"Natural rights"?

[Ecthy]

Why property?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ozzy, exactly.

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

Try to enforce that in a stateless society. The stronger can take your property, liberty, and life. Just because you have ownership, doesn't mean that it is respected by all.

[David Floyd]

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."

No, but natural rights are what makes his actions wrong - there has to be some objective standard otherwise there is no way to determine anything, other than of course through a personal value judgment, which gets us nowhere.

Why property?

If I own my body, that implies the concept of ownership, and if only I own my body, that implies personal, or private ownership. Hence private property.

[Al B. Sure!]

What the hell you smoking Floyd?

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

I can easily take a gun and shot your ass... Your 'ownership' of your body does not need to be respect by me... The only thing that forces me to respect your person is the State by punishing me for harming you. That's how you have your right to life... police protection and criminal justice... otherwise, if these dont exist, you don't have the right to your body if I can destroy it.

Without the State there are no rights. Only the rule of might.


thanks

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by David Floyd


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

You do. But stating those rights is no guarantee of securing them. I would agree you own your body, and you have a right to life, liberty, and property.

Another person may also agree that YOU own your own body, and have a right to life, liberty and property. That same person may decide (as people commonly do) that you are only granted ownership of your body, and granted the right to life, liberty, and property at the age of 18. I vehomently disagree. Which one of us is right?

To decide that you are only stating your opinion on the matter, not drawing upon some universal standard for rights, because universal standards for rights seem to have evolved in the past few hundred years, and always differ based on who you talk to. So their universality is rather questionable.

[David Floyd]

Try to enforce that in a stateless society. The stronger can take your property, liberty, and life. Just because you have ownership, doesn't mean that it is respected by all.

Certainly - but if I own something, and someone else takes it, they are still acting immorally and wrongly. You're bringing up a problem of enforcement, which does nothing to invalidate the concept of natural rights. No one has the right to initiate force, obviously. What your argument does do is lead into my argument that the only legitimate function of government is protection of the individual from coercion, which in turn protects life, liberty, and property.

Edit: The above argument that possession of natural rights has nothing to do with other people respecting them also applies to AS and Ozzy.

[Ecthy]

Debates like this are the reason why I hate big societies. Can't we live in clans?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Certainly - but if I own something, and someone else takes it, they are still acting immorally and wrongly. You're bringing up a problem of enforcement, which does nothing to invalidate the concept of natural rights. No one has the right to initiate force, obviously. What your argument does do is lead into my argument that the only legitimate function of government is protection of the individual from coercion, which in turn protects life, liberty, and property.

Morals are relative. You might think you have a natural right, someone might disagree. Only a state can make sure you have a right.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
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.

Historically, they have. And while there are a lot of really decent people who are capitalists, there are also lots of people who don't consider the human toll that their decisions have, which is a form of evil. And then there are those capitalists who have no moral qualms about hiring thugs to work over your union leaders or kill people who are threatening their profits. Frankly, without a state around to mediate conflict between rival corporations, they'd all be acting like The Supranos.

If you think I'm joking, just consider that in order to protect their right to make as much profit off of a fizzy, sweet, brown lqiuid, Coca-Cola has hired death squads to take care of union organizaers at their plants in both Guatelmala and Columbia. In Thailand, Pepsi and Coca-Cola actually fought a "war," with both companies hiring thugs to beat and shoot at rival distrubuters and throwing dynamite into each other's warehouses.

Consider how organized crime works. That's pure, untrammeled capitalism, freed from any laws or regulations. (Ironically enough, because they are illegal, i.e., outlaws, outside the law). It's not about whether someone is evil or not, because many mafiosos were impecable moralista and family men, who donated larges sums of money to the community. It's what you have to do to stay in business and continue to succeed.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Certainly - but if I own something, and someone else takes it, they are still acting immorally and wrongly. You're bringing up a problem of enforcement, which does nothing to invalidate the concept of natural rights. No one has the right to initiate force, obviously. What your argument does do is lead into my argument that the only legitimate function of government is protection of the individual from coercion, which in turn protects life, liberty, and property.

Edit: The above argument that possession of natural rights has nothing to do with other people respecting them also applies to AS and Ozzy.

If natural rights don't need to be respected by anyone to be considered natural rights, then what purpose do they serve? So you can feel better about yourself and your actions?

A communist may feel he has a Natural Right to kill property owners, take their property and distribute it to others. He claims this is a natural right just as ernestly as you claim that life, liberty and property are natural rights. Where does this get us?

[Al B. Sure!]

Chegitz:

We have laws... We dont need socialistic ideas to prevent corporate warfare. By murdering competitors they are committing illegal acts period. Your point is of no concern


thanks

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Historically, they have. And while there are a lot of really decent people who are capitalists, there are also lots of people who don't consider the human toll that their decisions have, which is a form of evil. And then there are those capitalists who have no moral qualms about hiring thugs to work over your union leaders or kill people who are threatening their profits. Frankly, without a state around to mediate conflict between rival corporations, they'd all be acting like The Supranos.

If you think I'm joking, just consider that in order to protect their right to make as much profit off of a fizzy, sweet, brown lqiuid, Coca-Cola has hired death squads to take care of union organizaers at their plants in both Guatelmala and Columbia. In Thailand, Pepsi and Coca-Cola actually fought a "war," with both companies hiring thugs to beat and shoot at rival distrubuters and throwing dynamite into each other's warehouses.

Consider how organized crime works. That's pure, untrammeled capitalism, freed from any laws or regulations. (Ironically enough, because they are illegal, i.e., outlaws, outside the law).

While I am a bit skeptical, I'll grant you the possibility of this. But these kinds of actions are still illegal and the libertarian state would step in to protect the peaceful communists from the violent capitalists.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
I can easily take a gun and shot your ass...

And that makes it right?

Would you be content with being shot and killed, or would you concede that you would be rather indignant if somebody tried to kill you? If you would be indignant, then you would be acting inconsistently and therefore immorally were you to kill Floyd, unless you were somehow capable of justifying why he should be denied his right to live.

Your 'ownership' of your body does not need to be respect by me...

Of course not, so long as you don't mind being immoral.

The only thing that forces me to respect your person is the State by punishing me for harming you.

What's your point? That people live in societies for mutual protection from immoral people like yourself? I agree.

That's how you have your right to life... police protection and criminal justice...

No, that's how immoral people are forced to respect his right to life. That's not how he has his right to life. Chaining somebody up takes away their liberty, it does not take away their right to liberty.

otherwise, if these dont exist, you don't have the right to your body if I can destroy it.

You can destroy his body anyway, regardless of the existence of a State. The fact that you are punished for your crimes doesn't change the fact that Floyd would be dead.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Morals are relative. You might think you have a natural right, someone might disagree.

If someone wishes not to be killed, if they would consider it a "bad" thing or a "wicked" thing for somebody to kill them, then to be consistent and moral they must either a. not kill others or b. justify why it would not be a "bad" or "wicked" thing for them to kill somebody else. So yes, somebody might disagree, but unless they offer a good justification for their disagreement they are wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If someone wishes not to be killed, if they would consider it a "bad" thing or a "wicked" thing for somebody to kill them, then to be consistent and moral they must either a. not kill others or b. justify why it would not be a "bad" or "wicked" thing for them to kill somebody else. So yes, somebody might disagree, but unless they offer a good justification for their disagreement they are wrong.

It is 'wrong' to kill because it undermines society, not because of any moral precept.