, slavery or theft.

Some foreign country wants to invade US soil? You can be damn sure that all the rich corporations in the US and millions of middle-class+ citizens will immediately donate large sums of cash to build a military capable of effectively DEFENDING the US from disruption or tyranny. We did it when we were buidling this country from scratch and we can surely do it again. Especially if we are a much much wealthier country because of our lacking income taxation or personal restrictions on freedom. It's in the interest of US businesses to see that they are able to sell their goods in the marketplace without foreign intervention, so let THEM pay for defense. Security is part of any large expense sheet. If you believe in the cause, then you will pay too I'm sure, or donate your own manpower. But what won't happen is you will never see any business spend 300+ billion dollars on bombing foreign countries. That would be a waste of money, so it wouldn't happen. We wouldn't be pissing off dozens of countries around the world because we wouldn't be interfering in their affairs...so no one would have a reason to invade and/or attack US soil in the first place. Non-interventionism really works.

Anyway, I've gone on too long again. All of problems are eventually solved in a free market unecumbered by power hungry politicians. If a problem exists and there is a demand to have that problem fixed, it will be fixed...in a free market.

..zero..
href="http://www.doubledoh.com" title="DoubleDoh Shirts" alt="DoubleDoh Shirts">DoubleDoh


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Zero wrote:That said, I

Zero wrote:
That said, I really don't have a problem with having SOME government so long as that government isn't allowed to murder, enslave or steal under ANY circumstances. I do believe that people have a right to NOT be murdered enslaved or stolen from.

I agree.
Quote:
That said, I think if people care about this principle enough (which I think the majority do), people will voluntarily pay for "justice" that will protect these rights. If people want a "justice" system in their town, state, or country badly enough, then they will pay for it. Some people will get a free ride, but anyone that commits a crime (murder, slavery or property theft/damage) will be subject to the justice system that is paid for by those that would rather have it than total chaos. Some towns will try to avoid having to pay for a justice system...and the free market will teach them rather quickly that it doesn't quite work that way (yet). They will learn from their mistakes, and eventually most of the residents will agree that donating toward a town sheriff or a big community wall is a good idea.

Would not the converse of this be true as well? If people wish to pay for 'lawlessness' then they could follow the same process. The problem from that is people don't necessarily stay in their same place for their whole life. Likewise, would this 'big community wall' be constructed to keep people inside as well as out? How would that be libertarian?
Population expansion would mean that people would leave this place eventually and their new town might not like their ideas from the old town. There is no one way to acclimate all immigrants. People could shut their towns up to keep them safe from hurricane refugees.

Quote:
Same with the roads. Let the businesses pay for them. Let property owners pay for them. The businesses that have the nicest paved roads leading to their storefronts will garner the most customers. The communities that have the nicest asphalt will demand the highest property values/prices. There is NO need to force some guy that lives in the forest to pay for some roads that are used by businessess and consumers that he doesn't interact with.

And when the cheap road causes a horrific accident, we can sue the business. right? If all of the roads were held to the same high standards then it becomes a question of the quality of the business.

Quote:
If some people don't like the idea of some people getting a free ride, then they can buy hundreds or thousands of acres collectively, and start their own towns with their own particular rules and taxes (that might be more strict). They can sell property inside these townships so long as the buyer agrees to their statues. It all comes down to property. If it's your property, you can come up with whatever rules you like so long as they don't condone murder, slavery or theft.

In other words, set up their own little mini-nations. Of course they would make their own statutes and mete justice according to same. Correct by previous example?
In which case, murder, slavery, and theft become quite subjective terms by being determined by the prime owner of the land rather than an objective third party.

Quote:
Some foreign country wants to invade US soil? You can be damn sure that all the rich corporations in the US and millions of middle-class+ citizens will immediately donate large sums of cash to build a military capable of effectively DEFENDING the US from disruption or tyranny.

Unless the large corporations liked the foreign country. Then we are left with the poor entrusted with defending their land.

Quote:
We did it when we were buidling this country from scratch and we can surely do it again.

I must have missed something during history class. I was pretty sure that we were losing our asses until Saratoga. Even after that, we still needed the french trade and alliance treaties in order to win. It was the big corporations of England funding the war in the colonies because of property guarantees by the crown and parliament.

Quote:
Especially if we are a much much wealthier country because of our lacking income taxation or personal restrictions on freedom. It's in the interest of US businesses to see that they are able to sell their goods in the marketplace without foreign intervention, so let THEM pay for defense. Security is part of any large expense sheet. If you believe in the cause, then you will pay too I'm sure, or donate your own manpower. But what won't happen is you will never see any business spend 300+ billion dollars on bombing foreign countries. That would be a waste of money, so it wouldn't happen. We wouldn't be pissing off dozens of countries around the world because we wouldn't be interfering in their affairs...so no one would have a reason to invade and/or attack US soil in the first place.

Unless of course they like our lands, and our soldiers too. If I wanted to take America in your view then all I would need do is pay the existing soldiers to do it for me. Likewise, if one of our big landowners in america decided that he wanted more land outside of america then he might gather his own army to invade another country. Wait a minute! That's how we got Texas wasn't it. I forgot.(sarcasm).

Quote:
Non-interventionism really works.

Only when you're the BIG DOG do you have the luxury of picking your fights.

Quote:
Anyway, I've gone on too long again. All of problems are eventually solved in a free market unecumbered by power hungry politicians. If a problem exists and there is a demand to have that problem fixed, it will be fixed...in a free market.

Yet here we are. There must be a compromise or a final solution lest we stagnate in our present state of business.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Bjxrn
Bjxrn's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2006-07-26
User is offlineOffline
Should people be allowed to

Should people be allowed to own nuclear weapons, if not what other kind of gun control do you support. No tomahawk missiles? no claymore mines? no assault weapons? Where do we draw the line and why do we draw it there?

Is it better to have loved and lost?


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Bjxrn wrote:Should people be

Bjxrn wrote:
Should people be allowed to own nuclear weapons, if not what other kind of gun control do you support. No tomahawk missiles? no claymore mines? no assault weapons? Where do we draw the line and why do we draw it there?

Well as we are talking about negative and positvie rights, the question should already have been answered. You have the right to defend yourself and your property, you don't have the right to hold the world hostage - as this would infringe upon the negative rights of others.

You've essentially brought up the super-villian scenario, and I would think in a libertine society it would play out much like it plays out today. We tend to sanction and refuse trade with those who hold a weapon to our foreheads. Oh, you'll blow me up if you don't get your way? What exactly will gain by blowing me up? You're screwing yourself just as badly as you're screwing me.

There is no need to draw lines, and certainly no need for any government to draw them for us, because we all know where the line is on a fundamental level.

What, exactly, prevents a person from constructing a nuclear weapon in today's political climate? Nothing in particular.

A government saying "we don't find it acceptable that you own this weapon" is no different than a community saying "we don't find it acceptable that you own this weapon".

Neither proposition PREVENTS a person from owing or building such a weapon, and in the end if somebody did build such a weapon, odds are the reaction would be essentially the same.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Zero wrote:That said, I

Zero wrote:
That said, I really don't have a problem with having SOME government so long as that government isn't allowed to murder, enslave or steal under ANY circumstances.

A government cannot function without these. At the very least, government requires slavery. If it cannot force people into a jail how can it administrate justice? Imprisonment is a form of slavery.

And what seperates a government which says "We have found you guilty of such and such a crime, you have been sentenced to death, now we must kill you" from a mafia saying "You haven't paid us our protection money, so we're going to blow your shop to kingdom come"?

Quote:
...anyone that commits a crime (murder, slavery or property theft/damage) will be subject to the justice system that is paid for by those that would rather have it than total chaos.

Then isn't the supposed criminal a slave to whoever is administrating justice in the area? With geographic monopolies and government from which one cannot secede, a government which attempts to force any citizen to do anything is inherently enslaving them.

And how can people sign a contract (if it is payed for in any other way than taxes, it is an enterprise which contracts with it's customers) that is binding upon anyone other than the signers? I might sign a contract stating that I'll follow certain rules, but if I sign that contract it cannot possibly be made binding upon you. I could try to get you to sign the contract. If I forced you to sign it, then the contract would be void (forced signatures are invalid). If I forced you to obey the rules I set for myself anyways, I am enslaving you.

Quote:
Some towns will try to avoid having to pay for a justice system...and the free market will teach them rather quickly that it doesn't quite work that way (yet).

I disagree. Anarchy and chaos are completely seperable. Anarchy is present wherever there is no police officer. If police exist, but are 10 miles away at present, then what differentiates us in our situation from anarchy where no cops exist whatsoever? If you did not live in anarchy self-defense would be useless. When the time comes that you must defend your life, liberty, or property, you cannot depend upon police to be present. It's you, the aggressor, and whatever weapon you have in your hands. It's anarchy. But there isn't chaos. Peaceful people would continue to be peaceful. Criminals would continue to be criminals. Peaceful people that want to defend themselves against criminals will have a lot more defensive options available that were previously only available to the lawbreaking criminal.

Quote:
If it's your property, you can come up with whatever rules you like so long as they don't condone murder, slavery or theft.

I disagree here too. If you want to condone murder, slavery, or theft on your property, you can. It is your property and you have exclusive rights over it. You just can't prevent people from leaving.

Quote:
But what won't happen is you will never see any business spend 300+ billion dollars on bombing foreign countries.

I'm sure Lockheed Martin and Raytheon would pay $5 billion to bomb a foreign country if the US Military gave them contracts that would bring in $50 billion as a result.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I've been thinking a bit

I've been thinking a bit more about this topic recently, and well, I guess I've finally cyrstalized what I've always known pretty succinctly.

Rights come from property. End of story. Rights are something you don't have to ask for or be granted, by any person, government or god. Rights are something you don't need permission for, anything else is a priviledge AT BEST. The flip side of rights is that they come with responsibilities, but that's probably a theme for another topic.

Anyway, so it dings to me that rights come from property. What do we own? Well, first and foremost, I'd hope you at least agree you own yourself, your body, your mind - to not own such things makes you a slave, literally, to whatever has title to those things.

When you own something, you have the right to do with it as you please, including destroying it. So, it's YOUR body, smoke if you want to, shoot heroine, whatever. It's your property, do as you will.

What else should we own. Lots of people would say our land. But most of us don't own our land. You can own the house that sits on the land, but you'll rarely, evern own the actual land. If you owned the land, you could drill for oil in your backyard or build a giant ferris wheel on your lawn. But you can't. If you owned your land, you wouldn't be paying property taxes. You don't own shit, you pay rent to the government. Does this seem just a little wrong?

You should own the car you payed for too, but you don't. If you pay cash to a dealer and ask flat out for manufacturer's title, you could actually own your car in a select few states. However, if you have to finance your car, as most of us do, you will never really own your car. When you pay off your car, what do you still pay, every year? Registration, mandatory insurance and inspection. In reality, you co-own your car with the state and your insurer. Does that seem just a little wrong to anyone?

So what do we really own. Right now, for most of us, just the lump of flesh under our hair. Fuck, what happened to all my property and rights? Nothing, the majority of them were a fucking illusion in the first place. Does anyone else have a problem with that?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
A bit off topic: What good

A bit off topic: What good are negative rights if you don't have positive rights to use them? (this is like asking what good is freedom of the press if you are not free to own a press)

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: A bit off topic:

qbg wrote:
A bit off topic: What good are negative rights if you don't have positive rights to use them? (this is like asking what good is freedom of the press if you are not free to own a press)

The only way you would not be free to own a press is if your negative right to own a press is being infringed. That falls under liberty and property rights.

You don't need positive rights to use negative rights. 

 


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Yellow Number Five you

Yellow Number Five you aren't the only one pissed off.

Rights indeed come from property. There are few other things we have (or are supposed to) right to. The airwaves, no body can or does own them so you can use them at will. This poses some specific problems with the airwaves usage but I won't go into that now.

It's simple if you own it you can do anything you want with it, sell it, break it, kill it, hide it, burn it, anything. When that action steps on another person's rights is when we have issues. Without some government there's no way to solve a dispute or make anyone accountable if polite negotiation fails. Under anarchy if I murder my neighbors because their dog shit in my yard it ends there. I won't be held accountable.

Be careful about slavery. Imprisonment is not slavery. A slave is property. One in prison was once free or a slave and is being punished for their crime. A prisoner may be treated as a slave but they are not owned by anyone (unless they were already a slave). Government, as the people, should have the ability to remove some from society. Laws here are good, without proper definitions of crime and punishment there is no justice system. What's happened is the law has been allowed to run rampant.

And as Zhwazi points out unless you are in front of some authority you are actually in anarchy at that moment. Retro-active punishment has gotten out of hand too. If I kill somebody trying to break into my house I can be charged with murder. If I let them break in first and then kill them I'm protecting my property. The justice system is clearly on dope. 

Back to slavery, a slave is property, and as such the owner has the right to do whatever they see fit with that property. That is what makes the concept so insulting, regardless of how a given slave owner treats their property.

There's a few places in the US where you are allowed to own things like land or cars.  It's called allodial title, you hold title to your property free and clear.

If you rent an apartment and don't pay the rent...you are kicked out.

If you own a home and don't pay your property taxes...you are kicked out. You are renting the land from the county.

In the US we protect a woman's reproductive rights but prostitution is illegal. So a woman owns her uterus but the vagina belongs to the State. 

Vehicles are similar. If you actually owned your car the government could not force you to pay for registration. Nor could they enforce a seat belt law.

There should be no gun control laws whatsoever. That's a discussion in itself. But yes legally you could own a nuclear weapon.

There is no right to medical care, no right to vote, no right to work, no right to be heard (that's one of my favorites), no right to compensation for work or lack there of, and so on.

 You can own a press. And you can print with it, as long as you don't already print with another press in the same area. Freedom of the press by default includes broadcasting. Similar situation, you can own a transmitter but are only permitted to transmit with the proper license. Try to get one, I dare you. And you also need a permit to construct a tower. I could go on.

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson wrote: Be

Eric Ferguson wrote:

Be careful about slavery. Imprisonment is not slavery. A slave is property. One in prison was once free or a slave and is being punished for their crime.

I define slavery as "involuntary deprival of liberty". Imprisonment is certainly involuntary, and certainly deprives you of liberty. It's not necessarily involuntary servitude because it doesn't require positive action of you.

There are two kinds of crimes. Statutory crimes and natural crimes.

Statutory crimes are things the government throws you in jail for. There is no victim (or otherwise, the victim is ignored), so they throw you in jail. You were a slave before you did anything.

Natural crimes are things you do that violate someone else's rights. There has to be a victim. You then make yourself a slave by wronging someone. Logically you should pay the victim back for violating their rights. Steal their TV, you should give it back and pay them for the inconvenience caused, or buy them a new one.

You should not become a slave except by your own actions.

Maybe I should have clarified that statutory law makes you a slave before you do anything, a slave to the government, and that's why it's wrong. You can only punish statutory crimes by jailtime, because there's no victim to pay back. 

As I like to put it:

A law is the written will of the legislature.

A cop is one who subjects you to the law.

A slave is one who is subject to the will of another. 

Quote:
Retro-active punishment has gotten out of hand too.

Punishment is nonsense. The focus of the justice system should be on the victim of crime, not the punishment of the offender. The victim should be paid back primarily, any punishment should be totally secondary.

If you slash my tires, would it make more sense for me to demand that you give me the tires off your car, or for me to slash your car's tires?

Punishment is destructive, restitution is productive. Production is always better than destruction. 

Quote:
The justice system is clearly on dope.

+1


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: qbg wrote: A

Zhwazi wrote:

qbg wrote:
A bit off topic: What good are negative rights if you don't have positive rights to use them? (this is like asking what good is freedom of the press if you are not free to own a press)

The only way you would not be free to own a press is if your negative right to own a press is being infringed. That falls under liberty and property rights.

You don't need positive rights to use negative rights. 

 


Coming from another angle:
Are individual autonomy and independence part of freedom? Can negative freedom guarantee individual autonomy and independence?

Also, if freedom comes from property, then it follows that the only amount of guaranteed freedom that one would have is based on how much property they own.

Also, then freedom is a commodity; the more money you have, the more freedom you can have. And you get money if you earn it, then you get to the conclusion:

Such a society is based on the saying "Work makes you free!"

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote:

qbg wrote:

Also, if freedom comes from property, then it follows that the only amount of guaranteed freedom that one would have is based on how much property they own.

No.

Everyone has the same freedom, in terms of using their property. Some have more property than others. That just means the property-based freedom applies to objects of greater value. It doesn't make them more free.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson

Eric Ferguson wrote:

Yellow Number Five you aren't the only one pissed off.

Rights indeed come from property. There are few other things we have (or are supposed to) right to. The airwaves, no body can or does own them so you can use them at will. This poses some specific problems with the airwaves usage but I won't go into that now.

It's simple if you own it you can do anything you want with it, sell it, break it, kill it, hide it, burn it, anything. When that action steps on another person's rights is when we have issues. Without some government there's no way to solve a dispute or make anyone accountable if polite negotiation fails. Under anarchy if I murder my neighbors because their dog shit in my yard it ends there. I won't be held accountable.

Why wouldn't you be held accountable? Society would hold you accountable. The community would hold you accountable. If we go SIMPLY from a property rights perspective, you are accountable for a significant loss and damages for that senseless murder. We don't need a set government to tell us what is and is not acceptable. It baffles me that people think no federal court = murder goes unpunished or is not dealt with.  

Be careful about slavery. Imprisonment is not slavery. A slave is property. One in prison was once free or a slave and is being punished for their crime. A prisoner may be treated as a slave but they are not owned by anyone (unless they were already a slave). Government, as the people, should have the ability to remove some from society. Laws here are good, without proper definitions of crime and punishment there is no justice system. What's happened is the law has been allowed to run rampant.

Quote:
And as Zhwazi points out unless you are in front of some authority you are actually in anarchy at that moment. Retro-active punishment has gotten out of hand too. If I kill somebody trying to break into my house I can be charged with murder. If I let them break in first and then kill them I'm protecting my property. The justice system is clearly on dope.

It is on something, but I'm having trouble seeing your point. Again, why people equate libetarianism with lawlessness is beyond me. 

Quote:
Back to slavery, a slave is property, and as such the owner has the right to do whatever they see fit with that property. That is what makes the concept so insulting, regardless of how a given slave owner treats their property.

There's a few places in the US where you are allowed to own things like land or cars. It's called allodial title, you hold title to your property free and clear.

If you rent an apartment and don't pay the rent...you are kicked out.

If you own a home and don't pay your property taxes...you are kicked out. You are renting the land from the county.

Impressed you know about alloidal property, which I referred to in my example as the exception. Nice to talk with a person who is aware of such things. 

Quote:
In the US we protect a woman's reproductive rights but prostitution is illegal. So a woman owns her uterus but the vagina belongs to the State.

 LOL, never thought of it that way, but it isn't too far off the reality.

Quote:
Vehicles are similar. If you actually owned your car the government could not force you to pay for registration. Nor could they enforce a seat belt law.

There should be no gun control laws whatsoever. That's a discussion in itself. But yes legally you could own a nuclear weapon.

There is no right to medical care, no right to vote, no right to work, no right to be heard (that's one of my favorites), no right to compensation for work or lack there of, and so on.

 Yep.

Quote:
You can own a press. And you can print with it, as long as you don't already print with another press in the same area. Freedom of the press by default includes broadcasting. Similar situation, you can own a transmitter but are only permitted to transmit with the proper license. Try to get one, I dare you. And you also need a permit to construct a tower. I could go on.

Yep, again - I certainly could not put a tower on "my" roof to broadcast the RRS. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Why wouldn't you be held accountable? Society would hold you accountable. The community would hold you accountable. If we go SIMPLY from a property rights perspective, you are accountable for a significant loss and damages for that senseless murder. We don't need a set government to tell us what is and is not acceptable. It baffles me that people think no federal court = murder goes unpunished or is not dealt with.

You're missing my point. Without defined crime and punishment you may have any punishment to fit any crime. You could be hung for shoplifting or fined $5 for rape.

Suppose I shot my neighbor. But the community hated them anyway and wished they were dead. Is the community going to do the right thing or do what like? Even if the whole world learned of my act. I'm safe. I have my land and my neighbors on my side.

This might be an extreme example but...

Quote:
Quote:
And as Zhwazi points out unless you are in front of some authority you are actually in anarchy at that moment. Retro-active punishment has gotten out of hand too. If I kill somebody trying to break into my house I can be charged with murder. If I let them break in first and then kill them I'm protecting my property. The justice system is clearly on dope.

It is on something, but I'm having trouble seeing your point.

Just pointing out another bit of silliness from our government. Here in Illinois if you shoot somebody outside your door trying to break in you can be charged with murder. Inside the house it's self-defense.

Quote:
Again, why people equate libetarianism with lawlessness is beyond me.

I'm not. I don't know any libertarians that do. I know plenty of conservatives that do.

Quote:
Yep, again - I certainly could not put a tower on "my" roof to broadcast the RRS.

Actually you can but it isn't exactly legal. I may have run a transmitter or two without authorization once upon a time. Maybe.

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: I define

Zhwazi wrote:
I define slavery as "involuntary deprival of liberty". Imprisonment is certainly involuntary, and certainly deprives you of liberty. It's not necessarily involuntary servitude because it doesn't require positive action of you.

That clears things up. 

Quote:
Steal their TV, you should give it back and pay them for the inconvenience caused, or buy them a new one.

Punishment is nonsense. The focus of the justice system should be on the victim of crime, not the punishment of the offender. The victim should be paid back primarily, any punishment should be totally secondary.

If you slash my tires, would it make more sense for me to demand that you give me the tires off your car, or for me to slash your car's tires?

"Up yours I'm not paying" now what?

Or I don't have a car or tires. I live in the street, have nothing of value execpt my person.

I agree with your feeling, but punishment may be just.

And then there's imprisonment that isn't specifically punishment. Such as incarcerating the mentally ill. Somebody is a threat to society but has not yet done anything heinous. Do we allow them to remain in society or remove them from it? Protect the innocent or put the burden on the innocent to protect themselves?

I'd like to say let them be. I wouldn't want to take their liberty away from them, punishing them for a crime not committed. But I can't expect the widow next door to protect herself. 

I have to get some sleep. 

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson wrote: "Up

Eric Ferguson wrote:

"Up yours I'm not paying" now what?

Now you'll be hearing from my lawyer.

Quote:
Or I don't have a car or tires. I live in the street, have nothing of value execpt my person.

If you've got eyes, hands, and time, you've got something of value. I could get a court to evaluate the tires, and evaluate your productive time, and you'd basically become my slave until I got paid back.

Quote:
And then there's imprisonment that isn't specifically punishment. Such as incarcerating the mentally ill. Somebody is a threat to society but has not yet done anything heinous. Do we allow them to remain in society or remove them from it? Protect the innocent or put the burden on the innocent to protect themselves?

There's no guarantee that they're going to do anything wrong. If we threw people in prison because they were more likely to commit a crime, we should immediately imprison all black teenage males living in the ghetto.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson

Eric Ferguson wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Why wouldn't you be held accountable? Society would hold you accountable. The community would hold you accountable. If we go SIMPLY from a property rights perspective, you are accountable for a significant loss and damages for that senseless murder. We don't need a set government to tell us what is and is not acceptable. It baffles me that people think no federal court = murder goes unpunished or is not dealt with.

You're missing my point. Without defined crime and punishment you may have any punishment to fit any crime. You could be hung for shoplifting or fined $5 for rape.

 

Non-sequitor. Just because we change HOW justice is doled out does NOT mean that we'll end up in Bizzarro world. Humans in general seem to have a fairly consistent and objective idea of justice in cases wher it actually matters.

What is subjective are typically what lawyers refer to as malum prohibitum, crimes wrong because they are prohibited by society. Examples of malum prohibitum are drug use, homosexuality or sodomy, and obscenity or blue laws. These are things that are wrong, because other people say that they are wrong. What we all tend to agree upon, regardless of culture or religious belief, are what are called mallum in se – crimes that are wrong in and of themselves. Examples of mallum in se include murder, robbery and rape.

Most humans, regardless of belief system, have the same basic fundamental ideas of right and wrong. We all pretty much agree on what is malum in se (crimes wrong in and of themselves like murder and robbery), where we disagree is in crimes of malum prohibitum (crimes of prohibition like drugs use and homosexuality).

To say we'd end up treating rape or murder less harshly than shoplifting is simply asinine, and I think you know that.

Quote:
Suppose I shot my neighbor. But the community hated them anyway and wished they were dead. Is the community going to do the right thing or do what like? Even if the whole world learned of my act. I'm safe. I have my land and my neighbors on my side.

Why do you assume lynch mobs will take the place of courts proffered by and supported by the community?

If I told you that a retarded man smothered a hooker in a fit of confusion, would you execute him? Texas sure as shit would. The community DOES dictate punishment, even in the quasi-socialistic USA. The federal government does NOT weigh in on the issue. How is leaving it up to states different from leaving it up to smaller entitities and communities?

Keep in mind, this is coming from a person who is opposed to capital punishment in all but extreme scenarios.

I honestly don't see the point of your objection, other than a fundamental misunderstanding of what is actually being advocating.

Quote:
Quote:
And as Zhwazi points out unless you are in front of some authority you are actually in anarchy at that moment. Retro-active punishment has gotten out of hand too. If I kill somebody trying to break into my house I can be charged with murder. If I let them break in first and then kill them I'm protecting my property. The justice system is clearly on dope.

It is on something, but I'm having trouble seeing your point.

Just pointing out another bit of silliness from our government. Here in Illinois if you shoot somebody outside your door trying to break in you can be charged with murder. Inside the house it's self-defense.

Yeah, in DE, if you study matial arts and use it to say break an attackers arm in a fight, you WILL be charged with assault - regardless of who started the whole mess. I think we both agree that things are messed up.

I like that you are asking questions and posing problems. It's how I learn how to defend what I believe; or if I cannot defend it what eventually changes my mind. Truth be told it seems to me like you're playing more of the "socialist's advocate" than anything else, but I like the banter regardless.

Quote:
Quote:
Again, why people equate libetarianism with lawlessness is beyond me.

I'm not. I don't know any libertarians that do. I know plenty of conservatives that do.

Indeed.

Quote:
Quote:
Yep, again - I certainly could not put a tower on "my" roof to broadcast the RRS.

Actually you can but it isn't exactly legal. I may have run a transmitter or two without authorization once upon a time. Maybe.

I'll promise not to report you to the FCC Eye-wink

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: qbg

Zhwazi wrote:
qbg wrote:

Also, if freedom comes from property, then it follows that the only amount of guaranteed freedom that one would have is based on how much property they own.

No.

Everyone has the same freedom, in terms of using their property. Some have more property than others. That just means the property-based freedom applies to objects of greater value. It doesn't make them more free.


I was not talking in terms of using their property. If there is no public or unclaimed land and you own no land, you are not guaranteed to free to be anywhere. The key word here is guaranteed.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
My concern is that without a

My concern is that without a government of sorts, having no or a private justice system, that you may run into punishment for crimes that are unjust. That is not to say that it doesn't happen now, we know that it does. If for no other reason than there are too many laws that can be manipulated. A government justice system should be built to avoid the human element, avoid hasty reactions or prejudices, avoiding the linch mob, which is why I favor it over a private system.  A private justice system couldn't guarantee that. A government system could, although I think we all agree likely never would. Choosing between the Catholic or Baptist private justice company, or between the Nazi or KKK company. I'm not saying this would be the case. If the people have a sense of right or wrong and we leave it up to that it would vary be region and would most certainly have prejudices, not that it doesn't now. It still comes down to the people must insure that any justice system is run properly.

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


lil_rascal3336
lil_rascal3336's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
the quick and simple answer

the quick and simple answer is, because there are only two human rights, all the rest are political  rights.

 

human rights= right to life (or more specifically the right to live your life without intervention by government or other people unless you are breaking someone Else's human rights)

and the right to property. or rather the right to your own property. this means you have the right not to be stolen from by any number of people, and they have the right not to be stolen from by you.

 

no one has the right to health care. none has the right to welfare. none has the right to anything, except to live free. if people;e wish to give to a charity, than good on em, if they want to donate to the government, than great. but no one, and no group of people has the right to steal from you, or to gt someone else to do it in their name.

 

the reason government as the police, the fire department, the military is because it is part of enforcing rules that (are supposed) to protect individual liberty, and individual rights.

 

the government should be smaller, 2 parts really. the courts (and within that section a tiny legislative sub-branch that would be forced to do nothing that goes against liberty, which they arnt doing now) and the defense breach (police, army etc.). there should be no taxes (taxes are theft and therefore gos against our human rights). a small government like this would take much less money to run, and wouldn't need taxes. they could get donations, run lottery's, crap like that.

 

the governments job is to prevent anarchy, and to uphold human rights, right now they are only doing one of their jobs.

 

so the long and short of it is, they get to police and have the army to prevent anarchy and uphold human rights.

( i know i went off on a bit of a rant but i constantly get questions about my proposed system, and i thought id just get em out of the way first)

 

I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
lil_rascal3336 wrote: the

lil_rascal3336 wrote:

the reason government as the police, the fire department, the military is because it is part of enforcing rules that (are supposed) to protect individual liberty, and individual rights.

Fire Departments do not protect your rights. There are private fire departments anyways.

Quote:
the government should be smaller, 2 parts really. the courts (and within that section a tiny legislative sub-branch that would be forced to do nothing that goes against liberty, which they arnt doing now) and the defense breach (police, army etc.).

If the government should do nothing that goes against liberty, how can it claim a monopoly on the provision of arbitration and defense services? It can only practically do so by threatening or destroying any potential competitors who might try to provide cheaper, better, faster arbitration and judicial services, and by threatening or destroying anybody who might try to provide cheaper, better, faster defense services.

It is a total non sequitur that a monopoly is required for this, and it is a complete contradiction to suppose that this monopoly should be maintained by force.

Quote:
the governments job is to prevent anarchy, and to uphold human rights, right now they are only doing one of their jobs.

It is not doing either. Anarchy is anyplace where the government lacks effective ability to enforce itself. Unless you have a cop or other bureaucrat sitting next to you as you read this, you are in anarchy right now. And I'm pretty sure you're not trying to say that it's successfully upholding human rights.


noncohort (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I perfectly at peace with

I perfectly at peace with there being no positive rights but only negative rights. But I am still no libertarian. Why? Because I don't think that the government should only enforce rights. I believe that the government should not only tend to physical security, by defending life and property of individuals, but also tend to economic security, by protecting individuals from economic catastrophy. That's why we have FDIC insured bank accounts, LLC corporations, bankrupcy laws, a central bank, social security, medicare, disaster relief, investment in infrustructure and technology, and an education system for children (without which a child may start without any economic foothold).


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
noncohort wrote:I

noncohort wrote:
I perfectly at peace with there being no positive rights but only negative rights. But I am still no libertarian. Why? Because I don't think that the government should only enforce rights.

But if you do believe that negative rights exist and positive rights do not, then anything which violates people's negative rights must be wrong. Do you advocate that the government do things which you admit are wrong, or do you believe in positive rights, or do you deny negative rights? It has to be one of those, because there's no other option.

Quote:
I believe that the government should not only tend to physical security, by defending life and property of individuals, but also tend to economic security, by protecting individuals from economic catastrophy.

Interestingly the government is the biggest problem in the fields of both physical and economic security. Also, it is spelled catastrophe. Unintuitive, but that's english for you.

Quote:
That's why we have FDIC insured bank accounts,

Promised to be paid in dollars which come from inflation, an act of mass theft only made possible by the force and fraud used to make people transact in the dollars which the government regulates the value and number of.

Quote:
LLC corporations

A horrendous disequalizer and major contributing factor to the class society we have today. Absolving people of responsibility for their actions cannot be reconciled with justice. Preventing people from having to pay for debts they incur does not do good for the economy and indeed tends to cause irresponsible and destructive behavior from the class of people protected behind the "corporate veil".

Quote:
a central bank

Root cause of inflation, the Great Depression, the modern business cycle, and countless other economic catastrophes.

Quote:
social security

A bankrupt system which pays less than market interest on money involuntarily conscripted to accounts which don't exist does not count as anything resembling "security."

Quote:
medicare

With similar problems as social security, creating disincentives to taking care of yourself young to shift the cost onto others when old, clearly violating the negative rights of those others.

Quote:
disaster relief

It took FEMA five days to get water to the superdome as they disarmed NOLA residents to prevent them from defending themselves against looters. "Relief" is not the word I would be looking for. "Disaster" is pretty close though.

Quote:
investment in infrustructure and technology

Which you'll get with or without a government, and which will be done much more efficiently without irresponsible bureaucrats getting involved.

Quote:
an education system for children (without which a child may start without any economic foothold).

John Taylor Gatto, Teacher of the Year for NYC and New York State, experienced and well read on education, happens to disagree with you in a way you probably wouldn't comprehend well without hearing it in his own words.

Fuck the state. It's a useless, redundant, inefficient enterprise at best and the biggest criminal gang ever known to man at worst.


noncohort (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
noncohort wrote: I

noncohort wrote:
I perfectly at peace with there being no positive rights but only negative rights. But I am still no libertarian. Why? Because I don't think that the government should only enforce rights.

Zhwazi wrote:
But if you do believe that negative rights exist and positive rights do not, then anything which violates people's negative rights must be wrong. Do you advocate that the government do things which you admit are wrong, or do you believe in positive rights, or do you deny negative rights? It has to be one of those, because there's no other option.

I believe the government should pursue strategies that benefit society. This is determined by a republican form of government acquiesced through social contract (thus rights weren't violated).

noncohort wrote:
I believe that the government should not only tend to physical security, by defending life and property of individuals, but also tend to economic security, by protecting individuals from economic catastrophy.

Zhwazi wrote:
Interestingly the government is the biggest problem in the fields of both physical and economic security.

Not "the government" but many dysfunctional governments vying for power against each other because of the flaws of people.

noncohort wrote:
That's why we have FDIC insured bank accounts,

Zhwazi wrote:
Promised to be paid in dollars which come from inflation, an act of mass theft only made possible by the force and fraud used to make people transact in the dollars which the government regulates the value and number of.

What should be used a currency? Gold? That makes the money supply rigid and influenced by how much gold we pull out of the ground and the jewelry preferences of women. If we used gold as currency then we would have massive deflation over the past few decades because the price of gold has shot up compared to the price of other commodities. Is deflation better than inflation? What is important is stability of currency value.

noncohort wrote:
LLC corporations

Zhwazi wrote:
A horrendous disequalizer and major contributing factor to the class society we have today. Absolving people of responsibility for their actions cannot be reconciled with justice. Preventing people from having to pay for debts they incur does not do good for the economy and indeed tends to cause irresponsible and destructive behavior from the class of people protected behind the "corporate veil".

We do have a system of credit that identifies risky corporations which may default. Also investors put in their money voluntary which they may lose. However, I have to admit that this point of contention is one that I would most likely be persuaded to your side.

noncohort wrote:
a central bank

Zhwazi wrote:
Root cause of inflation, the Great Depression, the modern business cycle, and countless other economic catastrophes.

There were always business cycles and the Federal Reserve uses monetary policy as a knob to smooth out business cycles. The Fed made some mistakes but it is not the consensus that it was the major cause of the Great Depression.

noncohort wrote:
social security

Zhawazi wrote:
A bankrupt system which pays less than market interest on money involuntarily conscripted to accounts which don't exist does not count as anything resembling "security."

It is insurance that you will have money when you are old, disabled, or widowed. You are paying for reduction of risk.

noncohort wrote:
medicare

Zhwazi wrote:
With similar problems as social security, creating disincentives to taking care of yourself young to shift the cost onto others when old, clearly violating the negative rights of those others.

You put your money in a pool to reduce risk. No rights harmed in the making of Medicare because of social contract.

noncohort wrote:
disaster relief

Zhwazi wrote:
It took FEMA five days to get water to the superdome as they disarmed NOLA residents to prevent them from defending themselves against looters. "Relief" is not the word I would be looking for. "Disaster" is pretty close though.

Yeah, heck of a job Brownie.

noncohort wrote:
investment in infrustructure and technology

Zhwazi wrote:
Which you'll get with or without a government, and which will be done much more efficiently without irresponsible bureaucrats getting involved.

Internet, man on moon, atomic bomb, continental railroad

noncohort wrote:
an education system for children (without which a child may start without any economic foothold).

Zhwazi wrote:
John Taylor Gatto, Teacher of the Year for NYC and New York State, experienced and well read on education, happens to disagree with you in a way you probably wouldn't comprehend well without hearing it in his own words.

Gatto argues that schools mold children into obedient cogs for the benefit of business. He thinks that children should be thought to be independent thinkers and trained to read, write, and speak persuasively. He says that schools are inefficient and spend more than enough money. I don't particularly disagree with him there. What I do take issue with is his refusal to admit that the government must subsidize the education of some children at some level because of the inability of some parents in America for whatever reason to provide education for their children. This is an imperative for society because not only is an education required for a child to gain an economic foothold in society but education is required for an informed citizenry which is necessary for any republic.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
lil_rascal3336

lil_rascal3336 wrote:

human rights= right to life (or more specifically the right to live your life without intervention by government or other people unless you are breaking someone Else's human rights)

and the right to property. or rather the right to your own property. this means you have the right not to be stolen from by any number of people, and they have the right not to be stolen from by you. 

What would happen if these two interfere with each other? 

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
noncohort wrote: I believe

noncohort wrote:

I believe the government should pursue strategies that benefit society. This is determined by a republican form of government acquiesced through social contract (thus rights weren't violated).

There is no republican form of government. There is no social contract. Even if there was a social contract, there is no privity, terms are not explicit, no signatures appear on it, and there's no evidence of it that would satisfy a single just court. That option is too absurd to exist. So you're back to those 3: Positive rights exist, negative rights don't exist, or the government must do things which are immoral.

noncohort wrote:
Not "the government" but many dysfunctional governments vying for power against each other because of the flaws of people.

No, "the government", and everything that has ever called itself a government, are the biggest treats to the life, liberty, and property of people everywhere. War, law, and taxation are murder, slavery, and theft, negations of life, liberty, and property. Drafting is slavery too. A case could be made that taxation is slavery. The government can't exist without slavery.

noncohort wrote:
What should be used a currency? Gold? That makes the money supply rigid and influenced by how much gold we pull out of the ground and the jewelry preferences of women. If we used gold as currency then we would have massive deflation over the past few decades because the price of gold has shot up compared to the price of other commodities. Is deflation better than inflation? What is important is stability of currency value.

Deflation and inflation themselves are fine. Inflation of fiat currency is not, because of the way it happens it is a shift of value from the people to the government. Use whatever you want as money. Gold, land, silver, whatever.  

noncohort wrote:
We do have a system of credit that identifies risky corporations which may default. Also investors put in their money voluntary which they may lose. However, I have to admit that this point of contention is one that I would most likely be persuaded to your side.

And you didn't even address the disequalizing effects.

noncohort wrote:
There were always business cycles and the Federal Reserve uses monetary policy as a knob to smooth out business cycles. The Fed made some mistakes but it is not the consensus that it was the major cause of the Great Depression.

It was once the consesus that the earth was flat. The consensus can go fuck itself. I'm a freethinker, I use my own brain to figure things out, I don't let other people think for me. That's what makes me a freethinker.

The Fed did cause the Great Depression. The Fed does not smooth out business cycles, it causes them. 

noncohort wrote:
It is insurance that you will have money when you are old, disabled, or widowed. You are paying for reduction of risk.

Let's be honest here. I'm not paying. It's people stealing my money and telling me that they'll give me money when I'm old, disabled, widowed, or whatever, and that it's a reduction of risk. But look at the fucking system. It's bankrupt. They can't pay. They're damned lying politicians just like they've always been and you're buying their bullshit hook line and sinker.

If I wanted insurance that I would have money when I was old, I'd be saving it for myself. Stealing 15% of my income for this shit is not for my own good no matter what the lying bastards might say. 

noncohort wrote:
You put your money in a pool to reduce risk. No rights harmed in the making of Medicare because of social contract.

I happen to like risk. Risk is cheaper. And there is no social contract. It's a myth. Find my fucking signature. If you can't find it then you can't oblige me by it.

noncohort wrote:
Internet, man on moon, atomic bomb, continental railroad

Two things that would have come about either way (internet, railroad), and two things that are horrendously useless (man on moon, atomic bomb) wastes of money. You should be able to do better than that. I bet you also think that if Christopher Columbus hadn't sailed in 1492 we never would have discovered America too. That argument is so weak it's pathetic.

noncohort wrote:
Gatto argues that schools mold children into obedient cogs for the benefit of business. He thinks that children should be thought to be independent thinkers and trained to read, write, and speak persuasively. He says that schools are inefficient and spend more than enough money. I don't particularly disagree with him there. What I do take issue with is his refusal to admit that the government must subsidize the education of some children at some level because of the inability of some parents in America for whatever reason to provide education for their children. This is an imperative for society because not only is an education required for a child to gain an economic foothold in society but education is required for an informed citizenry which is necessary for any republic.

1. There is no republic.

2. Citizenship is a lie.

3. Schooling != Education. Education is easy to get, education happens all through life. Schooling is not education. It takes 50 contact hours to teach a kid to read enough that they can teach themselves after that, and another 50 for the same thing in math. Not 13 years of schooling.

4. Education is cheap. Schooling is not a requirement to "gain an economic foothold in society".


noncohort (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: There is no

Zhwazi wrote:

There is no republican form of government. There is no social contract. Even if there was a social contract, there is no privity, terms are not explicit, no signatures appear on it, and there's no evidence of it that would satisfy a single just court. That option is too absurd to exist. So you're back to those 3: Positive rights exist, negative rights don't exist, or the government must do things which are immoral.

Consent happens. You live here and haven't turned your gun on the government. Republics exist. I'm in one.

Quote:

Deflation and inflation themselves are fine. Inflation of fiat currency is not, because of the way it happens it is a shift of value from the people to the government. Use whatever you want as money. Gold, land, silver, whatever.

Perfectly fine pay for services rendered.

Quote:
The Fed did cause the Great Depression.

I'll defer that debate to you and the economists.

Quote:
The Fed does not smooth out business cycles, it causes them.

The GDP looks smooth in the past 40 years.


Quote:
I bet you also think that if Christopher Columbus hadn't sailed in 1492 we never would have discovered America too.

strawman

Quote:

It takes 50 contact hours to teach a kid to read enough that they can teach themselves after that, and another 50 for the same thing in math.

Education is cheap.

Do you have a citation for that?

 


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Before I reply to your post

Before I reply to your post I'm going to repeat the elements of my post you (intentionally?) left out.

Quote:
No, "the government", and everything that has ever called itself a government, are the biggest treats to the life, liberty, and property of people everywhere. War, law, and taxation are murder, slavery, and theft, negations of life, liberty, and property. Drafting is slavery too. A case could be made that taxation is slavery. The government can't exist without slavery.

Quote:
And you didn't even address the disequalizing effects.

Quote:
Let's be honest here. I'm not paying. It's people stealing my money and telling me that they'll give me money when I'm old, disabled, widowed, or whatever, and that it's a reduction of risk. But look at the fucking system. It's bankrupt. They can't pay. They're damned lying politicians just like they've always been and you're buying their bullshit hook line and sinker.

If I wanted insurance that I would have money when I was old, I'd be saving it for myself. Stealing 15% of my income for this shit is not for my own good no matter what the lying bastards might say.

Quote:
I happen to like risk. Risk is cheaper. And there is no social contract. It's a myth. Find my fucking signature. If you can't find it then you can't oblige me by it.

Quote:
Two things that would have come about either way (internet, railroad), and two things that are horrendously useless (man on moon, atomic bomb) wastes of money. You should be able to do better than that. ... That argument is so weak it's pathetic.

Now, onto your responses.

 

noncohort wrote:
Zhwazi wrote:

There is no republican form of government. There is no social contract. Even if there was a social contract, there is no privity, terms are not explicit, no signatures appear on it, and there's no evidence of it that would satisfy a single just court. That option is too absurd to exist. So you're back to those 3: Positive rights exist, negative rights don't exist, or the government must do things which are immoral.

Consent happens. You live here and haven't turned your gun on the government.

You've totally failed to rebut my attack on the social contract and you totally ignored those three options you have that you have to pick from.

Consent does not just "happen". The fact that I haven't tried to blow up the government is not because I consent to it, but because I recognize it's superior firepower, and because it has been generally leaving me alone. If you live in the ghetto are you consenting to have your TV stolen? Of course not. Residence says nothing about consent.

Quote:
Republics exist. I'm in one.

No republic exists. Not if legitimacy is a prerequisite (and an illegitimate government could hardly be called a republic or anything with the word public in it). The only legitimate country that exists today is Sealand, which nobody recognizes and it's not a republic anyways.

Quote:
Quote:
The Fed did cause the Great Depression.

I'll defer that debate to you and the economists.

No, let's us debate that. It'd be irrational for you to hold a position you can't defend, wouldn't it?

Quote:
Quote:
The Fed does not smooth out business cycles, it causes them.

The GDP looks smooth in the past 40 years.

The GDP is so easily manipulated it's not funny. Over the past 40 years wikipedia lists the following recessions:

# Post-Korean War Recession (1953 - 1954) - The Recession of 1953 was a demand-driven recession due to poor government policies and high interest rates.

# 1973 oil crisis - a quadrupling of oil prices by OPEC coupled with high government spending due to the Vietnam War leads to stagflation in the United States.

# Early 1980s recession - 1982 and 1983, caused by tight monetary policy in the U.S. to control inflation and sharp correction to overproduction of the previous decade which had been masked by inflation

# Great Commodities Depression - 1980 to 2000, general recession in commodity prices

# Late 1980s recession - 1988 to 1992, collapse of junk bonds and a sharp stock crash in the United States leads to a recession in much of the West

The Federal Reserve hasn't repeated it's mistakes which caused the Great Depression, but that doesn't mean it didn't cause it.


Quote:
Quote:
I bet you also think that if Christopher Columbus hadn't sailed in 1492 we never would have discovered America too.

strawman

Reapplying the logic of "It happened this way and it wouldn't have happened any other way" to something much more obviously retarded tends to make you look like a retard doesn't it? So either take back your idiotic reasoning or take back your call on strawman, because one of those isn't going to stick.

Quote:
Quote:
It takes 50 contact hours to teach a kid to read enough that they can teach themselves after that, and another 50 for the same thing in math.

Education is cheap.

Do you have a citation for that?

John Taylor Gatto. I gave you the link already.