The man in the photo above, is a real life American idiot. They aren’t uncommon. They are like a plague. And that plague came out to vote yesterday.
So America has decided that the eight years in which the Republicans absolutely raped the World, didn’t happen. The mid-terms have seen a major shift to the Right in American politics since 2008. Which amazes me. The Democrats got pretty destroyed. It is likely that the Republicans are going to assume that their new found control of the House means they have the mandate to push through legislation surrounding budget cuts, tax breaks for the wealthy, and an attempt to roll back Healthcare reform (they don’t seem to care that 35,000,000 people are now insured; only that it might hurt the profits of major insurance companies). Of course, mandate doesn’t bother them considering they have spent the past two years making life as difficult as possible for a Party who were elected to attempt to clean up the mess the previous White House left.
Obama has been weak. Very weak. The rhetoric of change didn’t exactly pan out that way. He isn’t all that different from the last lot. His failure to close Guantanamo, is refusal to back same sex marriage, his continued wars in the Middle East, and his utter failure to do anything significant with the banking sector has been his undoing. He isn’t Socialist, he isn’t really all that Left. He’s firmly in the centre. He just has an opposition who seem to think anything Right of Reagan = Stalin.
One attack point throughout the past two years has been the Healthcare bill. Now, according to a Harvard study in 2009, there were found to be more than 44,000 deaths associated with those who have no health insurance. By 2019, it is reckoned that a further 30,000,000 people will now be insured thanks to the Healthcare Bill. 62% of all 2007 bankruptcies were due to the inability to pay medical costs. The wonders of Capitalism. All this talk of death panels and the evils of the UK’s National Health Service sparked Tea Party arseholes to go out in the street and demand NO SOCIALISM! The problem is, that the UK’s National Health Service, according to the World Health Organisation, is 20 places in the World Rankings, higher than the U.S. The UK also has a far better child mortality rate, we pay less, and our life expectancy is better. So whilst those in the Tea Party continue to be nothing more than an uneducated mouthpiece of the insurance industry, we in the UK will continue to enjoy our evil Socialist healthcare, whilst living longer. The Government did not take over healthcare in the US. The US remains the only apparently civilised country that does not provide universal healthcare. Those of us who live in Countries that do have a universal healthcare system, would never elect a party to government if they ever spoke of privatising it. The NHS is a National treasure.
Healthcare is essential. It should be a right. Not a luxury. To be told by an insurer that you are not eligible because you have a pre-existing condition is grotesque. I cannot imagine the American public would be too keen on the idea of having to pay for fire insurance. When their house is burning down and the fire engine turns up, having to check your papers are in order and your payments have been kept up to date before they rescue your screaming child.
It makes me wonder, how do very wealthy businessmen in the insurance industry, who really couldn’t give a damn about the health of their customers, manage to coerce a mass of ordinary people who might benefit from the Healthcare reforms, to fight their corner?
It isn’t a new phenomena. The rich have always managed to make the poorer folks fight for them. This is how wars work. Invoke a sense of Nationalism. Refer to them as ‘fighting for our freedom’. Emotive language always does the trick. Make them believe there is a common enemy. Communists, Muslims, Gay people, Atheists etc. You can trace it back to the days of the Founding Fathers. Hamilton described the public (those who were less wealthy and of less importance than he) as a “great beast”. The idea of an electoral college was installed because people like Madison did not believe the public could be trusted. But somehow, they managed to get widespread support; based entirely on being anti-British.
The Civil War days were not much different. The wealthy managed to make the poor white folk believe that if slavery were abandoned, the jobs market would be flooded and the black folk would take all their jobs. The irony was, that the black folk already had the jobs, because they were slaves, and so weren’t paid anything. The real issue was that the rich white folk would rather keep paying the black slaves nothing, and the white folk as little as possible. Both the black and white poor folk, were being massively abused, and yet the poor white folk fought for the benefit of the rich white folk. It made no sense. But they were heavily manipulated into doing so.
A similar thing happened with healthcare. This notion of “big socialist government” was thrown around constantly. The Bush Administration spent eight years focusing on making the spread of false fear an art, and it seems to have continued. Glenn Beck on Fox News within the space of about a week managed to refer to Obama as a Socialist, a Muslim, a Terrorist, a Fascist, a Marxist, and Foreign. Probably Gay as well at some point.
This, coupled with the fact that major Health insurers (the modern day slave owners) ensured fear was rampant meant that an easily manipulated population believed they were on the verge of becoming the USSA. The second largest Health insurance provider in America is UnitedHealth Group. In 2009 they issued a letter subtly urging its staff to attend rallies against the healthcare bill and lobby local representatives.
Reps. Michele Bachmann and John Kline, and Gov. Tim Pawlenty, all Republicans, referred in 2009, to a group called Lewin, as ‘independent and non-Partisan’ when they used Lewin (who specialise in economic analysis of Healthcare in the US) research to support their opposition to the Healthcare Bill. Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip referred to Lewin Group as “the nonpartisan Lewin Group” when backing up his arguments against the Healthcare Bill. Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee referred to Lewin Group as an “independent research firm” and Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah said that Lewin Group is “well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country”. The problem is, Lewin is owned by UnitedHealth Group. The research spouted by Republicans, actually comes from a Company who spent time and money circling an email to its employees encouraging them to attend rallies and events against Health Reform. In what universe would you have to be living on to suggest that they are “non-partisan”.
Chuck Grassley, the most senior idiot Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, stated of Ted Kennedy:
“I don’t know for sure, But I’ve heard several senators say that Ted Kennedy with a brain tumour, being 77 years old as opposed to being 37 years old, if he were in England, would not be treated for his disease, because end of life – when you get to be 77, your life is considered less valuable under those systems.”
The phrase “I don’t know for sure” saves him from utter embarrassment when he is shown to be completely lying. I say this, because my grandma is 84 and currently in hospital, very ill. My dad came home today and said the nurses and the doctor, are amazing. The nurses are around her all the time, and keep mentioning her kids and her grandkids to try to keep her mind as active and alert as possible. The most senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is propagating a rumour that the NHS does not treat the elderly. It is bullshit and he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. It is just another tactic to fight the reforms. Obama must be banging his head on his desk wondering why he ever applied to be the President of a country full of lunatics.
We need to be clear; Republicans do not care about making sure people are healthy and fit. Republicans are just trying to protect the obscene profits of the insurance industry.
It isn’t just Republicans though, that are ultimately the bitches of the insurance industry. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Senator Ben Nelson, raised more than $2 million from insurance and health care interests in his three campaigns for federal office. He has received $1,195,299 from insurance interests, $399,345 from health professionals, $258,483 from the pharmaceutical industry, and $195,138 from hospital and nursing home interests. UnitedHealth, spoke of earlier, donated $25,000 to Nelson. It is no surprise then, that Nelson voted against the Health Care legislation.
The race to be the next California Insurance Commissioner is also interesting. The Republican nominee, Michael Villines says he does not take contributions from insurance companies. According to filings with the Secretary of State, a PAC spent $280,000 running ads and a campaign entirely against the Democrat, Dave Jones. The contributions may not have gone to Villines personally, but they are being used to get him elected, mainly because he his massively against healthcare reform. Villines also managed to transfer $50,000 worth of contributions from the insurance industry, from his 2014 Senate campaign fund, to his Insurance Commissioner fund.
Data according to the OECD shows that in comparison to Australia, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Norway and Sweden, the USA ranks bottom when it comes to life expectancy, infant mortality, Per capita expenditure on health, Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP, % of government revenue spent on health, and also quite amusingly; % of health costs paid by government. Perhaps there is a bit of a link there. Perhaps government run healthcare isn’t as evil as the American Right like to suggest.
The Republicans have said they will argue that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional and try to repeal it. Apparently going to war on the base of a lie is perfectly acceptable and constitutional. Apparently having a worse child mortality rate than Singapore is perfectly acceptable and constitutional. Apparently idolising Reagan; a man who illegally sold arms to both Iran and Iraq, whilst using drugs cartels to transport weapons to right winged terrorists in Latin America, is perfectly acceptable and constitutional, but trying to help the millions of Americans who are denied healthcare by the cancer of society; health insurers, is evil and socialist and unconstitutional.
America has just elected a House of Representatives whose majority are a party almost entirely in the pocket of insurance companies, and who light the fuse that started the entire financial crises in the first place. America never fails to amaze me.
Really? You still have a touching naive faith in the United States. see: You Tube
Wow, I take it back.
No, it is the wonder of Social/Fascist system creating a government-licensed cartel.
…and interestingly, you want that to get stronger with more government.
Healthcare is essential. It should be a right.
It maybe essential for you
It is NOT a right – for you to have this right means you destroy my rights.
Americans do pay for fire insurance – you can’t get a mortgage without it, and it works just fine – because it is insurance, not a piggy bank
You want a piggy bank – funded by other people’s money – that you can grab to support your desires.
Health insurance is not a insurance – it is a tax on everyone, and a subsidy for a few.
When you figure this out, you’ll be one step closer to why:
The worst-run industry in Canada: Health care
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/managing/strategy/article.jsp?content=20101025_10022_10022
Blah blah, im evil, blah blah blah, market fundamentalism is paradise blah blah. Why do you bother? I do not adhere to your nonsense.
Because you -in other areas- are a smart man.
But here, you are touched by a mental disease called “envy”.
In your art, you have no envy. You know you are good – you also appreciate other art because…you are not envious of their work, but appreciative.
But your politics is based on envy.
You want what you do not want to earn, and you will *almost* do whatever evil you need to get it.
Further, in your apology for advocating more evil, you make claims about free men that are lies.
You call American Health Care “Capitalism”, which is a lie. I point this out to you, but you are immune to the truth.
You call “Health Care” insurance, and point to fire insurance as an example – but they are completely different in the basics and substance of what insurance means – I point this out to you, but you are immune to the truth.
As long as you remain immune to Truth you will suffer severe consequences of your irrational decisions – or worse, suffer them upon your children
Again, utter bollocks. You have no sense of social responsibility because your vile ideology rests on the misguided presumption that we’re all individual, and our wealth is entirely individual, and quite amusingly; property that is only yours because you bought it and somewhere down the line was obtained entirely by force, and the laws that protect your property, is for some reason not theft. When actually, this magical ‘right’ you think you have to property, is nothing more than a product of libertarian thought; you have assigned ‘right’ to something that would not function without some sort of social contract in order to protect it. What if one day you lose all your money, and can’t afford this private police force you’ve advocated, any longer, and I decide to rob you? I wouldn’t be breaking a law, because law wouldn’t exist. I would be in my right to take what is yours, because you’d have no way of stopping me?
Why you think wealth is created without any influence and benefits of a cooperative society somewhere down the line, is beyond me. Wealth is a product of society. You are not individual. Your wealth creation, was not individual. Never has been.
Your not the first to use as far reaching emotional language as possible to promote your particular brand of lunacy. “Omg they’re taking from innocent people by pointing a gun to their heads!!! ARGH!!!”
A tax is the due we all pay, to be part of the society and its institutions that provide the framework for us to succeed. Using the same rhetoric time and time again about how i’m suffering (which i’m not) and how my children will suffer (which they wont), or how i’m blind to the ‘truth’ (which i’m not) or that your particular nonsense is true freedom (which it isn’t) purely because we’re not all market fundamentalists, is not going to work. Why don’t you practice what you preach and go live in a Country that government is not exactly that popular within? I hear Somalia is calling out for people like you. You are free to leave the society that you have no desire to contribute to, for a society that suits your needs far more. Hell, go start your own libertarian haven on an island somewhere. Then, you will be truly free in every way. If you don’t like it, but love your home, you could talk to your representative. But you don’t like the idea of government, so talking to your representative would be hypocritical. So then, the only thing you can do, that would be right, is to leave. You don’t like the society, you don’t like its institutions, you don’t like any benefit it offers, you don’t like anything about it. It is grotesque to you. So why stay?
Obviously you don’t use the roads that tax money has paid for. That would be hypocrisy. And obviously if your house were robbed, you wouldn’t call the police, because that would be using a universal system paid for by the taxpayer, and using laws that have been enacted by an evil government. And that would be hypocrisy. Obviously you have never been to a library or used a museum, because that would be hypocrisy. And obviously you stand outside national parks, refusing to enter, because if you enter, that would be hypocrisy.
I have never known a thief to take a small amount of my monthly wage by force, and then use it to protect me from fire, or help me when i’m ill, or fix my roads for me, or educate the younger members of my family. Your idea of theft is interesting.
I am ‘immune’ to your theory (not truth) thankfully, because I do not have an essential part of my soul missing.
I disagree with you. Whilst you believe I have a mental disease, I believe you are massively socially retarded.
I really would like to stop having this exact same discussion after every blog. You think i’m blind and making children suffer, I think you’re a social retard. End of discussion.
Futile,
I apologize for the terrible editing of the previous post…
Here is the cleaner version…
Of course I do but I can only Rightfully speak for myself. I give to charity and help the desperate and the real need.
But that is your problem, isn’t it You are not in that group, you are not needy, but “wanty”.
So you do not like who I chose to take care of, because it is not YOU
The fact is, it is YOU who is perverse in your social “responsibility”. You support theft and violence on others -by proxy- so that you do not have to earn your wants.
As we will see, you will use the argument of supporting those who are in real need to justify you forcing others to pay for your education, your health, your food, rent, bath water, car payments, dental care, TV, cigars, and socks.
This is the root of your position: you will point to another soul’s misery (or make up stories and fantasies) – and then say “so you have to pay for my (…endless list of selfish wants and envy…)”
Gee, I didn’t know you think we are the Borg….
We are individual, Futile.
I am not you. You are not me.
You like and dislike things, and I like and dislike other things.
Things that are important to you are not important to me. Things important to me are not important to you.
Do you dispute any of that? Of course you can’t – therefore we are individuals
So your comment is obviously bizarre and irrational – and irrational arguments have no place in Truth.
But because you do not like the Truth, you will hold on to irrational arguments.
And there is the root of your whole brain-tornado.
No, Futile – because unlike you I had to earn first before I bought.
Since you do not know which must come first (earn then spend) – you focus on the “spend” and do not understand the earn.
Because you do not earn, society does not let you “spend” for you have nothing to trade.
This angers you because you see others spend (but you do not know why they “get to do that” and not you! because you do not understand “earn”)
So, to resolve your conflict – you create a huge irrational mess to explain why you do not have to earn (but others have to) and you get to take (but they can’t take from you).
Anytime someone demonstrates this mush argument of yours, you get all angry about it – because you do not understand earn one…little…bit.
Theft – taking what is not yours. Opposite of earn. You refuse to earn your “wants”, thus you advocate for theft.
Earn – I go to work and work hard. I have spent decades honing my skills (called “improving my product”) so to be in high demand (called “scarce resources (because there is but one of me, an individual) meets large demand=higher price”).
But you envy what I have earned. You want it, but do not want to do what is necessary to have it – that is, spend decades improving yourself so to be in high demand and valuable to society.
You want what I have NOW, at no cost to you – and you are willing to do *almost* anything other than earn it to get it.
Property as a Right did not “just” happen out of thought. It exists as a function of Natural Order.
Only one of us can “stand right here” at the same time.
Only one of us can “eat this piece of meat” and enjoy its nourishment.
There is only one of two ways to resolve this – mutually exclusive.
(1)We fight. Winner take all. This is called the “Barbaric way” or the “Government way”
or
(2)By Right. Who has the RIGHT to stand here and eat the meat. This is called the “Economic way” or the “Civilized way”
Pick one and the other is excluded.
Your choice is (1) – except you can’t fight – so you will do this by “proxy” via government. You give thieves legitimacy to steal as long as the thieves give you some of the loot.
No such thing exists as a social “contract”.
It is not a contract by any definition of “contract” nor is it “social” because not “everyone” agrees.
Hobbes presented this theory in exactly one of his essays. He was so thoroughly refuted by his contemporaries that he never made mention of this again.
However, it was one of the first intellectual attempts to justify evil upon men other than the typical “God said so” type of arguments.
With no surprise, those that need to justify evil seized it and -as irrational as “social contract” theory is- held on to it, because it is slightly better than the “God said so” theory.
As you have chosen choice #1 – we fight.
Winner take all.
If you lose, you will not make it back to your home.
If you win, you will not make it home with all your limbs intact.
It will be up to you to decide if the “take” is worth the “cost”.
No HUMAN law exists – only Natural Law. Natural Law ALWAYS exists.
So what Natural Law exists that comes to play when you attack me?
I have no way? You have no way to take it from me! Good luck if you try….
…because free, civilized men always have allies.
Evil men fear those that they may call “allies”, because only evil men join evil men.
Which side do you think would come to my aid (if I needed it)? Free men or evil men?
You continue to repeat this, yet can never provide any time I’ve said differently.
Wealth is created by a cooperative society – but that is not your society!! YOU HATE COOPERATION!
…because Cooperation always is a consequence of VOLUNTARY ACTION. It is NEVER a consequence of coercion.
Cooperation requires voluntary choice – without voluntary, it is not cooperation but enslavement.
You want to have a society of coercion - that by force, you extract the goods of other people to give to those that did not earn them.
Wealth is a by-product of EARNING.
Ok, Borg.
All human action is ultimately individual
It can be nothing else.
Follow closely:
One must act to create.
To create wealth, one must therefore act.
If all action is ultimately individual -
All wealth is due to individual action.
Thus, your statement is proved false.
Even more significant, the basis for your position – as it rests on your fallacy debunked here – also falls.
But … that is their threat … or do you deny this?
If you deny it, explain this:
Fines
# Individuals who are found guilty of tax evasion may face penalties of up to $250,000, and businesses face fines of up to $500,000. In addition to these fines, if you are found guilty of income-tax fraud, you may also be charged the cost of prosecuting your case.
Imprisonment
# Those who are convicted of income-tax fraud may be sentenced to prison up to three to five years
A useful lie, if you are the one getting more of the stolen loot than what is taken from you…..
First, it is not part of society – or do you claim “no tax” jurisdictions do not have a society?
Nor is it required to succeed – for the same above reason.
Thus, your entire statement can be nothing else but a self-serving attempt to justify theft en mass.
…not yet. And maybe if you die young enough, you won’t.
,
Yes, they will as will your grandchildren – and that is the real crime you commit with your advocating.
But when it happens, I know you will blame someone else for some other reason and will teach your children you did nothing to them. They may even believe you.
Why don’t you take your thieving ways and join a real gang of your hero’s like North Korea, Vietnam, Nigeria, Zimbabwe… the list goes on and on, present and in history.
I hear these guys tend to take almost all of what a person earns and give it to others – I bet you wonder why they are so darn poor with all that wealth being given away….
And the only one you can come up with is …. Somalia …. which was richer WITHOUT a government than with it! I always laugh at those that pick Somalia – a nation with a government was so much poorer than after it disappeared!
I don’t even have to throw a punch in this verbal fight, you do a fine job pummeling yourself!!
Food was plentiful and cheaper, there was ample fresh water for pennies, and had the cheapest long distance telephone rates in the world! But, government couldn’t have that – so “they” invaded them over and over and over again….and sailed their warships into their waters so to dump their toxic garbage on their shores – such good guys, that government types!
But here’s the problem.
People like you would never let it alone.
Come on, Futile!
You can’t even leave your neighbor’s alone without trying to put your hands in their pockets.
Do you really think you’d let a country be free of your meddling? Be serious …
Of course I do, as there is no choice other than to do that!
So, sadly, my gas taxes are taken from me without any alternative (shrug).
When a service is destroyed by a predator and all that is left is the predator’s service, then there is no sin in using the predator’s service.
But I do not use any service of such an evil beast that I do not have to use – which is different from you – who wants more predation in society as you believe it is the only way you can get your wants.
You do not know the meaning, then.
Hypocrisy is saying to others “you must do this”, but I do not follow my own statement.
You are a hypocrite because you advocate stealing of others, but do not accept others stealing from you.
You define your “good thieves” as Left-wing socialist leaning folks, but do not accept the stealing from the Right-wing fascist-leaning folks.
That is hypocrisy — your advocating of theft and your denial of theft merely turns on which hands do the stealing, but not based on the fact that stealing is evil no matter whose hands do the act!
It matters not whether Satan or Jesus steals – theft is evil.
I have never said you cannot drive on roads. I have never said you shouldn’t pay for what you use even if what you use is provided by evil men.
You would probably be correct.
First, the thief would have to get by my security. I pay good money to them, and they are good at their job or I would not pay them MY money.
If, by mere chance, they do get through my security, they have to get by me. If they thought my security was tough…. it will a lot tougher than them when my property or my family are at risk.
If, by a rarity greater than your birth, they get by me, they have to deal with my wife. That will be the end of their adventure.
And, as a policy, if my security effects an action on a criminal, they will call the police to report it – but not to solve it or deal with it, as it has that is already done. The police are merely dictation service and note takers. They are pretty good at that.
And, if I have to deal with the issue, unless another person outside of this direct scenario was somehow was involved, there would be no report from me.
“Shoot, shovel, shut up”
Ah, more confusion – and surprising from you. You must be flustered or something….
Government did not “enact” laws against theft and violence – Human Natural Law dealt with this long before government.
The word you want to use is codify, that is, put in writing what was already being done.
(Come on, Futile – you are a historian! This is child’s stuff that you are tripping on!)
You do not understand the term at all, obviously.
I buy a library card, so why not?
I paid my entrance fee, so why not?
It is clear you do not understand the term.
I paid at the gate.
Confirmed. You definitely do not understand the term.
That is because you earn nothing, there is nothing to take (no surprise).
Ah, the thief-mindset at work.
You justify stealing by pointing at fantasy stories of hardship or borrowing other people’s real stories.
Then you use this stealing -based on helping the truly desperate- on educating your family (which is really the father’s responsibility to provide), build roads (which is really is not a needs but a nice-thing), pay for a doctor (which is really your responsibility to have saved for it), and pay a bunch of men to sit around doing what free men used to volunteer to do (but you hate free men).
So the point: you are irresponsible and lazy.
You want things but do not want to do the necessary earning those things require. So instead of doing, you advocate others to steal it for you.
Then stop making the same ignorant, badly reasoned, irrational arguments.
Never said that.
…YOUR children will suffer….
Perfect ending for your point.
No coherent argument from principle.
Irrational statements without a position.
Insult anyone who holds you to a higher thinking.
QED
Futiledemocracy – “You have no sense of social responsibility because your vile ideology rests on the misguided presumption that we’re all individual, and our wealth is entirely individual…”
Black Order – So, what is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine? Great! When I come to visit England, you can let me borrow your flat and automobile…or rather “our” flat and automobile.
Futiledemocracy – “and quite amusingly; property that is only yours because you bought it and somewhere down the line was obtained entirely by force,…”
Black Order – How is it amusing that someone would have to be forced to share what they alone have obtained through earnestness?
So, if I came to England and demanded to stay in your/our home, and had to use a gun to “persuade” you, you’d find it amusing?
Futiledemocracy – “When actually, this magical ‘right’ you think you have to property, is nothing more than a product of libertarian thought…”
Black Order – So if you do not allow me to just barge in on you when I visit, you are going along with this libertarian thought that you discredit?
Futiledemocracy – “you have assigned ‘right’ to something that would not function without some sort of social contract in order to protect it.”
Black Order – Is there a sales tax in England? If so, does that mean that if I buy something there, that I am a part of this social contract that entitles me to your/our flat?
Futiledemocracy – “What if one day you lose all your money, and can’t afford this private police force you’ve advocated, any longer, and I decide to rob you? I wouldn’t be breaking a law, because law wouldn’t exist. I would be in my right to take what is yours, because you’d have no way of stopping me? ”
Black Order – If everyone has a “right” to everyone else’s stuff, If what is his(BF) is yours and what is your is his, then how is there a such thing as robbery? According to your logic, you’d be in the right according to law.
And that was just the first paragraph of your reply to Mr. Flag. I wish I had time to pick through the rest, but I’m not sure it’s necessary. Besides, I think Mr. Flag did a BRILLIANT job.
Mr Flag, I think you’re right, this guy is a mess.
Oh dear god, two market fundamentalists
No, just a couple of free men who resist you advocating for their enslavement.
“Property as a Right did not “just” happen out of thought. It exists as a function of Natural Order.”
Ownship of property can only exist if the state backs it with the threat of voilence. Otherwise people will take what they want from each other and there will be chaos.
“Black Order – So, what is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine? Great! When I come to visit England, you can let me borrow your flat and automobile…or rather “our” flat and automobile.”
Sophistry because sharing does not mean that. The other opinion you left out was the state could provide you with a flat and an automobile to borrow. That way someone would not become homeless.
“Black Order – How is it amusing that someone would have to be forced to share what they alone have obtained through earnestness?
So, if I came to England and demanded to stay in your/our home, and had to use a gun to “persuade” you, you’d find it amusing?”
But you “alone” did not do it, you had help, a whole society of it. Should you not pay your way to society in taxes.
Straw man, noone here is arguing against Article 17.
* (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
“Black Order – So if you do not allow me to just barge in on you when I visit, you are going along with this libertarian thought that you discredit?”
Sophistry, this is not sharing or futiledemocracy position just a straw man.
To barge in would brake many human rights, but that is not an argument against sharing, just arbitrarily deprived of property and invasion of privacy. Covered by Article 17 and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I might add.
“Black Order – Is there a sales tax in England? If so, does that mean that if I buy something there, that I am a part of this social contract that entitles me to your/our flat?”
Sophistry…, see universal declaration of human rights.
“Black Order – If everyone has a “right” to everyone else’s stuff, If what is his(BF) is yours and what is your is his, then how is there a such thing as robbery? According to your logic, you’d be in the right according to law.
And that was just the first paragraph of your reply to Mr. Flag. I wish I had time to pick through the rest, but I’m not sure it’s necessary. Besides, I think Mr. Flag did a BRILLIANT job.”
Sophistry, but yet again that not what sharing is about. It should be noted that no natural process gives you a right to ownship, it exist by the states monopoly on force, used to protect it like everything else. Under the UN ,
Article 17.
* (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
but also other people have rights to…
Article 25.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
This is the system that has been agreed by every government across the world on joining the UN. You see only those rights that benefit yourself, you are rational self-interest taken to it conclusion.
You are just selfish, like a toddler that does not want to share “some” of its toys and have created a web of arguments that are just pure sophistry to justify it.
“No, just a couple of free men who resist you advocating for their enslavement.”
You don’t know the meaning of the word enslavement, you are attacking the universal declaration of human rights at every turn. Enslavement would be, being force into a system run by you.
The posts you have made here are juat your sad atempts at trying to bully futiledemocracy who you see as an ideological enemy. You are trying to use coercion (intimidation) to silence him.
Also of note,
Article 30.
* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Charles,
Irrational.
The violence of the State is wholly unnecessary to defend my property. I am capable by myself.
As I am not the State, your statement cannot be true.
Irrational.
The State does not prevent others from taking. In fact, it is the single largest taker.
As such, it is an agent of destruction of social order.
Your underlying premise -and wholly fallacious- is that the People will not act in their own defense against those that wish to steal from them.
It is good to see that finally you understand that the State redistributing goods is not sharing, either.
But that is not sharing, Charles.
That is the State stealing a flat and a car from someone to give to another.
Society did no such thing. It is not a “thing” – it is an abstraction, and as such cannot do THINGS.
Things are done by INDIVIDUALS.
This is a common brain-tornado of many people – to turn an abstraction into something real.
No human law gives human rights, Charles.
Ah! So you believe someone CAN steal from someone else – and all the debate is just between your SUBJECT justification or someone else! (ie: arbitrary).
You define “NOT arbitrary” as “anything I decide”, but you deny this definition to anyone else.
And wholly irrelevant, I will add!
If Article 1880-A said “Charles is the Boss of humanity” does not make it so – so, equally, whatever other Article you may point to is equally pointless.
PS: Charles, you are arguing with fallacy called “Appeal to (false)
Charles,
Again, another Fallacy – Appeal to False Authority
Irrational.
As already given in my post, Property Rights exist as a means to exclusively use a resource and deny its use to others.
This DOES come naturally because you enjoy the nourishment of my meal at the same time I do. Only one of us can eat it.
Since eating food came about considerably earlier than the State, your claim is totally false
Again, the State is completely redundant. I do not need the State to protect my property.
Fallacy argument and as such irrelevant.
Charles – “Ownship of property can only exist if the state backs it with the threat of voilence.”
Black Order – So, if I obtain something through earnestness, completely independent of government, I don’t own it without government sanction? What did humans do before government, not own anything?
Charles – “Otherwise people will take what they want from each other and there will be chaos.”
Black Order – There is a such thing as social order independent of government(call it a “Black Order”
).
How did people get along before government existed? If there were utter chaos in the absence of government, the human race would have never progressed past barbarism or even survived. Arguably, we are still quite barbaric, just by proxy of government.
All that is necessary for humans to live peacefully without government is to have a definitive understanding and respect for natural rights and personal responsibility.
Charles -”Sophistry because sharing does not mean that. The other opinion you left out was the state could provide you with a flat and an automobile to borrow. That way someone would not become homeless.”
Black Order – This is the basic fallacy in your logic. You have grown to be so dependent of government that you cannot conceive another answer and that somehow government magically conjures things out of thin air. You claim that I left out government as if government was necessary, as if without them, things would not exist. Where does government get these things? From people perhaps? People work to provide themselves and their family with “things” and the government uses coercion to take part of their earnings to provide others that did not earn them.
Charles – “But you “alone” did not do it, you had help, a whole society of it. Should you not pay your way to society in taxes.”
Black Order – Commerce doesn’t have to involve government. If someone needs a product or service that I can provide, we make an agreement. I provide them with a good or service and they compensate me with a good(money) or service. It’s a win/win situation independent of government…real simple.
Charles – “To barge in would brake many human rights, but that is not an argument against sharing, just arbitrarily deprived of property and invasion of privacy.
* (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”
Black Order – So if I do it, it is a violation of rights, but when government does it, it’s okay? And how does government protect your right to property and violate it at the same time?
Charles – “Sophistry, but yet again that not what sharing is about. It should be noted that no natural process gives you a right to ownship, it exist by the states monopoly on force, used to protect it like everything else. Under the UN ,
Article 17.”
Black Order – There is a difference between sharing and stealing by proxy of government. The difference is that sharing is VOLUNTARY. If a friend or family member needs something, I can agree to provide it without government force. When something is taken by coercion and/or force, it’s called “THEFT”.
Charles – “You see only those rights that benefit yourself, you are rational self-interest taken to it conclusion.
You are just selfish, like a toddler that does not want to share “some” of its toys and have created a web of arguments that are just pure sophistry to justify it.”
Black Order – Nothing could be further from the truth. You obviously don’t know me. I do selfless things all of the time. I often voluntarily sacrifice to look out for those close to me, those that I have a responsibility toward.
Just the other day I spent most of it helping a friend who experienced a stroke of really bad luck. I collected and relocated a bunch of belongings and bought a weeks supply of food, with no personal gain, just to be nice and extend a bit of generosity.
And I did it completely independent of government.
Just because I don’t advocate using government as a middle man to steal from others, doesn’t mean that I am selfish. I would(and do) argue that it is YOU that is the selfish one that has no respect for the rights of others to keep what is theirs.
In my humble opinion, it is rather selfish to suggest that because someone has more than you, that they somehow owe you something, that they are somehow responsible for your welfare. It is rather selfish to demand their property for yourself and rationalize that theft is somehow not theft and is acceptable because government says they are a part of this social contract.
You can’t have it both ways. Theft is theft, whether it is an individual or a government entity. It isn’t theft sometimes and not others. Taking something against the will of the owner is ALWAYS theft.
Consider this… The plus symbol(+) is a function of logic. It ALWAYS means the same thing regardless of what numbers are used with it.
You cannot say that 2+2=4, then turn around and say that plus(+) sometimes means divide(/).
You cannot say that…
In instance A – an individual taking something from another individual against their will IS theft(2+2=4)
Then say that…
In instance B – A government taking something from an individual against their will is NOT theft(2+2=1)
It may serve your own selfish interests to rationalize government as the proverbial heroic “Robin hood”, justified by the feel good emotional plea of looking out for the needy, but Robin hood was still just a thief.
Stealing by proxy of government is still theft.
If you want it, go earn it. You don’t need government or your fictitious social contract to do so.
I could argue this indefinitely. However, I am on my way to selflessly contribute to others by delivering party supplies with my truck.
Have a nice day.
“Irrational.
The violence of the State is wholly unnecessary to defend my property. I am capable by myself.
As I am not the State, your statement cannot be true.”
Then the army of a society with a state will take the land from you.
“Irrational.
The State does not prevent others from taking. In fact, it is the single largest taker.
As such, it is an agent of destruction of social order.
Your underlying premise -and wholly fallacious- is that the People will not act in their own defense against those that wish to steal from them.”
Living in a stable state is the difference between living in Somalia and Hong Kong. The State which mantains an army does indeed prevent others states from taking whats is yours. Also a police force prevent people within a country from taking things.
“Charles,
Again, another Fallacy – Appeal to False Authority”
This is the agreed rights given by the lawful governments of the world. It is not a false authority because it is a lawful one. Your “personal” acceptance is not required and you cannot remove the rights it has given. Your personal authority is not greater than the actions of a lawfully elected government, acting in acordance with accepted international law.
“Irrational.
As already given in my post, Property Rights exist as a means to exclusively use a resource and deny its use to others.”
Property Rights exist only if there is a state to maintain those rights, if there is no state you have zero rights. The state maintains rights by the threat of force, by the will of the people or without it. If the is no state, then there will be civil war. Since every man labels what he thinks is good for himself as “right,” only those who are able to defeat their enemies are the ones who can push their idea of what is right into fruition. This new right will then become the new state and will be maintained by the threat of force.
Any resource has to be protected by the threat of force or someone else will take it from you. States have armies to deter other states from taking there lands. To deter someone else from taking your land or resources you must be able to defend it and that requires the ablity to use force.
“This DOES come naturally because you enjoy the nourishment of my meal at the same time I do. Only one of us can eat it.”
This argument does not even make any sense.
“Since eating food came about considerably earlier than the State, your claim is totally false”
I cannot beleave you think this argument, you need to rethink this in a big way.
“Again, the State is completely redundant. I do not need the State to protect my property.”
Is it? There are 193 widely recognised sovereign states in the world, they would be surprised to hear about it. It is a universally accepted concept, by all but you, maybe you should write to the government of each one and explain to them why they are completely redundant.
“Fallacy argument and as such irrelevant.” You wish it was irrelevant it undermines your whole argument, saying its not so will not make it go away.
“Black Order – So, if I obtain something through earnestness, completely independent of government, I don’t own
it without government sanction? What did humans do before government, not own anything?”
Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive “rights” and control over property.
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental
normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social
convention, or ethical theory. To own something you have to have a law within a state giving you the right to
ownership, without this right anyone else has equal claim.
“Black Order – There is a such thing as social order independent of government(call it a “Black Order”
).
How did people get along before government existed?” People murdered each other for resources. After government
the murder did not stop, now they attacked other governments.
“If there were utter chaos in the absence of government, the human race would have never progressed past
barbarism or even survived. Arguably, we are still quite barbaric, just by proxy of government.”
Who said we where any less barbaric with a government, but government did bring order to the area it operated in.
Now the governments formed countries and they attack each other starting wars. People are still killing each
other for resources. In truth all rights that protect people or property, had to be fought for.
“All that is necessary for humans to live peacefully without government is to have a definitive understanding and
respect for natural rights and personal responsibility.”
Natural rights and personal responsibility, I bet they mean something different to you than the accepted
definition. Hell Black Flag does not see the right to life as a natural right. You need to define what they mean
to you or your statement is meaningless.
“Black Order – This is the basic fallacy in your logic. You have grown to be so dependent of government that you
cannot conceive another answer and that somehow government magically conjures things out of thin air. You claim
that I left out government as if government was necessary, as if without them, things would not exist. Where does
government get these things? From people perhaps? People work to provide themselves and their family with
“things” and the government uses coercion to take part of their earnings to provide others that did not earn
them.”
Your lack of acceptance of government does not invalidate my position. Your problem with government/state is
that it taxes you. Hell the whole system should be change for your benefit, who cares about the “other” people
within it.
“Black Order – Commerce doesn’t have to involve government. If someone needs a product or service that I can
provide, we make an agreement. I provide them with a good or service and they compensate me with a good(money) or
service. It’s a win/win situation independent of government…real simple.”
Governments draw their power from the governed, its ‘sovereign’ people and rule on their behalf but hell we will
just forget about that. Governments are evil they tax me (throws toys out of his pram), I don’t want to play with governments and other people can strave as there is no natural right to life like Black flag says.
“Black Order – So if I do it, it is a violation of rights, but when government does it, it’s okay? And how does
government protect your right to property and violate it at the same time?”
Government can take property from you at any time but it must have good reason. You are protected from your
government taking your property for no reason, taking of property must be lawful and if the government does so you must in the case of your home, be given/offered compensation.
“Black Order – There is a difference between sharing and stealing by proxy of government. The difference is that sharing is VOLUNTARY. If a friend or family member needs something, I can agree to provide it without government force. When something is taken by coercion and/or force, it’s called “THEFT”.”
A legitimate state is one which meets the needs and wishes of its citizens. These include security, peace, economic development and the resolution of conflict. This requires that an individual gives up some of his natural rights in order to maintain social order via the rule of law. Taxes are what we pay so that the government can maintain our rights and the rules of law. Article 17: Says basically that, “No one has the right to take your property away without any good reason.” A government also most respect as in Article 22: That people must, “have the right to have your basic needs met. Everyone is entitled to live in economic, social and cultural conditions that allow them dignity and let them develop as individuals. All countries should do everything they can to make this happen.” and also, “Article 25: Everyone has the right to a decent life, including enough food, clothing, housing, medical care and social services. Society should help those unable to work because they are unemployed, sick, disabled or too old to work. Mothers and children are entitled to special care and assistance.”
“Black Order – Nothing could be further from the truth. You obviously don’t know me. I do selfless things all of the time. I often voluntarily sacrifice to look out for those close to me, those that I have a responsibility toward.
Just the other day I spent most of it helping a friend who experienced a stroke of really bad luck. I collected and relocated a bunch of belongings and bought a weeks supply of food, with no personal gain, just to be nice and extend a bit of generosity.
And I did it completely independent of government.”
Good for you.
“Just because I don’t advocate using government as a middle man to steal from others, doesn’t mean that I am selfish. I would(and do) argue that it is YOU that is the selfish one that has no respect for the rights of others to keep what is theirs.”
Yet the governments have the right to tax and it is not unlawful, because you wish to call it stealling does not make it so. Stealling being the unlawful taking of property.
“In my humble opinion, it is rather selfish to suggest that because someone has more than you, that they somehow owe you something, that they are somehow responsible for your welfare. It is rather selfish to demand their property for yourself and rationalize that theft is somehow not theft and is acceptable because government says they are a part of this social contract.”
Government is required to provide welfare, as set out Article 22.
“Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.”
“You can’t have it both ways. Theft is theft, whether it is an individual or a government entity. It isn’t theft sometimes and not others. Taking something against the will of the owner is ALWAYS theft.”
Theft is the act of taking something from someone “unlawfully”, if the government is acting within the laws of the country, funny enough its not theft. Even so I believe when government steals something its call corruption.
“Consider this… The plus symbol(+) is a function of logic. It ALWAYS means the same thing regardless of what numbers are used with it.
You cannot say that 2+2=4, then turn around and say that plus(+) sometimes means divide(/).
You cannot say that…
In instance A – an individual taking something from another individual against their will IS theft(2+2=4)”
Theft is the “unlawful” taking of something from someone. We give our government this right by voting for them. As yet no government has been elected to end taxes. Taxes are not considered as theft under the law.
“Then say that…
In instance B – A government taking something from an individual against their will is NOT theft(2+2=1)
It may serve your own selfish interests to rationalize government as the proverbial heroic “Robin hood”, justified by the feel good emotional plea of looking out for the needy, but Robin hood was still just a thief.”
Read the universal declaration of human rights, article 22 and 25. This sets out that a government must provide for the needs of its people. Taxes are a way of finding the money to do this.
“Stealing by proxy of government is still theft.
If you want it, go earn it. You don’t need government or your fictitious social contract to do so.
I could argue this indefinitely. However, I am on my way to selflessly contribute to others by delivering party supplies with my truck.
Have a nice day.”
You could argue this indefinitely but you will fail because article 30 states.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Charles
First, society does not exist in form – it is an abstraction.
Thus, your sentence would correctly read:
Then an army of MEN within a State will take the land from you
…to which I would say the following:
(1) They can try – and maybe they may win. But maybe not.
But more importantly,
You expose your mindset and that of those that work within the State.
You prove my point – the State and those that work within it are evil — that you willing condone, advocate and attack non-violent men, who have done nothing to you – and seize their land for your own benefit and not for some haughty (mis)belief of human rights.
Indeed – these are the truest words you have uttered, Charles.
The State and its minions are the total essence of evil.
Living in a prison cell is also incredibly stable as well – is this, thus, your measure of a good society – mere “stability”?
Indeed the State is the cause of the greatest horror, death, and destruction by man upon man. History has proven this without exception.
You continue to use fallacious statements.
The police does not prevent crime, unless you live with a police man.
The State may raise an army to defend itself from other States – but it is not defending ME.
The State takes what is mine already – whether the hands on the State change will not change its thievery of its own people
The British defeated the French in North America, but the State remained.
The colonialists defeated the British, but the State remained.
It remains because the fight is never between the People and the State, but a fight between States.
Fallacy, and circular.
What is legal is what government say is legal.
I do not agree nor submit to what other men in a room write on a piece paper that they demand binds me.
If you do, I have a peice of paper in front of me and ready to write…. will you submit?
You will have to provide you reasoning from principle – and not waste my time trying to use fallacy of arguments at me.
My personal acceptance is REQUIRED, for it is I who determines what I choose or choose not to do.
Otherwise, I would be like you – a mindless robot obeying any one with a paper and a pen and a pretty hat.
I cannot remove your Rights – this is true.
The UN document is not your Rights, nor did they give you your rights, nor can they -too- remove your Rights.
Ah, you just don’t get it.
I do not claim any authority over any other human being.
My personal authority extends to me.
As my personal authority cannot extend beyond me, no human being authority can extend beyond that person, themselves.
Anyone pretending that their authority extends over another person is a deceiver, an enslaver, a savage, a liar and evil.
Any Rightful government (an impossibility) can only derive its Rightful powers from a grant of the People.
No one can grant any power or right that one does not have.
Thus, NO Rightful GOVERNMENT has any power or Right greater than an individual.
Thus, ANY government exercising actions that would be a breach of human rights is undeniably illegitimate.
All governments have exercised actions that breach human rights
Therefore, NO government has ever been legitimate.
Do you claim property did not exist before government?
Do you claim Rights do not exist before government?
Charles, if you do, you are ignorant.
But I will give the benefit of doubt, and say you are not ignorant.
Thus, Property and Rights exist WITHOUT government and your statement is totally false.
With the State, there is always war.
“War is the health of the State”
Without the State, there is Freedom.
People maintain their own Rights – whether that is individually or collectively. But it is always the People, and never the State, that enforces Human Rights – for it is the State and its existence that is the greatest usurper and destroyer of human rights.
This is a complete lie.
As I a man, I do not hold such a definition for “right”.
Therefore, your statement is here is totally fabricated and false.
You certainly are painting the State in a violent color!
I agree, the Consequence of Savagery is the State and Government, and is directly opposed against Civilization.
Both the State and Civilization derive from the same Natural Law – the Law of Mutuality.
What I do to you, gives you Right to do to me.
The State – as you have pointed out – gets its power from the application of evil – initiation of violence upon non-violent men. Directly derived from the Natural Law, it is the consequence of “Might is Right” — I don’t care what you do to me, I’ll beat you into submission —
Civilization – at its foundation – is the immutable prohibition of violence on non-violent men. It dervives directly the Natural Law due to another consequence, Freedom. For me to be free, I cannot impose upon you – so that you have no right to impose upon me. We call this the “Golden Rule” — Do unto others as you would have them do unto you … is one verbalization of it.
You cannot have BOTH the State and Civilization be the basis of human organization. One is completely the opposite of the other in form, execution, premise and context.
Thus, Civilization and the State are directly oppossed to the other. As the State grow, Civilizations withers. As Civilization grows, the State withers.
The question does not revolve around force and violence – the Universe is violent.
The question and answers completely revolve around the initiation of violence. Evil is done not by defending one’s self (a violent act) but in ATTACKING another (also a violent act).
The difference between the violence and the determination of evil and Right is the difference between Attacking and Defending one’s self.
I do not need the State and its minions to defend me.
I would really like if the never attacked me, but that is a fantasy.
Yeah, sorry.
When you miss typing a “negation” it sort of turns the whole sentence backwards.
It was to say:
“This DOES come naturally because you CANNOT enjoy the nourishment of my meal at the same time I do. Only one of us can eat it.”
Yeah, that’s better.
Ah, and why not?
You stated the Property Rights came after government – yet, humans have decided on Property Rights and ownership since the dawn of time — Naturally —
Thus your statement clearly cannot be true in any sense or context.
I could careless if they were surprised or not.
The State IS redundant, and worse, evil.
The Universe is a very big place, so I can say confidently, this statement is false.
I can say this is false.
There are very, very, very many like me in this thinking – some clearer then others.
I waste enough time debunking your thinking.
I will waste none of my time explaining anything to government.
Government, at their core, is irrational and violent.
It must use violence to enforce itself because no one would obey it otherwise since its edicts are all irrational, without merit or redundant.
As you pointed out above, the only answer government has for all human problems is violence. It knows nothing else.
It is wholly irrational, and as such, pointless to argue with it.
You did better this time, Charles. At least you made three (somewhat) true statements.
Yes, it may not go away soon – People love evil too much to let it go.
But saying so WILL cause it to go away – no person who is honest to reason and their own principles can ever -ever- stand for government.
One day, the People will become civilized, and the State will evaporate.
It is not the end of the State that will make People free.
When the People free themselves, the State will end.
Charles,
A few quick questions:
The UN did not exist before 1945.
Do you claim you had no rights until 1945?
If the UN dissolved tomorrow, do you claim your rights dissolve with the UN?
If the UK as a State dissolved, do you claim your rights dissolve with it?
Why or why not?
Cheers!
A few quick questions:
The UN did not exist before 1945.
Funny enough it does not matter, when the UN was created, only that what humans right “should be” where agreed by the worlds governments. Rights are improved all the time by voluntary agreement.
Do you claim you had no rights until 1945?
I only claim that a stardard of what human rights “should be” has been agreed voluntary by all the worlds governments. UK law makes most of these rights binding under UK law. Or do you not like voluntary agreements, democracy (elected representatives of the people acting on their behalf) or the rule of law to protect rights?
“If the UK as a State dissolved, do you claim your rights dissolve with it?”
UK as a State cannot be dissolved, there is no legal way it can happen and all of the world recognize the UK as a state and a member of the UN. If there was no government, one would have to be created but the state will still exist. The new government would be required to still maintain the rights of its people under UK and international law.
Charles
Well, isn’t that really funny!
You use the UN to determine your rights, but it doesn’t matter when the UN determined your rights?!?
NOT TRUE!
Human Rights are immutable, and existed the moment humanity existed and will as long as human existed.
There is no “improvement” of Human Rights!
You are very, very, very confused between Human Condition and Human Rights.
The Human Condition has and will continue to improve (even faster when government ends), but Human Rights remain precisely and immutably the same.
You did not answer the question, Charles!
Why do you avoid such a straight forward question??
Do you claim you had no rights until 1945?
Yes or No.
So what?
Are you saying that the tribes in South America do not have Human Rights because they are not bound by UK law?
Do Brits have different human rights then, say, the Swiss, or the Vatican?
The Plains Indians of North America do not have human rights?
I love them!
But I did not agree, so how can it be voluntary for ME??
I am a person, and they do not act on my behalf, therefore what they agree to (or not) is not my agreement (or not).
Based on who’s law?
I do not need a law to protect my rights – I have all the power in myself to do such protection.
If you wish to CODIFY my right as a law, it must be done so NOT TO destroy any of my rights.
If such a law -to protect my rights- destroys my rights, what’s the point of the law??
That is not the discussion – I know you cannot answer my question and will flip and flap to no end to avoid it.
Please answer the question!
(PS: The UK can most certainly dissolve – countries are abstractions of human organization and can be just as easily un-abstracted by humans)
Baloney!
The (whatever is left after UK) could easily repudiate its UN treaty by mere declaration.
Do your human rights dissolve? Yes or No.
“First, society does not exist in form – it is an abstraction.”
A “society” or a human society is (1) a group of people related to each other through persistent relations such as social status, roles and social networks. (2) A large social grouping that shares the same
geographical territory and is subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.
See meaning number two, such a thing does indeed exist. Non Sequitur.
“Thus, your sentence would correctly read:
Then an army of MEN within a State will take the land from you”
Text book Straw Man, I prvoed my use of the word society was correct and so my statement stand as is.
“…to which I would say the following:
(1) They can try – and maybe they may win. But maybe not.”
Missing the Point….
“But more importantly,
You expose your mindset and that of those that work within the State.”
Stereotyping/Oversimplification/Hasty Generalization/Guilt by Association/Faulty Comparison.
“You prove my point – the State and those that work within it are evil — that you willing condone, advocate and attack non-violent men, who have done nothing to you – and seize their land for your own
benefit and not for some haughty (mis)belief of human rights.”
Stereotyping/Loaded Language/Straw Man/Jumping to Conclusions. The function of human rights is to limit the use of violence by the state to what is necessary for the common good of all, and to protect
people from the power of the state, for example a police man/woman would only be able to kill a citizen in self-defence. UK human right act 1998
Article 2: Right to life. A person has the right to have their life protected by law. There are only certain very limited circumstances where it is acceptable for the state to take away someone’s life, e.g.
if a police officer acts justifiably in selfdefence.
“Indeed – these are the truest words you have uttered, Charles.”
Straw Man
“The State and its minions are the total essence of evil.”
Stereotyping
“Living in a prison cell is also incredibly stable as well – is this, thus, your measure of a good society – mere “stability”?”
Missing the Point…. In the state without a government violence is common but the state with a government there is very little violence.
“Indeed the State is the cause of the greatest horror, death, and destruction by man upon man. History has proven this without exception.”
Hasty Generalization/Loaded Language/Jumping to Conclusions.
“You continue to use fallacious statements.”
Prove I am making fallacious statements.
“The police does not prevent crime, unless you live with a police man.”
The best deterrent of police is the fear of being caught, the lenghts some people go to not to be caught is well documented. Even so police do prevent crime but not all crime.
“The State may raise an army to defend itself from other States – but it is not defending ME.”
Non Sequitur, an armies function is to protect the property (lands) of a states people from attack by another state that wish to take that property (land) and to also protect the people living there from
harm.
“The State takes what is mine already – whether the hands on the State change will not change its thievery of its own people”
Persuasive Definition – You are just trying to win your argument by trying to get me to accept your faulty definitions. We covered why the UK government does not steal from its own people, saying the
government does over and over again, does not make it any more true than the first time. I have provided evidence why this reasoning is faulty and why the UK government acts lawfully.
“The British defeated the French in North America, but the State remained.
The colonialists defeated the British, but the State remained.”
Two states where created Canada and the USA, these states had not existed before. What states might have existed before I do not know.
“It remains because the fight is never between the People and the State, but a fight between States.”
The fight is between the people of the two states. States are not entities that can act without people, you can say one state is at war with the other but it is the people that fight.
“Fallacy, and circular.
What is legal is what government say is legal.”
And yet we elect that government voluntary by voting, have given it the right to create laws on our behalf and enforce them, be careful who you vote for. This is not circular logic as this is true.
“I do not agree nor submit to what other men in a room write on a piece paper that they demand binds me.”
This is a statement of your personal opinion.
“If you do, I have a peice of paper in front of me and ready to write…. will you submit?”
False Dilemma, the people of this country have given you no right to create laws.
“You will have to provide you reasoning from principle – and not waste my time trying to use fallacy of arguments at me.”
And yet I disprove any claims you have made to fallacies in my posts. Why can you not accept what people have voluntary agreed to form a government by voting? And that that government can act on our behalf
by creating laws. That those laws and agreements give us rights and those rights protect us. You accept the voluntary agreements of people in economics but reject it will it creates something you don’t
want. Do you accept the the voluntary agreements people acting together with a shared interest or are you special pleading. Or do you not agree that people can make voluntary agreements with each other.
Or are these agreements only valid when they are only in your interest? You seem to take this same view with human rights, only valid when in your interest.
“My personal acceptance is REQUIRED, for it is I who determines what I choose or choose not to do.”
Not everyone can agree, that why the UK uses a plurality voting system.
“Otherwise, I would be like you – a mindless robot obeying any one with a paper and a pen and a pretty hat.”
Prejudicial Language or Loaded Language
“I cannot remove your Rights – this is true.
The UN document is not your Rights, nor did they give you your rights, nor can they -too- remove your Rights.”
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal
system, social convention, or ethical theory. Example UK Human rights act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR – legal system), universal declaration of human rights (voluntary agreed social
convention, world wide agreement) and UK law (legal system).
“Ah, you just don’t get it.
I do not claim any authority over any other human being.
My personal authority extends to me.
As my personal authority cannot extend beyond me, no human being authority can extend beyond that person, themselves.”
Yet you expect people to give you the right to own property, even if that costs them their life. Your right to property do matter what!! What authority you seek to give yourself, a kingdom noone has a
right to touch. All heil king Black flag and his natural right to rule his property and lands as he see fit! Naturally people would have to follow your rules to live on your land?
“Anyone pretending that their authority extends over another person is a deceiver, an enslaver, a savage, a liar and evil.”
When you make an agreement that is between you and another person, that agreement cannot by your reasoning extend to others or you become, “a deceiver, an enslaver, a savage, a liar and evil.” The problem
here with land ownership, is that other people must have to respect that agreement also, they have not voluntary agreed to anything and by what authority can you claim ownership anyway if you have no
authority over other people. That agreement on ownership must have authority over everyone, if one person is to have individual ownership. This is a contradiction in your argument, you most show how it is
not one.
“Any Rightful government (an impossibility) can only derive its Rightful powers from a grant of the People.”
“Any Rightful government (an impossibility)” a statement of opinion, government is accepted as rightful if its creation follows the agreed procedure of the people that voted for it. Not because you do not
wish to accept any form of government. Prove why any rightful government is an impossibility?
“No one can grant any power or right that one does not have.
Thus, NO Rightful GOVERNMENT has any power or Right greater than an individual.”
Then noone can claim ownership of any land. That would give them greater rights than other individuals that do not own any land. Again a contradiction as noone can have greater rights than an individual.
Again its up to you to explain this or your argument is invalid.
“Thus, ANY government exercising actions that would be a breach of human rights is undeniably illegitimate.”
We accept what human rights are, by voluntary agreeing what they should be. There is no God-given and inalienable rights stardand to live by, other than what which we can agree between ourselves. Where we
find common ground, then we can form an agreement, I covered the agreements and common ground found many times in this debate. Freedom is not free, and neither are any rights and one way or another every
right you claim must be paid for by someone else. If you are granted the right to own something like land for example, someone else losses the right to own that land. In fact everyone else in the country
losses the right to own or use that land, all so one human being can claim it as their own.
“Do you claim property did not exist before government?
Do you claim Rights do not exist before government?
Charles, if you do, you are ignorant.
But I will give the benefit of doubt, and say you are not ignorant.
Thus, Property and Rights exist WITHOUT government and your statement is totally false.”
Very poor, but answered above more or less.
“With the State, there is always war.
“War is the health of the State””
I am sorry but kill one another is not something the state created. Humans have been making war on each other well before our record history.
“Without the State, there is Freedom.
People maintain their own Rights – whether that is individually or collectively. But it is always the People, and never the State, that enforces Human Rights – for it is the State and its existence that is
the greatest usurper and destroyer of human rights.”
The problem is we cannot give ourselves rights, right are something that is accepted collectively by others and given to us. Rights can then only be maintained by essentially using authority imposed by
superiors upon inferiors either by force of arms (structural authority) or by force of argument (sapiential authority). Otherwise any rights are simply ignored. Those that don’t want those rights to be
given find it imposed by structural authority if everyone else agree and those that agree by sapiential authority accept them. Only by using both methods can a standard of rights be maintained/enforced.
The only individual that can grant himself rights and not be given them by other, is the tyrant. The tyrant grants himself rights from his position of authority and exercises power only in his interest,
more or less these rights are paid for by those he oppresses.
“This is a complete lie.
As I a man, I do not hold such a definition for “right”.
Therefore, your statement is here is totally fabricated and false.”
Crap you do this almost every statement you make. Example “Anyone pretending that their authority extends over another person is a deceiver, an enslaver, a savage, a liar and evil.”, let me guess you don’t
find government is right, you dont feel its good for yourself? This totally fabricated and false statement you manage to prove right every other sentance.
“You certainly are painting the State in a violent color!”
You are trying to make your position mine, it not so straw man. You are the one trying with dispersion to paint the state in a violent colour.
“I agree, the Consequence of Savagery is the State and Government, and is directly opposed against Civilization.”
You agree with yourself how nice for you. Primarily civilization, the term has been used to refers to human cultures which are more complex in terms of technology, politics and division of labour. I wonder
what politics part is, could it be a form of government?
“Both the State and Civilization derive from the same Natural Law – the Law of Mutuality.”
The term “natural law” is ambiguous and you given no source for this Law of Mutuality! Your argument is based on inconsistency, define what “natural law” means to you.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/ – natural law see first sentance.
“What I do to you, gives you Right to do to me.”
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth morality, very old testament.
“The State – as you have pointed out – gets its power from the application of evil – initiation of violence upon non-violent men. Directly derived from the Natural Law, it is the consequence of “Might is
Right” — I don’t care what you do to me, I’ll beat you into submission —”
The govenment enforces the laws, that people have given it consent for it to create, by using force if required only for the common good. Human rights and the rules of law also act to limit what the force
can be. Natural Law is totally ambiguous, you can derive anything from it!
“Civilization – at its foundation – is the immutable prohibition of violence on non-violent men. It dervives directly the Natural Law due to another consequence, Freedom. For me to be free, I cannot impose
upon you – so that you have no right to impose upon me. We call this the “Golden Rule” — Do unto others as you would have them do unto you … is one verbalization of it.”
Great you have no right to impose property rights on me, I dont want it and you have no right to impose upon me. This is another contradiction in your argument. GZ
“You cannot have BOTH the State and Civilization be the basis of human organization. One is completely the opposite of the other in form, execution, premise and context.”
And yet we do, everywhere. Non Sequitur.
“Thus, Civilization and the State are directly oppossed to the other. As the State grow, Civilizations withers. As Civilization grows, the State withers.
”
And at posibility the high of human civilization, we live in a world full of states. In fact states and human civilization have never been as great or had as much power over our world in the whole of human
history. Contradiction maybe? GZ
“The question does not revolve around force and violence – the Universe is violent.”
So is what humans call Civilization, it his alot of violence. There is a Global Peace Index to messure it, source The Economist but it has it problems. The UK has a low level of violence.
“The question and answers completely revolve around the initiation of violence. Evil is done not by defending one’s self (a violent act) but in ATTACKING another (also a violent act).”
A violent act is one that intends to hurt or damage someone or something, self-defence would not fit this definition in that you do not set out or intended to hurt or damage someone.
It should be noted that in countries with strong government systems with the laws and rights I have given, seem to have low levels of violence on the Global Peace Index. Somalia with little or no government
and many new articals called it a failed state, has very high levels of violence. Why is that so, seems like a contradiction? GZ
“The difference between the violence and the determination of evil and Right is the difference between Attacking and Defending one’s self.”
Some people like the Jains would not agree, like I said in another post. Every man labels what he thinks is good for himself as right. Jains emphasize the importance of not injuring living beings, and their
code of ethics is based on sympathy and compassion for all forms of life. The Digambaras (‘sky-clad’) believe that enlightenment can only occur when all possessions have been given up. Bible is the same
with the fact that all possessions have been given up for you to be rightous. The rich man cannot get into heaven and all that, so it is better to be poor. If you think it is good, you will tend to believe
its right as well.
“I do not need the State and its minions to defend me.”
Move to Somalia, no state to defend you there.
“I would really like if the never attacked me, but that is a fantasy.”
Okay covered this topic I guess.
“Yeah, sorry.
When you miss typing a “negation” it sort of turns the whole sentence backwards.
”
I just could not get what you ment sorry.
“It was to say:
“This DOES come naturally because you CANNOT enjoy the nourishment of my meal at the same time I do. Only one of us can eat it.”
Yeah, that’s better.”
Much better, but you can share some of your meal its an option. So I can enjoy “some” of the nourishment of your meal at the same time as you but as you say we cannot both eat all of the meal ourselves.
“Ah, and why not?
You stated the Property Rights came after government – yet, humans have decided on Property Rights and ownership since the dawn of time — Naturally —
Thus your statement clearly cannot be true in any sense or context.”
Look there is so much wrong with this argument, because property rights are given by a authority, in the past most authority was maintained by force. You obey or you are killed. That is the first problem,
the second is there is no natural real provable right of ownership really, no being/natural authority says you can own land or own resources like water. What you have, you must fight to keep, animals fight
for territory, hell ants have wars with each other. http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57444/ You are trying to create a false dilemma.
“I could careless if they were surprised or not.
The State IS redundant, and worse, evil.”
In your opinion it is redundant, a thing is not redundant if it is more or less universally used. “and worse, evil.” reason needed or just a statement of opinion.
“The Universe is a very big place, so I can say confidently, this statement is false.”
Far-Fetched Hypothesis indeed.
“I can say this is false.”
Still a universally accepted concept.
“There are very, very, very many like me in this thinking – some clearer then others.”
Your way of thinking is quite rare to find, that why I talk to you. Even if very, very, very many people think the world is flat, does that make it more likely to be true?
“I waste enough time debunking your thinking.”
You did not, thats the problem you are left with.
“I will waste none of my time explaining anything to government.”
You see the contradiction maybe?
“Government, at their core, is irrational and violent.”
Not always true, but sometimes government is irrational and sometimes it can be violent. Rights are ment to be a protection from government but rights do not alway act as protection. Rights are sometimes
ignored.
“It must use violence to enforce itself because no one would obey it otherwise since its edicts are all irrational, without merit or redundant.”
Government does not have to use violence to enforce itself, in many countries we vote for our government and this is a right. Government does use violence of the threat of it to enforce laws, this is on our
behalf for the great good or to maintain order.
“As you pointed out above, the only answer government has for all human problems is violence. It knows nothing else.”
This is not my position, government does use violence or the threat of it in some limited cases, human rights and laws define these. The only answer is not always violence, agreement can be made you are making a hasty generalization.
“It is wholly irrational, and as such, pointless to argue with it.”
Hedging?
“You did better this time, Charles. At least you made three (somewhat) true statements.”
“Yes, it may not go away soon – People love evil too much to let it go.”
Evil in your opinion.
“But saying so WILL cause it to go away – no person who is honest to reason and their own principles can ever -ever- stand for government.”
And yet it is better than no governmen….
“One day, the People will become civilized, and the State will evaporate.”
I showed the contradiction.
“It is not the end of the State that will make People free.
When the People free themselves, the State will end.”
Like Somalia for example. Somaliland an unrecognized state, how did that come about if the people where free without a state? Why create a government if they where living in your and make a state if they where living in your vission of a utopia of freedom?
Charles,
You have demonstrated exactly what I said.
Society is an ABSTRACTION and does not exist in reality.
You do not seem to understand the word “abstraction”…..
Not one bit.
You created a scenario of the State attacking non-violent men for its whim, enforcing its doctrine of “Might is Right”.
“Might is Right” wholly depends on who is victorious, and nothing else.
The point: between two methods of human resolutions (Rights vs. Violence), you select Violence as your methodology, and I agree – that is your choice and not mine.
Wake up, Charles!
It was YOU who provided the example!
Utter nonsense!
The function of Human Rights is NOT to limit the use of violence by the State!
The function of Human Rights is to establish the principles of Human Action!
Human rights is not “…you must stop this…”
Human rights is “…this is my right to do this…”
Common Good:
No such thing exists. There exists no “good” that is common to all people.
This is “Common Good” is used as a justification to commit great evil upon some of the people to the benefit of some other people, and nothing else.
Self-defense:
Is a HUMAN RIGHT, and has nothing to do whether he is a agent of the State or not.
There is no “acceptable” way the State may act which is any different or greater than the Rights of an Individual to act.
Are you calling your own argument a Strawman???
Nonsense!
It is a definition:
Evil is the use of violence on non-violent men.
The State and its minions use violence on non-violent men as a matter of its essence and requirement, and therefore are evil.
Utter nonsense and ignorance!
The State – in the 20th Century – has slaughtered more the 200 million people of its own citizens – and this does not count the slaughter of State-on-State war.
No “non-government” violence evens approaches a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of this slaughter!
You are blinded by the illusion of the State – which monopolizes violence in all its forms and thus acts to prohibit competition in violence, but expands its own violence over all things.
Thus, you believe the minor violence of a local thug is far more a threat then the extinction of mankind by the weapons of war of the State.
Fact.
See above and my past posts, nothing has changed.
Nonsense – this is not at all what the studies have shown.
Police and law do not deter criminals, by the fact that no matter how many police, much or vicious the law, crime stats do not change over the long term, because those that already act in awareness of consequences of actions do not need law to avoid criminal acts.
Criminals act by opportunity as they do not equate act with consequences. They equate act with immediate gratification.
Thus, the consequences to criminals is the removal of instant gratification, not any future “threat” of jail.
Thus, crime is prevented by the individual acting, that is, a robber does not rob me because he fears police, but because he fears my response in protecting myself, family and property.
When the robber does not fear my response, he will act against me, and no amount of Police or law or jail will alter his course.
I prevent crime, not because of the law or police, but because I resist the crime upon me
Nonsense!
It matters not which tanks of what State runs over the land!
As you pointed above, the State takes whatever it wants by whim. Whether the hands on the State change does not matter nor change this circumstance.
My definition is clear and direct.
You wish to alter the Truth of the Argument by distorting the definition.
Theft is the taking of an others property without their voluntary consent.
Murder is the killing of a non-violent person.
It simply does not matter whether you declare theft legal or murder legal.
The results of these actions do not change because you call it “legal” – property is taken and the life is lost.
As such, the consequences of these actions on society do not change.
Property which is taken without consent, if it becomes pervasive, will create social disruption and disorder and eventual collapse.
Murder of non-violent people, if it becomes pervasive, will create social disruption and disorder and eventual collapse.
It does not matter how much confusion you have on this matter, or what semantic change or change of definition you wish to apply to these argument - the Truth and Consequences of these actions is absolute.
By fact and definition, the government steals from the people.
It matters not whether you declare this theft legal or not.
Correct. The first time I said it was the truth, and remains so.
As already pointed out, many times – it matters not whether the theft is “legal” or not.
Theft destroys social order. Period.
A State (British North America) existed before and was replaced by a State(s).
Nothing changed upon the People under a State.
A State was, and a State remained.
It is always a war between States, but the killing and the dying is suffered by the People.
All human action is ultimately individual
“Fallacy, and circular.
What is legal is what government say is legal.”
And yet we elect that government voluntary by voting
You continue to pervert your argument with the word “we”.
There is no “we”.
I am not in your gang of robbers and murders, so do not include ME.
YOU elect whomever YOU wish, but you do not BIND ME to you by YOUR vote.
You cannot give any rights you do not have.
You do not have the right to steal or kill non-violent people.
You cannot, therefore, grant such right to government, nor make laws making such evil “legal”.
And there is no “our” – there is YOU and YOUR gang. It does not include ME at all.
I refuse to vote for evil regardless of whose hands hold it.
It is not true as you attempt to apply YOUR vote to bind ME to your agreement.
I do NOT agree with your vote nor am I bound to it.
Utter nonsense!
It is a FACT because it is ME!
I…DO…NOT..AGREE…TO…WHAT…OTHER….MEN…MAY…WRITE…ON…PAPER..THAT…THEY….CLAIM…BINDS…ME!
A Statement of FACT, Charles.
Good for you!
Thus, quid pro quo, I have given you no right to create laws about me, either
You have disproven nothing of the sort. You have repeated the same fallacies once again.
I have NOT agreed to such an formation, and I do not care if YOU vote for it or not – your agreement does not bind me to that agreement.
Whatever agreement YOU make, I do not care – it not my business because I am not part of that agreement.
But your agreement does NOT bind me. I am not, and never have been, part of YOUR agreements.
There is no “our”. Period.
If you agree government can act on YOUR behalf, I have no comment as it is not my business with what YOU agree or disagree.
But no matter what agreement YOU make, does not make any matter to me. And regardless of your agreement, you HAVE NO RIGHT to impose it upon me.
You and your gang can agree to whatever bizarre beliefs and acts you wish. It matters not to me.
If you all agree to tattoo your foreheads with “Slaves to the State”, be my guest – I do not care as it is not my forehead.
But there is NO right for you to force me to submit to your tattoo.
I accept VOLUNTARY agreements, certainly. And you can make whatever agreement you wish to make with whomever you wish to make (or not).
But YOUR agreement does not BIND me.
I do not care about any agreement you make without me. It is not my business nor concern.
I do not care one wit about what agreements other people make with each other.
It is not my business nor does it effect me as I am not part of their agreements.
I ONLY care about the agreements I make myself. Period.
No matter how many people in your agreement, or what you may agree with or not, Your agreement does not bind me.
Those agreements only bind those that are party to it. I am not party to YOUR agreement as I am not you.
Human Rights are Rights for all humans and are immutable. It does not matter what you agree to or not, Human Rights do not change, improve or diminish.
That which I do not agree, does not bind me.
As you agreed that VOLUNTARY agreement is binding, you did not agree to my writing.
Equally then, you must agree that my REFUSAL of your or your “gangs” writing makes your writing not binding upon me.
..and thus, I repeat:
The UN document is NOT your Rights, nor did it GIVE you your Rights, no can it REMOVE your rights.
I do not know how to be more clear – especially when you present arguments in my favor!
No Human Right can exist that destroys Human Rights. That is a contradiction, and contradictions cannot exist in the Universe.
Thus, any declaration of a Human “right” which contradicts Human Rights cannot be such.
Any attempt by man to manifest a contradiction is the root cause of all human-created evil and suffering.
I did not agree, thus cannot be “world wide” nor inclusive.
Whether you agree or not to it matters not one wit to me.
You cannot give to me what I already have
You cannot give me Rights.
Follow closely, Charles, for this is where you fail:
(1)You cannot give what you do not have.
(2)For you to have such Right to give to me must mean you have that Right yourself.
(3)You cannot have any HUMAN right that I do not also have, as I am a HUMAN too.
(4)Your grant of a HUMAN right to me is redundant, as I must already have such Right because I am Human, like you.
(5) Thus, your grant is NONSENSE and non-existent.
My Right to Property is MY Right, because I am Human not because of any grant by you or your gang.
You got it!
A kingdom of One of which NO ONE has a Right to touch.
“All”? No, Just ONE – ME.
You go hail yourself in yours – I care not one wit.
They voluntarily come to my land, they can voluntarily leave if they choose.
Please review the concept of “CCT” I posted to Futile a thread or so back. If you missed, I can repost it for your education.
None whatsoever.
My authority extends over me and mine, and no one else or anything else.
Nope. You do not have to agree at all – but that would make you a Savage.
No contradiction at all.
My authority extends to me and mine, not you and yours.
There is no contradiction here.
Are you devoid of comprehension today?
I laid it out above already.
(1)A “Rightful” Government can only derive Rightful powers from a grant of the People.
(2)The People cannot grant what it does not have.
(3)Thus a “Rightful” Government has no more Rights then the Individual.
(4)All Government -in all times- have exercised action that no Individual has a Right to act.
Therefore, NO government has been “Rightful”
QED.
Of course an individual can.
He is standing on HIS land. It is HIS land.
You have NO RIGHT to it, as it is HIS land.
They can get their own land.
They have the same right as I, they can stand on their OWN land.
They cannot stand where I stand – thus, they must stand on their own land, where I have no right to stand.
No matter how I explain, I am sure you cannot comprehend it.
A Human Right exists without your agreement.
It is IMMUTABLE to your agreement or disagreement.
That is what RIGHT means – it does not require any justification for its existence – it merely requires its application on ALL humans no matter where.
You ignorance of the existence of such Rights does not dispel them.
Your agreement that evil is not evil does not turn evil into good.
Further, your ignorance of Truth does not dispel Truth nor make Truth an error.
Thus, your seeking is your fallacy – you seek agreement, NOT TRUTH.
Your search should be for TRUTH, and that is where you fail.
…and you think I contradict myself!
This is an out and out lie.
My ownership of THIS land did not prevent you owning THAT land.
I agree.
But we are talking about WAR the “legitimized” slaughter of humanity – and THAT IS created by the STATE.
Your attempt at misdirection is thwarted.
NOT TRUE.
War is specifically a POLITICAL act of determining ruler-ship over territory and people.
War is the consequence of the STATE.
It is not a problem.
We do not have to give ourselves what we already have by being Human.
Such elitism, Charles!
Who are your “inferiors”?
Who are your “superiors”?
What Right do you invoke to push other Humans beings into such depraved classifications?
Bingo!
As I pointed out, there are two ways of human organization:
Violent vs Freedom
Government vs Civilization
The Sword vs The Word
Irrational vs Reason
Pick one, and you exclude the other.
Rights are ignored by Savages, and respected by Civilized men.
Pick one side, and you exclude yourself from the other side.
Contradiction.
One side enforces itself without reason.
The other uses reason to determine Rightful force.
The two – at their premise – contradict the other.
One cannot both use reason and irrational argument.
Hence, your folly.
False!
A tyrant gives himself rights that he denies others
You continually try to apply YOUR ARGUMENT and AGREEMENT as if they were MY ARGUMENT and MY AGREEMENT.
That is why you see this repeatedly, because you incessantly continue such attempts.
Apply your AGREEMENTS to YOURSELF and leave me out of it, and clarity of MY position will appear.
I do not find government “right” by its premise, and as a consequence its actions.
As it is an entity that by its roots and core requires evil, I refuse it.
It does not matter that such an evil maybe a “good” for me. In fact, in my life it was a good for me as I was in the Air Force, and as such derived my living as a minion.
When I achieved a point where the contradiction of the support of evil slammed against my principles of human rights and freedom – I had a choice – walk away from the evil and suffer massive economic loss or justify the evil as my “good” and enjoy economic success.
I walked away – and as such suffered the loss of my house, fancy car, most of my possessions, the company and care of most of my family and my friends who all believed me insane to adhere to my principles over my well-being. I suffered in abject poverty, lived in the back of a van I had managed to park in a lot behind a strip-club and bar (essentially a brothel) and lived on the street. But my principles remained intact and immutable.
And because of those principles and my immutable adherence to them, I became successful and wealthy, most of my family returned and I made new, and much better, friends.
The root of all civilization is the immutable prohibition of initiation of violence.
Without that, division of labor collapses into slavery
Without that, the freedom of innovation is retracted.
Without that, voluntary association collapses into coercion.
Without that, the roots of civilization is poisoned and cannot stand.
Politics is not government.
Politics “is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions”
There is nothing inherent with collective decisions.
Those made voluntarily create society order.
Those made by violence destroys society order.
The former are made by free men.
The latter is the ONLY method of government.
Natural law is not ambiguous – is the the Laws of Nature which operate throughout the Universe and are immutable.
I defined it SPECIFICALLY, but as usual, you cannot comprehend it.
…..that is but ONE of its consequences…. and yes, it is a Natural Law, immutable.
No such thing as a “common good” – an impossibility and a fallacy to base any action upon.
I have given no consent.
And you agree, the enforcement of law – the initiation of violence to enforce its edicts is the EVIL, and as it is the ONLY TOOL of Government makes government evil.
“Might is Right”
Government makes the law thus government can grant itself unlimited violence. As long as the People are like you, and agree to legitimize government, the greatest slaughters of humanity have been the consequence.
Bizarre claim!
Natural Law is NOT irrational – in fact, is PERFECTLY RATIONAL.
We discover Natural Law by a search for immutable Truth. Truth is found by REASON and any attempt to use irrational belief and argument leads AWAY from such Truth.
I do not impose “Property Rights” on you. There is nothing to impose.
Property Rights exist as a means to determine OWNERSHIP – as exhaustively already presented to you, ownership is required to determine exclusive use – for you cannot eat the same meal I eat – so one of us must exclude the other of such eating.
Property Rights derive from the process you articulated above – ARGUMENT by REASON.
This is NOT an imposition and your flawed attempt of ignorance does not make is to.
We have CONFLICT everywhere between the State and Civilization – but we are hardly civilized.
You advocate for the entity that slaughters women and children in foreign countries – hardly an act of “civilized men”.
Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization, said:
I think it would be a good idea.
Your measure, sir, is sickening.
The slaughter of hundreds of millions of humanity by the State is your claim of “high civilization”.
You confuse material goods, a full stomach and comedy TV as a civilization – and you ignore the roots of civilization as your measure.
Murder, rape and the final proof that Britain should never have fought this shaming war
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1323433/WikiLeaks-Iraq-war-logs-Murder-rape-proof-Britain-fought.html
Indeed, your blinders serve you well.
Damn right I intend to hurt damage someone who is attacking me!
What do you do, dance a waltz???
Gee, I checked Iraq (has a government), Afghanistan (has a government), Mao China (had a government, Reich Germany (had a government), Soviet Russia (had a government)….so on and so forth…
All you demonstrate is your blinders – that as long as the State places its violence off your shores you are in favor of government on your shore.
Thus, you expose your theory of Human Rights – that only some humans have them and others do not depends on what line on the map happens to be drawn.
Charles,
I do not justify MY principles as correct for YOU.
I cannot prove that my principles are RIGHT for you, because my principles begin with a premise – an axiom.
I cannot prove that the axiom I hold is must be yours, because – by definition – an axiom is unprovable.
You can claim a different axiom then mine and I could not disprove YOURS from MINE.
Thus, the measure is not whether I can disprove your principle by using MY principles, nor that you can disprove MY principles by using Yours – but by the CONSISTENCY you apply your own principles upon your own actions and beliefs.
Thus, I judge YOU and declare YOU right or wrong based on YOUR principles and the consistency YOU apply them to YOU.
The root basis, however, is Natural Law – and that of freedom.
For you to hold YOUR axiom, you must be FREE to choose it for yourself.
Without Freedom, you cannot choose your own axiom and thus, cannot manifest your own principles or purpose your own life.
Without Freedom, nothing else matters.
The freedom to path themselves to their own enlightenment is root and core.
“There are many paths to the top of the mountain.
We all gaze upon the same Moon”
Or better, how about you move to N. Korea – nothing but the State to guard you.
It is my decision, and not yours, regarding how much I need for my needs.
You cannot eat what I eat – and if you steal what I eat, I will starve. Thus, I will exclude you -either by Reason or by Violence – but that choice starts with you.
You contradict yourself.
You yourself argued there are two methods:
Violence or Reason
Thus, property rights have ALWAYS EXISTED with humanity, independent of “government”.
*blink*
So you believe the Universe is a small place??? Or you believe you know everything about it to make your “universal” claim?
Which one, Charle?
You believe you know everything in the Universe?
But I do not hold your concept – so your claim is self-evidently false
You shield yourself from those like me, so without wonder, you find few.
Nope, that is why I demand your reasoning, and not your fallacies.
Your fallacies have remained unchanged.
So has your thinking – and remains dangerously flawed.
It is futile to reason with irrational people. Hardly a contradiction.
ALWAYS True.
It is its PREMISE.
Monopoly of violence within a geographical area
ALL LAW is the use of VIOLENCE to enforce an edict.
The only answer government has to human problems is VIOLENCE (ie: Law and War)
An entity whose ONLY response to human problems is violence is an IRRATIONAL entity (even you agreed -above- with this with your Violence vs Reason argument).
False in totality.
Rights do not exist to protect people from the deprivations of evil.
Rights exist to determine rightful human action by reason
Because of your serious error here, most of your other arguments go wildly off base.
It does nothing else – and self-evidently so.
That is the definition of LAW – use of violence to enforce edicts.
No LAW exists without the use or threat of use of violence. Law is not a suggestion!
It is NOT a Human Right – because as you admit, it is not a grant to all humans.
It maybe a Right given to yourself and your gang to pick your own gang leader, but it is not mine nor does this right have any meaning TO ME.
No such thing as a “greater good” – it is an excuse of some to inflict violence on non-violent people for the benefit of some.
Maintain Order, untrue. Laws which justify theft and murder causes societal disorder.
I agree – between people, we can choose non-violent solutions!
But I am pointing to government and it is not hasty. Violence is the condition of all government in all times and in all places.
There are no exceptions.
Fact.
By definition.
When any entity of evil is dispelled, the freedom of men will grow.
…only in your argument.
As you point, it is not a State but is geography – you are obviously confused between these descriptions.
“They” did not make a State, nor did they want one returned.
You need to fill in your understanding of Somalia a bit better …..
I laugh at people who use “utopia” – it displays their complete lack of understanding…
Utopia was written by St. Thomas More, who described a society that was full controlled and had no personal freedom.
Everyone thought the same, believed in the same things, looked the same….etc.
He thought full control over the People would create perfect Peace.
Utopia is your desire, Charles – and my nightmare.
Charles,
I thought this would clarify and hopefully halt your continuation of “we” when you speak of government.
Patrick Henry – Virginia – 1788
And here I would make this enquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late Federal Convention.
I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated Government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated Government is demonstrably clear, and the danger of such a Government, is, to my mind, very striking.
I have the highest veneration of those Gentlemen,–but, Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We, the People.
My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the People…
“I have NOT agreed to such an formation, and I do not care if YOU vote for it or not – your agreement does not bind me to that agreement.
Whatever agreement YOU make, I do not care – it not my business because I am not part of that agreement.
But your agreement does NOT bind me. I am not, and never have been, part of YOUR agreements.”
Then how do you justify land ownership?
I have NOT agreed to such an formation, and I do not care if YOU vote for it or not – your agreement does not bind me to that agreement.
Whatever agreement YOU make, I do not care – it not my business because I am not part of that agreement.
But your agreement does NOT bind me. I am not, and never have been, part of YOUR agreements.
Charles,
I bought it.
(the second “C” of the CCT)
Then we fall back to the first “C” of the CCT, if you wish to try to stand where I stand…
Your replacement for government coercion, which is in some way accountable, just creates individaul tyranny which is not accountable in any way. This is the obvious contradiction. Its fatal because your goal is maximum freedom for the individuals.
Charles,
I will trade the centralized, legitimized, massed and organization evil of millions for the decentralized, illegitimate and criminal, dispersed and disorganized evil of one.
Obviously not.
The threat of one man does not scare me (but maybe you).
The threat of thousands of trained robots under the command of one scares me (but not you).
One man will not be likely to take my freedom.
Thousands of trained, armed, brainwashed murderers is more likely to do so.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.