Anarchists or mobsters?

[chiggins]

Nick Gillespe is the main guy over there. I don't know if he is an objectivist or not, but it really doesn't matter. <br> <br>The "idol worship" of Ayn Rand is no more annoying than the worship of Bakunin, Stirner, or that paranoid nut-case Chomsky. In my younger days I tended to latch on to a particular thinker or philosopher, now I try to be more open minded and discretionary.

[Yuda]

[color=red]The "idol worship" of Ayn Rand is no more annoying than the worship of Bakunin, Stirner, or that paranoid nut-case Chomsky. </font color=red> <br> <br>funny coming from the biggest chomsky fetishist to turn up here in a while.... <br> <br>[color=red]now I try to be more open minded and discretionary.</font color=red> <br> <br>Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha <br>hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha <br>hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha <br>hahahaha <br> <br>wait, <br> <br>hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha <br>hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha <br>hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha <br> <br>you're serious right? <br> <br>fuck.

[Guest]

Don't mention Chomsky,we've had enough debates over him and his alleged cult already,I know I helped fuel some of them by partipacting but even I've tired of it.

[Yuda]

It's getting a bit like that Fawlty Towers episode......

[Morpheus]

Would people stop feeding the troll already?!? You know he's admitted that he's just on here to antagonize us, he's not interested in real debate or dialogue.

[chiggins]

I've had a number of "real debates" here, so I think you have me confused with someone else.

[Guest]

Yeah,Morph,I know he said some stupid stuff in the past but I've had several dicussions with him on this fourm that could be considered civil debates and not trolling

[Guest]

hey everyone. sorry to be exacting, but: <br> <br>this all started with the statement: <br> <br>"Reason" is a periodical based on the extremist ideas of Ayn Rand <br> <br>then, a certain piece of garbage said, no, this is not true and was accused of being a liar. <br> <br>and then the accuser put up (unsourced) evidence that the founders of the magazine were indeed objectivists. then the evidence was sourced. <br> <br>now, if the founders of the magazine all consider themselves objectivists, i'd say that's pretty fucking good evidence that <br> <br>a) the magazine is based on the ideas of ayn rand. <br> <br>b) the person who said the contrary is a liar (though, we all knew that already). <br> <br>evidence has been presented. good evidence. sourced evidence. <br> <br>where is the counter-evidence? where is the counter-argument? that people in cancun didnt act how you like? what does that have to do with the question at hand, namely, is the piece of shit magazine based on the scumbag's ideas or not?

[Aaron]

[color=green]You see, unlike Marxist-socialists, Libertarians actually tolerate dissenting opinion.</font color=green> <br> <br>This isn't directed to chiggins, but to this sort of ridiculous sentiment in general. <br> <br>CAPITALISM, by NATURE, ENFORCES property claims. <br> <br>People who ENFORCE their belief system on others ARE NOT tolerating dissenting opinion. They are instituting a state.

[Rjak]

Amazingly, an anon. has put up one of the most coherent posts on this thread. I can only find one bit of innaccuracy/ambiguity: <br> <br>"and then the accuser put up (unsourced) evidence that the founders of the magazine were indeed objectivists." <br> <br>Presuming that I (as the one who stated that Reason is based on Objectivism) am the accuser, 'twas not me but rather an anon. who posted the bios of the founders. I replied to that message calling for that evidence to be sourced, which Din did. <br> <br>Not that that's really relevant, but I felt like clearing it up. Other than that, this post seems to be on target.

[Guest]

yeah, i am the accuser, referred to myself in the 3rd person. <br> <br>and my ORIGINAL statement stands, which was: <br> <br>getting chiggy wid it, nah nah nah-nah nah nah nah <br> <br>[img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] <br>

[chiggins]

What about "enforcing" personal protection claims? If some pervert tries to molest a child and a police officer steps in to stop him, is the police officer "enforcing" the child's rights? <br> <br>Likewise, if someone barges into your house and tries to use it as a barn, are you justified in enforcing your property claim? Or is this "enforcement" contrary to anarchism? <br> <br>In order to ultimately establish state Communism, it becomes necessary to convince people that <br> <br>a) they have no fundamental rights <br>b) they have no legitimate claim to private property <br> <br>The Sophist argumentation used to justify point "a" is that "rights" are a fiction created by capitalist governments to justify their existance. The argument in support of "b" is what you have just said, that property involves coercion and enforcement. <br> <br>Leftist-anarchism is beginning to look like a lie, which has been propagated long enough that it starts looking like the truth. <br> <br>But that lie is necessary to convince the Communist SA, otherwise known as anarchists, that their ideology is not only justified, but that it is the only ideology.

[Aaron]

[color=green]What about "enforcing" personal protection claims? If some pervert tries to molest a child and a police officer steps in to stop him, is the police officer "enforcing" the child's rights?</font color=green> <br> <br>There is a fundamental difference between making a claim of absolute dominion over a piece of property, which makes you the sovereign ruler, and protecting yourself from harm. Note that in other languages, like French, "yourself" doesn't even have a possessive; literally, it translates to "you-same." When I am making a private property claim, I am instituting a state; there's no way around it. You can continue to make unrelated analogies regarding self-defense, or you might choose to actually address the issue of private property as an institution being a de facto state. Take your pick. <br> <br>The lack of rights offers greater liberty and protection of freedoms than the promise of rights. Rights are abstract ideas - concepts and ideals - that are offered to us in return for our individual liberty. The State claims to enforce our rights to life, liberty, and property, and in turn we must pay tribute to the State. In a laissez-faire capitalist setting, the State is the property owner. <br> <br>When rights as an institution are rejected, injustice is looked upon as being inherently wrong. For, just as you may have no abstract "right" to life, I have no right to end your life. Nobody is making a claim. The only consistency is that self-defense is always considered just; it is the preservation of the mind, it is survival. I do not have a "right" to life, for example, but when you attempt to end my life, I can legitimately defend myself from your institution of dominion over my person, because your initiation of violence is a claim of rights - the right to kill me - and the institution of a state - that which I cannot ignore. <br> <br>The promise of rights, on the other hand, offers me little. I have a "right" to life, but murder is abound. I have a "right" to liberty, but my freedoms are consistently being curtailed. I have a "right" to property, but millions are dispossessed. The list goes on. Rights are an empty promise. <br> <br>[color=green]Leftist-anarchism is beginning to look like a lie, which has been propagated long enough that it starts looking like the truth.</font color=green> <br> <br>Again, you can continue to draw unrelated conclusions with no basis or evidence, or you can address the issue at hand. Rather than employing the age-old logical fallacy of guilt-by-association, perhaps you should attempt to prove how anarchism, with its fundamental rejection of authority - including the authority of rights and property - may lead to the creation of a state? I would be very interested in seeing that.

[Morrigan]

I think the previous poster (chiggins) makes a good case. Let's look at this a little closer... <br> <br>Aaron says that I have dominion over my person, but that is all. I do not have any right to property. So if a child is starving, that child can make no claim to food as it would be exercising a claim to property. If the food belongs to no one, no one can make a claim. So ultimately, I have to depend on someone else's charity to provide me with what I need. A real slave mentality.

[Aaron]

1. I do not believe that you have dominion over your person. <br> <br>Claiming dominion over your person suggests a separation between the mind and the body - that your body is simply a vehicle for your mind. In reality, at least in my opinion, they are one and the same, and to argue otherwise is to suggest what would appear to me as an absurdity. <br> <br>2. I do not believe that eating food is a claim to property. <br> <br>When I eat food, I'm not making any claims of absolute dominion. The food that I eat belongs to no one, and just as I cannot claim it, others may not. Eating food does not involve a claim of absolute dominion; it is merely an act of using the food to fuel one's body, then returning it to the environment in a different form, where it is then used by other species as food.