A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you reply to my criticism I made of your argument about intentions earlier?

[ QUOTE ]
But Marxism is proven false both logically and empirically whereas ACism is not

[/ QUOTE ] Marxists do not agree with this, just as I think AC is proven false both logically and empirically (not directly, but through empirical observations of human behavior we can predict what would happen if AC was instituted) and you do not. They say that none of those countries follow Marx's theory and/or were not really socialist, for example.

[ QUOTE ]
change my mind if you can prove why I'm wrong to me

[/ QUOTE ] That's just the problem: for you, and for other rationalist utopians, there is no logical or empirical claim that can be said that will lead them to subjectively believe they have been "proven wrong".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why you think "AC is proven wrong" - because what you think of when you use the letters "AC" is not what anyone else is thinking of. What you think of HAS been "proven wrong".

You can keep chanting the "utopian" smear, but it doesn't magically become true.

[valenzuela]

FWIW I was transformed to an ACist like 15 months ago and now Im not an ACist.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



That's not what the words mean. It's not a matter of opinon. What either of us think doesn't really matter.

[/ QUOTE ] In this area it does matter. For we are talking about subjective beliefs, and whether or not something "really is true" will have little effect on what extremist ideologues actually believe. So the opposite of what you claim is true here: what is objectively true actually has little relevance here.

[ QUOTE ]

You can show me why a man who calls himself a government agent is morally different to a man who calls himself a bartender to the extent where one can take money under the threat of force and one cannot.

[/ QUOTE ] Now you are asking for a normative argument...something which itself is unprovable; notice the term "show" here. Nobody can prove this; all normative arguments rest on questionable assumptions/premises that one can refuse to believe without inconsistency or lack of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Which is why voluntary agreement is the only thing that can be legitimate.

[ QUOTE ]
As an example, as long as you continue to believe that intentions trump consequences nothing can be done in this area.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. Those of you who believe that the ends justify the means can all get together and voluntarily collectivize your decisions. There's no reason you have to force those who don't want to go along with your utopian dream plan (do you see what I did there?) to participate in it or subsidize it.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
Intentions > consequences is how all statists think. "but it's called the help children and small fluffy animals act who cares if it causes huge misery and is completly immoral"

[/ QUOTE ]
Way to beat up on that straw man.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Intentions > consequences is how all statists think. "but it's called the help children and small fluffy animals act who cares if it causes huge misery and is completly immoral"

[/ QUOTE ]
Way to beat up on that straw man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moorobot brought it along for that very purpose so why not?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You know...you Acists remind me so much of Marxists. You just hate the current system (e.g. your view that way have civil war and fascism everywhere, and your refusal to distinguish between degrees of these things) so much you refuse to believe all the evidence that your cure is worse than the disease. Your views are, imo, ultimately based on hope, and having a political discussion with you isn't, even in principle, going to change your mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, you statists remind me so much of last centuries statists. You just cant conceptualize anything but the current system (e.g. your view that there will be violence and civil war and fascism inevitably under any other sort of system) so much that you refuse to listen to all the arguments about the evils of the state, and you dont realize this disease, while slow in progression, is still killing you. Your ideas are based are, imo, ultimately based on laziness and fear of change, and having a political discussions with you isn't, even in principle, going to change your mind.


Is it less condescending/more convincing when I do it? You know, the whole summarily dismiss your entire viewpoint because you are a failure as a human bit?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
You know...you Acists remind me so much of Marxists. You just hate the current system (e.g. your view that way have civil war and fascism everywhere, and your refusal to distinguish between degrees of these things) so much you refuse to believe all the evidence that your cure is worse than the disease. Your views are, imo, ultimately based on hope, and having a political discussion with you isn't, even in principle, going to change your mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

it must be my refusal to automatically accept everything you say at face which explains the reason why i can't buy into your way.

I'd also probably bet iv changed my mind on major issues like religion and politics more than anyone on this board so i wouldnt bank on the idea im impossible to persuade.

What i also find funny about your post is you are the one essentially giving up and somehow you're trying to scapegoat me for that when you really haven't made the best case you can or made concessions. If i dont understand the differences of things then why are you incapable of making the differences more clear? Why make a post like this instead of a post explaining something of substance?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW I was transformed to an ACist like 15 months ago and now Im not an ACist.

[/ QUOTE ]

tell me more. more specifically what is the key issue that accounts for your most recent change, and how do you classify yourself now?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

Civil war, theocracy, and/or fascist communism is what we have now? I believe by 'we' he is referring to democratic western governments and if so then that's far from true.

[/ QUOTE ]

For one thats cherry picking. For two, western government recent attempts to bring their prosperity and ideology to other nations has done nothing but result in theocracy and or civil war. Their political medicine only works on people who are already healthy apparently. If you take a sick society, one with ethnic divide or something of the sort, and apply your strategies you'll see democracy is no political weapon towards legitimacy or peace.

What good is democracy if it cant bring light to troubled societies? Isn't that democracies goal?

America is still a theocracy and fascist in many senses too. Personally i dont differentiate religious ideology from most political ideology but even without that i think point still stands.

[ QUOTE ]
Calling it a dictatorship is just silly hyperbole

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to remember the context of our debate. He was saying democracy is good because each gets a turn to get their way.

Further it is a dictatorship when the majority is strong enough. There is nothing to prevent a strong majority from going as far as amending the constitution to allow for sending Jews to concentration camps. This can all be done within the bounds of western democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a thing called division of power including the balance of government branches and of local, state and federal authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the division of power should start and end at the individual. The power divide in western democracy that subdivides the power to more localities is an effective way of taking a step closer towards the individual and therefore anarchy. Only so far as this is so will i concede this is effective.

My point is though why do we allow local government to begin with? Because people feel to many are unfairly grouped into federal issues. So they make it more local. At what point do you stop using this point and breaking society into more and more local parts? IMO the only answer is the individual should be the government.

[ QUOTE ]
There is also such a thing as government accountability. We impeached Nixon and members of the federal legistature have been arrested. Law enforcement officers have been punished for abusing their power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Accountability in government exists in a lower form than any other institution. Officials are much more accountable to the people when the people can secede their support whenever they choose. Why do the police have to treat you respectfully when they get paid regardless?

Im not saying government is all bad, im not saying anarchy is all good. Im saying one structures things for more state power while the other structures things for more consumer/individual power and this accounts for likely differences in things like accountability and representation.

[ QUOTE ]

I agree that there are plenty of problems that occur in democracies due to human stupidity, laziness and callousness, but such human flaws will cause plenty of problems with or without government. In democracy at least those too busy to do anything themselves can affect change with their votes.


[/ QUOTE ]

The flaws exist with or without goverment, but government often subdizes those flaws which dont allow for the right incentives for people to overcome those flaws.

Im not sure i understand the point in your last sentence.

[ConstantineX]

Zygote, if someone's is going to have a productive discussion with you we have to set reasonable bounds on scope of words. Classifying America as a "theocracy" and "fascist" is not reasonable whatsoever, though of course I can agree elements of those things appear sometimes in our political system.

Alot of your misunderstanding of Moorobot stems from your misunderstanding of the word "legitimacy" and the murky way the word is defined, even in citizens' minds. The very fact that people get to choose their "Mafia" is instrumental in their feelings about the state and their rights according to it. It's pretty clear from history that legitimacy is very hard to confer from an outside populace or foreign power - which is partly why we are having so much trouble in Iraq.