[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
I always thought the term "natural rights" was an oxymoron. In nature, you declare "property rights" with urine, and they are defended with tooth and claw. I entirely reject the notion of rights as something inherent, because without any sort of force to back them up, they are simply meaningless gestures. Humans defend or enforce rights in two ways:


[/ QUOTE ]

The term natural rights does not come from god or a supernatural being, but from basic observations about the world we live in. Quick and dirty is that humans are individuals, actions are causes which have effects : individuals are responsible for their actions, both in positive and negative outcomes.

[ QUOTE ]

Of course, we can still talk about rights, but without one or both of the above, it's just vague lucubrations

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this three times before I realized you hadn't written "vague lubrications".

[ QUOTE ]

This is the problem with democracy. I don't think you will all disagree. My solution is to go to great lengths to localize the focal points of government and democracy to the point where we better know our leaders, can better control the money we give in the form of taxes and our needs and wants are more in line with those of others who make decisions that affect us (and our voice is a larger percentage of the mob).

[/ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you come this far and stop. If you want decentralization then why not go down to the individual? That would be the most accountability, the most control over the purse strings, and the largest that each voice gets to be in the mob.

[ QUOTE ]

What I'm about to do is commit a philosophical sleight of hand myself, but beware... it may just blow your mind!

Consider true democracy "free market politics". Instead of each person having money and the free market determining prices, each person gets one vote and the "market" determines our rights! Kinda sucks huh?

How does this relate to free market economics? Well, allow me to restate my #1 thesis: People are idiots. ACists primary belief is generally that if there is a desire for something like police/security/food safety/courts/marijuana that there will be someone who will provide that service. My counter is that people are idiots. Just as in the political arena, where I don't much like being subject to something simply because 51% of people are willing to live with it, I don't much like being subject to having to pay $X for Y just because 51% of the money is willing to live with it (so to speak, obviously the math is a lot more complex here).

Under a free market, and particularly a more globalized free market, prices are no longer really affected by what I need or want. Prices are affected by what people worldwide, or nationwide, want or need.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of the many things you are missing the most important is probably that in a democracy you don't get to say no. Its quite simple a free market if you don't want to pay $1200 for a 42" plasma TV you can just not buy it. If in a democracy 51% of people vote that I must buy that TV for $1200 then I must even though I'm in the dissenting half. The ability to say no makes the market vastly superior to a "free market of politics".

[ QUOTE ]

Under a free market, and particularly a more globalized free market, prices are no longer really affected by what I need or want. Prices are affected by what people worldwide, or nationwide, want or need.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true because you can say no to prices you don't want. If you decide product X isn't worth the price you can go and look at their competitors, look for substitutes, wait for prices to come down, or never buy at all. This is not possible once Z% of people have voted against you in democracy. The degree to which you are subjected to "idiots'" whims is far decreased under a market relative to a political system.