View Single Post
  #58  
Old 11-24-2007, 06:18 PM
AlexM AlexM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Imaginationland
Posts: 5,200
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY.

These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM.

A world of difference-

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not different at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

ANARCHIST : "Property is theft".

Anarcho-CAPITALIST : "Property is sacrosanct".

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Anarchist just means !government. It doesn't imply anything about property. If you want to make a statement about what property should be, you need to add some form of adjective to the label "anarchist".

[/ QUOTE ]

false. no government does imply something else, whether de facto or by principle. What does no government mean otherwise?

The absence of government is not a description of anarchy until youve defined government. The definition of government will leave clear implications for how anarchy must be if the one society exists in contrast to the other. Explain how society can play out without a government and by what measures can the society be perverted to be considered under government rule again?

There must be clear lines to call one society governed by another not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bunch of obvious gibberish that doesn't really seem to have anything to do with what I said.
Reply With Quote