Go to footer

Skip to content


Rights Poll

Anarchism: What it is and what it is not.

Moderators: Yarrow, Yuda, Canteloupe

Views on Rights

You may select 1 option

 
 
View results


Rights Poll

Postby EqualityandFreedom » Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:09 am

Based on poll I found somewhere else, but thought it would be interesting to ask it here.
EqualityandFreedom
Swivel-Hips
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:06 pm


Re: Rights Poll

Postby Insecuritykiller » Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:57 am

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

But it is in our best interests to respect each other. I hate people who don't care about others.
Insecuritykiller
Zen Master
 
Posts: 2024
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 6:57 pm
Location: Australia


Re: Rights Poll

Postby Tom Palven » Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:14 am

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

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wage" or the "right to bear arms", which are guaranteed by governments, at least exist, until they are modified or repealed.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


Re: Rights Poll

Postby thelastindividual » Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:39 am

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

And the rest of rodericks stuff on natural law?
"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort of free thinking anarchist." - C.M Burns

"Property is theft right? Therefore theft is property. Therefore this ship is mine" - Zaphod Beeblebrox
User avatar
thelastindividual
Zen Master
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 8:14 am


Re: Rights Poll

Postby Tom Palven » Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:52 am

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

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


Re: Rights Poll

Postby Guest » Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:55 am

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


Re: Rights Poll

Postby Guest » Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:57 am

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

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


Re: Rights Poll

Postby patrickhenry » Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:07 am

how about sharing without fear of coercian
." It was all right to accept books from the students, but when they begin to teach you nonsense you must knock them down. They should be made to understand that the workers cause ought to be placed entirely in the hands of the workers themselves"http://www.mutualistde.webs.com
User avatar
patrickhenry
Denizen
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: DE


Re: Rights Poll

Postby Tom Palven » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:36 pm

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


Re: Rights Poll

Postby AndyMalroes » Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:24 am

Ancaaaaaaaap! :shock:
How long do you think we can have a free and democratic society if we insist on maintaining totalitarian systems in our companies? We must have freedom for individuals and organizations to grow and to realize their potentials.
(Delmar Landen, Head of Organisational Development at General Motors, 1981)
User avatar
AndyMalroes
Zen Master
 
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:19 pm
Location: Australia


Re: Rights Poll

Postby Tom Palven » Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:52 am

Lame-Braaaaain! :(
Tom Palven
 


Re: Rights Poll

Postby AndyMalroes » Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:51 am

I just don't see how you can deny being an Ancap while saying all sharing is bullshit.
How long do you think we can have a free and democratic society if we insist on maintaining totalitarian systems in our companies? We must have freedom for individuals and organizations to grow and to realize their potentials.
(Delmar Landen, Head of Organisational Development at General Motors, 1981)
User avatar
AndyMalroes
Zen Master
 
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:19 pm
Location: Australia


Re: Rights Poll

Postby Tom Palven » Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:23 am

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


Re: Rights Poll

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:58 am

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


Re: Rights Poll

Postby Tom Palven » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:12 am

Do you mind if I call you Guest Asshole?
Tom Palven
 

Next

Return to Board index

Return to Anarchists and Anarchism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests