A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Within the context of the debate i dont think this has been misused. If you want to explain further why my points are invalid rebuttals relative to moorobot's stances i'll be all ears.

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying democracy is only good when its voluntary? which means you agree anarchy makes sense and coercive democracy does not?

Further the problems there are more with the function of democracy than anything to do with America. The minorities aren't rebelling because of America per se, but because the majority shi'ites have taken control of all the societal resources and political powers. Democracy is a recipe for disastor in such a region. Privatization on the other hand can clearly solve this problems.

[ConstantineX]

No, democracy only functions when the politically elite group (with some manifestation or control of physical power) feels that has created legitimate government. It does NOT mean totally voluntary. For example, within feudalism, serfs would feel that the King, though not directly elected by them, and perhaps opposed by many of them, was nevertheless legitimate because he was elected in council by their feudal lords. There are many cases of people recognizing legitimate government even when they personally understand it does not further their own aims. Louis XIV could utter a statement like "L'etat, c'est moi" (I Am the State) because this kind of Divine Right of Kings (legitimacy conferred by birth and tradition) was firmly ingrained within the ordinary populace's heads.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
No, democracy only functions when the politically elite group (with some manifestation or control of physical power) feels that has created legitimate government. It does NOT mean totally voluntary. For example, within feudalism, serfs would feel that the King, though not directly elected by them, and perhaps opposed by many of them, was nevertheless legitimate because he was elected in council by their feudal lords. There are many cases of people recognizing legitimate government even when they personally understand it does not further their own aims. Louis XIV could utter a statement like "L'etat, c'est moi" because this kind of Divine Right of Kings (legitimacy conferred by birth and tradition) was firmly ingrained within the ordinary populace's heads.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about in Iraq? Most shi'ites aren't complaining about the legitimacy of democracy? IMO, within your example, Saddam was viewed as more legitimate by all.

[ConstantineX]

The Shi'ites understand they are not viewed as political masters, and they also do not have anything like a plurality of overwhelming force. My example wasn't to propose the exact method of how legitimate government could happen in Iraq, but how it was transferred by non-voluntary means in previous societies; voluntarism isn't a necessary condition all.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

The Shi'ites understand they are not viewed as political masters

[/ QUOTE ]

they are viewed as political masters

[ QUOTE ]
they also do not have anything like a plurality of overwhelming force

[/ QUOTE ]

If any of the above things you say are true then why is their a civil conflict in Iraq?????

[ QUOTE ]
voluntarism isn't a necessary condition all.

[/ QUOTE ]

voluntarism is a necessary condition for legitimacy, IMO. This depends in what way were using and defining legitimate? Other styles of governments may be sustainable but that in no way makes them admirable or fair.

Im defining legitimate as just by means of reasoning. Perhaps this is not the way you are using the term.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Providing a counter-example to an unfair generalization about what "we" have is cherry picking?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course invading countries and trying to force them to have the sort of government we want doesn't work well. That's a completely different issue. It's not as if not being an anarcho-capitalist makes one an imperialist.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only relevant if you compare it to other strategies. Because it's doubtful that any strategy will work particularly well in such a situation.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh if you're saying a political system is only good if it works for every society then nothing is satisfactory, including anarcho-capitalism.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
A dictatorship is a country in which a dictator has absolute power. There is no one person in the US or even branch of govnernment that has absolute power. So again, calling it a dictatorship is silly and incorrect. Your point can be made without using that word.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
If the majority will is strong enough in any society they will get their way. There's nothing we can do about that. Jews are probably safer in a constitutional republic/democracy than in a society without government, however. In anarchism, they don't have to go to the trouble of amending the constitution. So I don't see how this is a flaw of democracy.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

Providing a counter-example to an unfair generalization about what "we" have is cherry picking?


[/ QUOTE ]

lets leave that point aside for a minute. Im gonna stick with the point that they are not counter-examples.

America is a mafiaso group with theocratic and fascist elements. So far as moorobot was saying anarchy will descend into those with the most guns having the most power then this is what America represents.

For him to say oh well anarchy will have theocratic and fascism on a larger magnitude than a governed world is unfounded in the least, and im wondering if you're willing to defend that line of thinking.

[ QUOTE ]

Of course invading countries and trying to force them to have the sort of government we want doesn't work well. That's a completely different issue. It's not as if not being an anarcho-capitalist makes one an imperialist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does.

You're saying when you invade a territory rather than country and force them to have the sort of government you want then that is just fine and dandy? If you agree governments now aren't voluntary institutions, then how do you think the came about and how doe they expand?

[ QUOTE ]

Uh if you're saying a political system is only good if it works for every society then nothing is satisfactory, including anarcho-capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Im saying that democracy should not exasperate problems that the tenets claim the system will solve. If we want to know whether democracy is a good tool for solving conflicts among divided individuals then we should go somewhere where people are divided to test this, dont you think?

For example, if people think minimum wage laws are effective they should try implement them in bangladesh. Just because our society doesnt collapse due to minimum wage laws doesnt mean the aren't harmful. We can get away with using them here because the effects are much more diluted but when you apply the wrong medicine to someone who is truly sick the disastrous results will be much less deniable.

[ QUOTE ]

A dictatorship is a country in which a dictator has absolute power. There is no one person in the US or even branch of govnernment that has absolute power. So again, calling it a dictatorship is silly and incorrect. Your point can be made without using that word.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're playing on semantics rather than focusing on the argument. If a group of people enforce their will and dictate to others how to live by rule of force, call this what you will and then readjust what i said with that word in place. Call it mob rule instead of dictatorship.

some might still argue that the executive branch has dictatorial powers too btw.


[ QUOTE ]

In anarchism, they don't have to go to the trouble of amending the constitution. So I don't see how this is a flaw of democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they can use the state money and power to enforce their will rather than their own money and power.

[foal]

You can call America a dictatorship, but using such a buzzword (especially, incorrectly) does not help your argument. Call it playing semantics if you want. Like I said, your argument can be made without using false buzzwords.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course invading countries and trying to force them to have the sort of government we want doesn't work well. That's a completely different issue. It's not as if not being an anarcho-capitalist makes one an imperialist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does.

You're saying when you invade a territory rather than country and force them to have the sort of government you want then that is just fine and dandy?

[/ QUOTE ]
When did I say that?

[ QUOTE ]
If you agree governments now aren't voluntary institutions, then how do you think the came about and how doe they expand?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't recall us ever trying to force the Native Americans to adopt democracy. A group of people deciding to adopt democracy is far different from a group of people invading another group of people, forcing them to adopt democracy and then leaving. Trying to equate all governments to the Iraq invasion is ridiculous IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Uh if you're saying a political system is only good if it works for every society then nothing is satisfactory, including anarcho-capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Im saying that democracy should not exasperate problems that the tenets claim the system will solve.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. I don't claim that democracy would be a good system for everyone. I also don't claim "democracy will be good for solving problem X in every circumstance."

[ QUOTE ]
For example, if people think minimum wage laws are effective they should try implement them in bangladesh.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol that's up to Bangladesh. If they want to try minimum wage laws I have no problem with that. I'm not sure what you're saying exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because our society doesnt collapse due to minimum wage laws doesnt mean the aren't harmful.

[/ QUOTE ]
True.

[ QUOTE ]
Call it mob rule instead of dictatorship.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not really true either. It might be true if this was a pure democracy, but it's a republic i.e. representative.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

You can call America a dictatorship, but using such a buzzword (especially, incorrectly) does not help your argument. Call it playing semantics if you want. Like I said, your argument can be made without using false buzzwords.

[/ QUOTE ]

no offense but this is non-sense. you get the point. i said you can call it whatever you want. representative mob rule monkeypoo. i dont care

[ QUOTE ]

When did I say that?


[/ QUOTE ]

You said that iraq was wrong because the system was forced. The only way you can get around this is to say that government today are voluntary institutions, which isn't true, and if thats the case then you must believe we're in anarchy right now.

why did the taxmen need all those guns if people had a choice?

you and moorobot should also realize that america descended into civil war not long after inception. Do you think all state voluntarily joined the union too btw??

[ QUOTE ]

I don't recall us ever trying to force the Native Americans to adopt democracy. A group of people deciding to adopt democracy is far different from a group of people invading another group of people, forcing them to adopt democracy and then leaving. Trying to equate all governments to the Iraq invasion is ridiculous IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

its not ridiculous if you understand the principled difference we're focusing on is a government of voluntary arrangement and one that is coercive. You really believe the American government was voluntarily formed by all members?

[ QUOTE ]

Not really. I don't claim that democracy would be a good system for everyone. I also don't claim "democracy will be good for solving problem X in every circumstance."


[/ QUOTE ]

wat do you claim democracy can do? what is democracy good for?

i never said it had to work in every circumstance, but demcoracy should be able to work in the circumstances that the system is designed to solve, but also my point was democracy has made these situations WORSE.

if democracy only works when people got along before hand then why have democracy? is the system not preached as a just means of solving issues among divided individuals?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
its not ridiculous if you understand the principled difference we're focusing on is a government of voluntary arrangement and one that is coercive. You really believe the American government was voluntarily formed by all members?



[/ QUOTE ]

It only seems voluntary and peaceful because people know what happens when they get out of line. As stated above, see the natives and the civil war.