For Those Who Support Anarchy As A Form Of Government

[Winchester]

So if you witness someone starving, you can force me to feed them. If I don't feed them, you can attack me. If I resist, you may, in the end, kill me?

 

 

I'm just asking based on your central premise. The situation you described in no way resembles the government or situations arising without government. The rise of social programs and intervention in the economy by government has not marked a greater decline in the reduction of poverty. Poverty was in a much steeper decline prior to the Great Society.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Winchester

[Aloysius]

nope, I have no capability or competency to enforce the natural law principle of the universal destination of goods.  I only have the capability and competency to aid the starving man myself to the best of my ability.  this is a fundamental aspect of the principle of subsidiarity.

[4588686]

Ignore the inability to demonstrate any of the foundation propositions

[Winchester]

nope, I have no capability or competency to enforce the natural law principle of the universal destination of goods.  I only have the capability and competency to aid the starving man myself to the best of my ability.  this is a fundamental aspect of the principle of subsidiarity.

So how many people have to organize before they obtain the right to the force you claimed the government has?

[Aloysius]

So if you witness someone starving, you can force me to feed them. If I don't feed them, you can attack me. If I resist, you may, in the end, kill me?

 

 

I'm just asking based on your central premise. The situation you described in no way resembles the government or situations arising without government. The rise of social programs and intervention in the economy by government has not marked a greater decline in the reduction of poverty. Poverty was in a much steeper decline prior to the Great Society.

I have only defended the right of governments (or whatever organization is capable or competent to do so) to forcefully enact safety nets for the needy so that they can have their basic needs met... not to magically undo poverty.

[Aloysius]

So how many people have to organize before they obtain the right to the force you claimed the government has?

at whatever level they are capable or competent to do so... this is a significant aspect of what the principle of subsidiarity is all about--a preference for the lowest possible level that is competent to create such a social safety net so that the natural law of the universal destination of goods is being enforced, but you slide up the scale of social organization until you have a level of organization to do so.  

 

obviously if there already exists an organization that is competently enforcing that natural law principle, you would have to have just cause to establish a competing version of it before you were justified in using force to enforce such a thing.  and obviously some small group of poor people is not competent or capable of enforcing this natural law on rich and powerful people, so only an organization that is capable of enforcing it against the rich and powerful can morally enforce it against such people.  currently governments are the only systemic organizations that have the competence to enforce it on rich and powerful people, and they are within their rights to do so.  an individual who broke into a mansion is not enforcing the natural law by stealing some gold item to sell and give to the poor--you are only enforcing the natural law if you are actually engaging with the enforcement of the universal destination of the resources of the earth in a community.

[Aloysius]

Ignore the inability to demonstrate any of the foundation propositions

what does this mean?  :blink:

[4588686]

what does this mean?   :blink:

 

 

Anarcho-capitalists cannot answer basic foundational questions about their propositions.  Basic questions about evidence that natural law/rights exist, what property is, how property claims are justified et cetera.  It's all fluff.  Also, I'm drunk.  

[Aloysius]

lol... well in an intra-Catholic discussion we have common frames of reference about natural law and rights... but even outside of a Catholic context I don't really like the response that just argues that you can't establish at all what a "natural right" is.... there are plenty of philosophical bases for what a 'right' is and the anarcho-capitalists clearly have one--which is that all natural rights are #1 individualist and #2 are negations against forceful or violent interference and #3 follow the non-agression principle that no one has the right to initiate force against anyone else (all three criteria were not at all met by any of your snarky assertion of a natural right to do something :P)...  ie something that any one individual is capable of doing if they weren't interfered with that you should argue against with your own, I'm not a fan of just saying 'nope, no such thing as natural rights, nana nana boo boo'

 

personally I've always liked Fr. Vincent McNabb's argument that rights are based upon duties and that every individual has the right to access to the means by which he could carry out his duties... it's a much more positive assertion of rights than you'd find in a Lockean discourse but it's much more compatible with Thomism and generally, I think, the Catholic Church's positions on social issues.

 

ironically, I find your dismissal and refusal to engage in any argument about what is a "natural right" on some basis that these things are all culturally conditioned (or whatever your basis is, I assume it's something along those lines) rather similarly dismissable to an anarchist who wanders into a political debate between two people and argues that instead of the two positions they're debating between that they must reconsider the foundation of government itself... usually the two sides of that political debate will dismiss the anarchist, or get annoyed by him as always trying to turn every discussion into the same foundational discussion... similarly, two people debating about what exactly are our natural rights and what their nature is should be rather dismissive of people trying to question the very existence of any standard at all for natural rights.  anyone with any shred of philosophical or especially political respectability ought to hold a philosophical notion of what they think are natural rights and be willing to argue for their particular theory of natural rights, of 'unalienable rights' shall we say.... any man who refuses to do so quite simply leaves the door open for tyranny (also a relative term but I think we'd all still have some standard at which we'd all begin to agree something was tyranny)

 

there, now I've done my best to thoroughly insult everyone in the room's positions to ensure I cannot have any allies in this discussion, I shall bid you good day (unless someone responds and I still haven't fallen asleep and have the urge to respond back :P, but it is quite late here)...

[4588686]

lol... well in an intra-Catholic discussion we have common frames of reference about natural law and rights... but even outside of a Catholic context I don't really like the response that just argues that you can't establish at all what a "natural right" is.... there are plenty of philosophical bases for what a 'right' is and the anarcho-capitalists clearly have one--which is that all natural rights are #1 individualist and #2 are negations against forceful or violent interference and #3 follow the non-agression principle that no one has the right to initiate force against anyone else (all three criteria were not at all met by any of your snarky assertion of a natural right to do something :P)...  ie something that any one individual is capable of doing if they weren't interfered with that you should argue against with your own, I'm not a fan of just saying 'nope, no such thing as natural rights, nana nana boo boo'

 

personally I've always liked Fr. Vincent McNabb's argument that rights are based upon duties and that every individual has the right to access to the means by which he could carry out his duties... it's a much more positive assertion of rights than you'd find in a Lockean discourse but it's much more compatible with Thomism and generally, I think, the Catholic Church's positions on social issues.

 

ironically, I find your dismissal and refusal to engage in any argument about what is a "natural right" on some basis that these things are all culturally conditioned (or whatever your basis is, I assume it's something along those lines) rather similarly dismissable to an anarchist who wanders into a political debate between two people and argues that instead of the two positions they're debating between that they must reconsider the foundation of government itself... usually the two sides of that political debate will dismiss the anarchist, or get annoyed by him as always trying to turn every discussion into the same foundational discussion... similarly, two people debating about what exactly are our natural rights and what their nature is should be rather dismissive of people trying to question the very existence of any standard at all for natural rights.  anyone with any shred of philosophical or especially political respectability ought to hold a philosophical notion of what they think are natural rights and be willing to argue for their particular theory of natural rights, of 'unalienable rights' shall we say.... any man who refuses to do so quite simply leaves the door open for tyranny (also a relative term but I think we'd all still have some standard at which we'd all begin to agree something was tyranny)

 

there, now I've done my best to thoroughly insult everyone in the room's positions to ensure I cannot have any allies in this discussion, I shall bid you good day (unless someone responds and I still haven't fallen asleep and have the urge to respond back :P, but it is quite late here)...

 

 

I think that claims of 'natural rights' ought to not be respected.  It was once claimed that the white race had a natural right to enslave the black race.  There is no basis to natural rights.  You can claim anything as a natural right and it will be as valid as anyone else's claim to the same.  It just puts the will of the majority, or the socially powerful, behind a veil of mysticism.  Property is a socially useful tool of distributing power away from the center.  That's why I support property rights.  Not due to unsuortable claims about 'natural rights' which cannot be justified even by secular libertarianss.  It's pure bull poo.  You're privileging one set of claims that are not universally accessible as unassailable.  That's highly authoritarian.  

[Aloysius]

I completely disagree and think that such a position is a kind of philosophical anarchism.  yes, some philosophical conceptions of what a "natural right" is have been racist... some states have been fundamentally racist too, does that convince you we should abolish the state?... you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  and the defeat of things like slavery was done in some significant part because the abolitionist movement argued that there was such a thing as natural rights, so was the success of the civil rights movement.  these things weren't done because someone went to the people that suggested that whites had a natural right to superiority over blacks and said to them "excuse me, actually there's no such thing as natural rights"... the abolitionists actually engaged with it, and argued that actual human natural rights were being violated by slavery.  and really, there's no other good argument against slavery except that it violates people's natural rights.  the idea that there's no such thing as natural rights just because people have WRONG ideas about what a natural right is, that is the totally bull poo position I think.

[4588686]

I completely disagree and think that such a position is a kind of philosophical anarchism.  yes, some philosophical conceptions of what a "natural right" is have been racist... some states have been fundamentally racist too, does that convince you we should abolish the state?... you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  and the defeat of things like slavery was done in some significant part because the abolitionist movement argued that there was such a thing as natural rights, so was the success of the civil rights movement.  these things weren't done because someone went to the people that suggested that whites had a natural right to superiority over blacks and said to them "excuse me, actually there's no such thing as natural rights"... the abolitionists actually engaged with it, and argued that actual human natural rights were being violated by slavery.  and really, there's no other good argument against slavery except that it violates people's natural rights.  the idea that there's no such thing as natural rights just because people have WRONG ideas about what a natural right is, that is the totally bull poo position I think.

 

 

No, but I have no illusions about the nature of the state.  States are institutions maintained on violence.  Laws are collective violence.  And you really prove my point.  Both slave holders and abolitionists claimed natural rights in their struggle.  Neither had any proof that their assertions.  Natural rights claims are completely vapid.  We've had this claim floating around since the 18th century (as a secular claims) and it still lacks any substantive justification.  

 

If you think that my position is bull then provide a proof that natural rights exist.  You can't because there is no proof  It's just a claim you are making.  No more valid than the slave owners claims to have a natural right to enslave people with dark skin.  

[havok579257]

This has been answered. I don't think you're open to the notion that government isn't exempt from the normal moral order. Or perhaps you believe that all the governments in our United States actually obtained consent from all people subject to their rule. Either way, I don't think it's likely any of my statements will change your beliefs.

 

 

why is it whenever I truly try to understand you point of view on this you blow me off?

 

maybe I missed it, but I don't remember seeing you say all government taxation was an intrinsic evil.  so you never answered the question. 

[4588686]

I'd vote for the Al/Winnchester ticket, though.  I bet they could use a good finance director.

[Aloysius]

what kind of "proof" do you require?  natural rights are a statement about what people ought to be able to do, and as such they are of course a subjective argument... but just because it's a subjective argument doesn't mean it's not a valid one, by no means!  the proof is in the argument.  your philosophical position that there are no natural rights is just as untenable and 'unprovable' as my philosophical position that there are.  and your philosophical position is not some mere negation that doesn't have a burden of proof, it is in and of itself a philosophical assertion that has just as much of a need to prove itself as anything.  

 

again, the fact that two different groups have two different ideas of what a "natural right" is doesn't prove your argument at all.  it demonstrates that one group was right and the other was wrong.  there's a huge philosophical debate you could have about that, or you could be a philosophical anarchist and make the active assertion that there is no such thing as natural rights.

 

when we assert 'natural rights' we don't assert that they're universally acknowledged or respected, we assert that they ought to be universally acknowledged and respected.  these are entirely cultural, logical, philosophical arguments--but those things are all natural to humans, as natural to humans as it's natural for birds to build nests... so arguments made from philosophy or logical about "natural rights" which ought to apply to all human beings are entirely natural for us to have and to assert, to fight over and define.  are there things that you think ought never to be done to any human being under any circumstances (like placing them into slavery)?  if there are, then you believe in the natural right of a human being not to be enslaved.  what else is a natural right but that--something which we assert that every human being ought to have.  the Lockean tradition is negative--focusing on things that individuals of their own power already have the capability of doing and ought to have the capability of doing without initiating violence against someone else... I extend a bit towards the positive sense in saying that individuals have a right to access to all the means by which they can fulfill their duties... these are logical and moral arguments, of course, but they're entirely valid arguments to have and positions that ought to be debated.