"Natural rights"?

[Ecthy]

chegitz, do you agree with me that serving in the Kollektiv is the only true natural human right?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Well I am going off topic from this thread, but I'm not totally against Socialism and Communism.

It's tangential, but not off-thread.

I would love for humans to truly relate to each other as brothers and live communially. However government coercion, or coercion of any kind is never a moral or effective means to reach this state. It should always be done willingly.

Most communists would agree. In fact, I could describe socialism and communism as a higher, more developed, system of rights. Just as the extention of "natural" or rather, bourgeois rights to all required violence, it will require force to impliment, because like the kings and nobility before them, those who have the most rights in this society are loathe to see them universalized.

For me it is more a state of mind than a system of government. Marx claims a "temporary dictator" is needed to reach this perfect system of Communal Anarchy.

It was an unfortunate choice of words that Marx used, the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." At that time, dicatorship did not have the conotations it has today, after the bloody 20th Century. By "Dictatorhsip of the Proletariet" Marx did not mean what we think of dictatorship, and certainly not the communist dicatorships that appropriated his name and words. Rather he meant the absolute rule of the working class. The society we live in today he would call the dicatorship of the bourgeoisie, or the absolute rule of the capitalist class, even though this "dictatorship" is a democratic republic.

In whose interests is society ruled? Whose rights are paramount, should they come into conflct with others? In the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, it is the capitalist class, even when it seems that other rights should be paramount. My right to be free of pollution doesn't override the right of say Georia Pacific to dump 50,000 gallons of dioxin laden water into the St. John's river (this is actually going to happen). Our government was set up to defend their rights (and the rights of others like them). In other words, in their "dictatorship," their right to swing their fist around wildly doesn't end with my nose. In our "dicatorship," it would.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
chegitz, do you agree with me that serving in the Kollektiv is the only true natural human right?

You are a silly person.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There are no natural rights. The only rights are those given to the people by the state, and that's it.

[OzzyKP]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Most communists would agree. In fact, I could describe socialism and communism as a higher, more developed, system of rights. Just as the extention of "natural" or rather, bourgeois rights to all required violence, it will require force to impliment, because like the kings and nobility before them, those who have the most rights in this society are loathe to see them universalized.

See, this is what I am talking about. There can be no force used, either government or private. If through boycotts and Unions and other free action the "evil capitalists" can be made to "turn over the means of production" then so be it. But I would oppose any government law or regulation, and certainly any direct violence against business owners or the rich. Using force to implement communism is never acceptable.

Many people like capitalism, many people are greedy, many people want to accumulate wealth. May not be your cup of tea, but you cannot force your views upon them. Private communes are the way to go.


As for your other points, from what I recall of the Communist Manifesto he didn't talk about a "Dictatorship of the Proletariate" but rather a dictator as we refer to it. A single person in charge to guide the nation through the period of conversion to a true communist state. And I certainly don't feel we have a "dictatorship of capitalists" here in this country.

[David Floyd]

Then by that argument, Imran, what the State giveth, the State can also take away, right?

Sorry, I can't accept that.

[Ecthy]

whatever happened to your German stuff, Floydchen?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then by that argument, Imran, what the State giveth, the State can also take away, right?

Exactly.

[Ecthy]

BTW, I meant that..

I sort of agree with Imran, though it is actually a worrying idea...

[chequita guevara]

OzzyKP, I don't mean to suggest that it will require force because people won't want to go along with it, but rather, because peacefull attempts to create a socialist society will be met with violence. Every single time socialists have actually tired to create socialism (as opposed to Socialist Parties in Western Europe, who are just managers of a slightly more humane capitalism) they have been attacked by terrorism, civil war, and foreign invasion.

I could have said it will require self-denfence to create a socialist society, since I know liberatians differentiate between violece and violence in self-defence. However, I think it's more honest to call it violence, even if it is self-defence, because it's probably gonna be ugly, nasty, and horrible, and I think calling it self-defence just pretties it up, even if it would be fully justified and legitimate.

[David Floyd]

Imran, you do realize that's a wonderful argument for statism and totalitarianism, right?

[OzzyKP]

Well under a Libertarian government, I don't see what kind of violence would occur against you and some friends seeking to set up a town in Idaho where you share property and peacefully coexist?

Capitalists aren't quite as evil as you think. No evil corporation is going to ransack your city because you choose not to buy their products anymore. I'm just not seeing this violence and force here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Imran, you do realize that's a wonderful argument for statism and totalitarianism, right?

It is also the truth. Rights don't exist without a state... and I want you to prove me wrong.

And since the state can give rights, it is also a great argument for a libertarian state... the state can give lots of rights to its people .

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Imran, you do realize that's a wonderful argument for statism and totalitarianism, right?

My question is what real consequence does the belief in natural rights have?

Natural Rights are defined differently by different people, I could consider it a natural right to rape women and my neighbor could consider it a natural right to vote democratically. Since these are just empty claims, who is to say which of us is truly right?

Ultimately the language of natural rights is just a nice sounding argument people use to support their views. I support Libertarian views strongly, but I find it hard to say they are the only absolute views, and anyone thinking differently is breaking some universal law created by nature or God.

If I believed strongly in natural rights, it wouldn't make any difference to a totalitarian dictator. He'd do what he wanted regardless of what I thought. He isn't going to set out to massacre 200 people and then realize "oh shoot, they have natural rights, I guess I can't do that."

[David Floyd]

It is also the truth. Rights don't exist without a state... and I want you to prove me wrong.

OK. With or without a State, I own my body, which implies a right to life, liberty, and property.