Rights Poll

[EqualityandFreedom]

Based on poll I found somewhere else, but thought it would be interesting to ask it here.

[Insecuritykiller]

I believe in an avenging force that will punish us or reward us for our good or bad deeds. That would be after we die. As human beings are given a choice, a life on their own without 'god.'

But it is in our best interests to respect each other. I hate people who don't care about others.

[Tom Palven]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans are not "Endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights to life, liberty, and happiness any more than kings and popes are endowed with "divine rights". These are the archaic ideas of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.

Legal right, such as the "right to a minimum wage" or the "right to bear arms", which are guaranteed by governments, at least exist, until they are modified or repealed. But, inherent "natural rights" are worthless. What good did the alleged natural human rights to life and liberty do Jews, gays, Gypsies, and others under The Third Reich, or boys drafted to fight in the Vietnam War, for example?

[thelastindividual]

Tom, might I suggest reading this -> http://libertariannation.org/a/f42l1.html#4.3

And the rest of rodericks stuff on natural law?

[Tom Palven]

I agree with Lou Rollins. I've parsed Rothbard's argument for natural Law in The Ethics of Liberty, and it just doesn't compute. He says something like "humans need to use their brains to survive, therefore they have inherent natural rights." When questioned about this by Rollins and others, Rothbard wouldn't elaborate.

I also agree with Rabbi Hillel who said, several decades before Christ. "Do not unto others that which is hateful to you. This is the whole of the law, The rest is commentary." This law, called The Golden Rule, or The Law of Reciprocity, is all the law that anarchists need. We don't need hundreds of thousands of federal, state, and local laws, indluding a 4,000 page IRS code, and thousands of lawyers and tax accountants to interpret them, and we don't need thousands of shamans interpreting the laws of a nonexistent God. We don't need to read the antiquated ideas of Aquinas, Aristotle, and hundreds of other philosphers. We just need this one principle that we learned in kindergarten-- Don't hit people or take their crayons. Be nice, because what goes around comes around.

[Guest]

lol, it figures that tli would be convinced by long's impotent pleading in defense of ridiculous nonsense -- because tli fundamentally agrees with long on many other things, which, if not dependent on 'natural law', are at least made easier to swallow by swallowing that bit of tripe first. tli is a walking example of confirmation bias. as francis bacon put it, 'it is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives'. by refusing to read things that counter his bias, and instead immediately googling for counterarguments from his own team, he piles up affirmatives for his own preconceived notions. it never occurs to him that long might have cherrypicked the low-hanging fruit of irrelevancies to 'debunk', rather than addressing the actual arguments; or that there may be counters to long's counters. no, none of this; 'natural rights' theory sounds good, and allows one to slip in all manner of nonsense beneath his robes, so as long as we can slap together a shaky but superficially plausible argument in defense of it, we should maintain it. lol.

[Guest]

'Don't hit people or take their crayons.'

you again forgot 'share your crayons'. i prefer that lesson to your propertarian one.

[patrickhenry]

how about sharing without fear of coercian

[Tom Palven]

Yes, I forgot "sharing" again, and that reminds me of a story about my ex-wife's father, Francis X. Donohue, a retired NYC cop who prided himself in the fact that he never had to draw his gun in 40 years on the job. He had lost his legs and his eyesight to diabetes, and his son to the Vietnam war, but hadn't lost his sense of humor. Two of his grandkids, 4-year old Alicia Kastner, and 3-year old George Devine were coloring in the living room where he was sitting, and Alicia wanted to borrow a crayon from George, who wouldn't let her. When Alicia told George "It's nice to share". George said "Bullshit", and Frank laughed so hard he almost fell out of his wheelchair.

[AndyMalroes]

Ancaaaaaaaap!

[Tom Palven]

Lame-Braaaaain!

[AndyMalroes]

I just don't see how you can deny being an Ancap while saying all sharing is bullshit.

[Tom Palven]

I never said "all sharing is bullshit", and I doubt if you'd even find people calling themselves anarcho-capitalists who claim that all sharing is bullshit. Al Capone said "You can get more with just a few kind words and a gun, than you can with just a few kind words." Voluntary sharing is wonderful. Sharing at the point of a gun is authoritarianism. Is it okay if I call you an anarcho-authoritarian? Would anarcho-totalitarian be preferable? Anarcho-statist? Isn't there something self-contradictory about ALL of the hyphenated anarcho terms? If "anarho-" means "without rule", then any rules imposed by would-be rulers on individuals are contradictory. Maybe what you're looking for is just plain old socialism or plain old communism with an olive or a twist of lemon.

[Guest]

no, tom. nobody is talking about 'forced sharing' but you. denying those who would monopolize natural resources is not authoritarianism, it's the exact opposite. when propertarian invaders lay hold of our home planet and say 'mine', that's an assault that we humans are justified in defending against. propertarianism is an alien, anti-human ideology, which must be imposed from above by vicious authoritarian monsters. denying their claims is not 'forcing sharing at the point of a gun', it's denying violence and theft -- at the point of a gun if necessary. you do yourself no favors by quoting the etymology of 'anarchy', since your propertarian ideology must be enforced by rules. (and besides, no sane anarchist takes it to mean advocacy of rampant free reign of the individual, as you portray it. restraining murderers, rapists, child molesters, propertarians, and other demons, is not only compatible with anarchism, but is a fundamental aspect of it.) you're trying to pull a fast one by taking the negation of propertarianism and twisting it around to be an affirmation of sharing; you're trying to turn 'no you may not violently assault the well-being of others by monopolizing resources' into 'we will force you NOT to NOT share', so that you can make it appear as though we're pulling a fast one, since 'force you NOT to NOT share' reads like a deceptive confusion of 'force you to share'. in short, you're a cunt.

[Tom Palven]

Do you mind if I call you Guest Asshole?