Rights, Property, and State

[MarxistStudent]

Ok I guess the debate I wanted to have with hashem is impossible here, due the natural huge amount of capitalists mostly anti-communist there are here (naturaly once this is Ludwig von Mises (a capitalist) institute), the debate I was trying to fo became impossible. To all capitalists want to have a debate I’d ask to send me a message at youtube “MarxistStudant” (sic, I typed wrong when registrating).

Now I will not present any other evidence, or response here (other than this one), so I will place here most my ideas about what we are talking, I will not answer any other replies here.

Natural: something is natural when it exists regardless of unnatural social forces (unnatural societies) or from unnatural human forces (unnatural human beings).

Rights: There are 3 kind of rights:

1 those that come from natural conditions - natural rights

2 those that come from social agreemnet - legitimate unnatural rights

3 those that come from force - illegitimate unnatural rights

Life and liberety are natural rights that do not require property, property can’t give one life and liberty, it can only take them from a person.

property is either a legitimate unnatural rights or an illegitimate unnatural rights, depending on how it was stablished. It is not natural.

The state does not exist in nature, it only exists to protect property. State = institution that has monoploly over the legitimate* uses of force and violence, where legitimate is what the laws of the society call legal. The state may be legitimate or illegitimate depending on how it was stablished, by social agreement or force, but it CAN’T be natural.

Any society based on property needs a state (public or private one) in order to assure the unnatural right of property, source of almost ALL inequality as Rousseau demonstrates.

“The man is born good, society corrupts him” Greed, etc are NOT in human nature.

Human nature has two parts:

1 - Fixed one - genetical, natural

2 - Mutable one - social, natural or unnatural

If the human being live in a natural society, than he is natural, elseway he is unnatural because some of his caracteristics are unnatural.

Natural society: is the firsth society the homo sapiens sapies lived one, the one they naturaly had, the most primitive societies are the one that best represents the natural society, not being perfectelly natural either way.

note: The most primitive societies had no property, thus property is not natural

The axiom of self-ownership is a false one, being perfectelly replaced by the natural rights of life and liberty without the artificial right of property. The right of property is only explainable after property is stablished, there are no natural conditions that would lead to such stablishment. It is a right stablished either by social agreement or force, being legitimate or illegitimate but never natural.

I won’t fight alone against all capitalist here, so if any want to disctuss this with me, I gave my youtube account and we can talk trought it. I wish you sincerly a good day/night, and remember you that I will not answer replies to this post.

[hashem]

@Eric

@hashem

The Ethics of Liberty 5 times
For a New Liberty 6 times

Wow. I know they are interesting books to read…but geez.

They’re pretty good. I worked on a farm and listened to each one once a week for a little over a month. At first I wanted to find flaws in his logic, but the more I listened, the more I noticed every flaw was covered at some point. That’s how I say with confidence that nobody here will come up with an original objection: they have already been sealed shut in the works of Rothbard. The conclusions are presented in these two books, with minimal evidence, but the foundations for them are not in these books, and Rothbard says that repeatedly. From him, the foundations are actually drawn out far more elaborately in his economic history volumes and in MES.

So I began listening to memorize the debate and learn how to form an logically consistent argument, and how to catch the fallacies in the arguments of statists and anti-natural-law mongers.

[Angurse]

@MarxistStudent

note: The most primitive societies had no property, thus property is not natural

Still waiting for the proof, comrade.

Note: If anyone wants to read an uncited paper without a given author that shows a little about the property rights and culture of ancient Brazil read http://www.colegioame.com.br/arq/A_Historia_dos_Indios_(HISTORIA_DO_BRASIL).doc,

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@MarxistStudent

Evidence that indians in my country had no private property:

Please STOP misusing the term “private property”. You silly leftists never use it correctly. Educate yourselves. Seriously. Private property DOES NOT SOLELY AND ONLY mean your own house, car, etc. Your body is your private property. So please STOP STOP STOP STOP misusing the term.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@MarxistStudent

Rights: There are 3 kind of rights:

Wrong. There are only property rights.

@MarxistStudent

Life and liberety are natural rights that do not require property

Wrong.

And remember: running away when you know you’ve been beaten is actually a good thing. Have a nice day licking your wounds.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@MarxistStudent

@E. R. Olovetto

Yes, following anarcho-communist ideas would lead to death/primitive existence. I don’t think I agree with the idea that tribal societies really had no sense of private property, rather they agreed to live communally. If they truly didn’t believe in private property, including self ownership, wouldn’t they just refuse to defend themselves and their villages from invaders whatsoever? I would be interested in some evidence of that ever happening. Sure there are tons of instances in colonial America and Africa of tribes “giving up easily”, but that isn’t enough.

I am not an anarcho-communist, my ideas don’t lead to a primitive existence, I merely study primitive societies to understand natural rights. Self ownership is not based on property rights, it is based on life and liberty rights (natural ones), they didn’t “ageed” to live communaly, this IS the natural way human beings live, as a collective group. So, once people have a tendency to defend their natural rights of life and liberty, it is easier to find a indian massacre in history than to find them “giving up easily”.

I am not your comrade, saco. Your “proof” is no such thing. I don’t debate that many primitive tribes live(d) communally but that they had a well formed theory against property rights. There was many a massacre because these communal, primitive groups defended themselves. They defended their collective property rights. Yes, this is the natural way and you have still added zero evidence for a tribe with a robust anti-property rights ethic. BTW, if you are not familiar with “giving up easily” you should research colonialism in Africa ~1850-1900.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Stephen Forde

Ad hominems have no place in an intelligent, academic discussion.

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is “ad hominem”. It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don’t need it when they’ve got ad hominem on their side. It’s the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn’t there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s arguments.

Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent’s sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal “ad hominem” are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

The ad hominem fallacy fallacy

[Stephen_Forde]

@hashem

@Stephen Forde

@hashem

@Stephen Forde

What’s the justification of the universalizeability principle?

“[F]or in order to be able to claim a rule to be a “law” (just), it is necessary that such a rule be universally – equally – valid for everyone.”

Why?

Universality is in the nature of laws and rules. They are always absolute and definite.

Why? And I’m not trying to be obstinate. There are different rules for soldiers than for civilians. Different rules for public servants than for private citizens. How is universality in the nature laws and rules? Why does a claim have to be universal for it to be just?

[liberty_student]

@hashem

So I began listening to memorize the debate and learn how to form an logically consistent argument, and how to catch the fallacies in the arguments of statists and anti-natural-law mongers.

I say this with all sincerity and friendship. You need to learn the art of rhetoric. How to open, negotiate and close. Not necessarily to compromise the truth, but to find a way to communicate it to different audiences, at different levels of understanding and resistance.

It’s great that you know your material and take knowing it very seriously. But communication is as much about how you say things, as what you have to say.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Stephen Forde

There are different rules for soldiers than for civilians. Different rules for public servants than for private citizens

you are obviously not thinking of justice. are you confusing state law with natural law?

[primer]

@hashem

When we speak of someone having a right, we mean that it is impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right.

This sounds almost circular. The phrase “impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right” seems redundant. That simply means that “all rights are non-aggressive.”

[primer]

@hashem

When we speak of someone having a right, we mean that it is impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right.

This sounds almost circular. The phrase “impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right” seems redundant. That simply means that “all rights are non-aggressive.”

[Laughing_Man]

I think we can clear up some confusion over the necesscity of property in terms of its relations with liberty and life.

One: We can all concede that property implies some ability of usage. Example: There is a piece of corn. I can only eat that corn if it is mine or if someone owns that corn and gives it to me.

Two: Given that property implies this, one cannot live without property. Example: Since the corn must be mine to eat or given to me, I can only nourish myself through property. Therefore the institution of property is a life necessity.

Three: Given that it is a necessity, there needs to be some kind of working order or nature to its operation. However, like the corn explained before, can we operate say a printing press without liberty? And how are we to define liberty? Is it the ability to flourish without interference?

[nirgrahamUK]

bravo for noticing that words can be rearranged and that sometimes briefer statements can be formulated. actually in this case your shortening lessens the descriptive power of hashems statement.

[hashem]

@Liberty Student,

Yes I completely agree. I have never claimed to be great at presenting an argument attractively, and I’m certainly not the first person to desire the ability. But I am determined to learn (and to correct where necessary) my argument thoroughly. If people are willfully ignorant because they think my method is unattractive, then I guess that’s something I will need to work on.

[hashem]

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

@hashem

When we speak of someone having a right, we mean that it is impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right.

This sounds almost circular. The phrase “impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right” seems redundant. That simply means that “all rights are non-aggressive.”

I was describing the nature of rights. The important characteristic of a right is that it is wrong to use aggression to prevent someone from exercising it. This does not mean that “all rights are non-aggressive.”

[hashem]

@Stephen Forde

Why? And I’m not trying to be obstinate.

A law is necessarily absolute and true. Do you deny that? If so, then present your case. If all you can do is say is “why” then forget about any type of rational discussion. Three year olds do that.

If you are honestly interested in how the word law came to be defined, then go and learn. I don’t claim to have all the answers and yet not present them like you do.

[Stephen_Forde]

@JackCuyler

please demonstrate the logical fallacy.

Well it started here when I was criticizing hashem’s case for a Rothbardian private property ethic because it fails to mentioning any of Rothbard’s crucial points. I also expressed doubt that others who often side with him in threads understood the crucial points.

wilderness then called me arrogant here. I challenged him to prove me wrong here. He refused to answer my challenge here and instead reiterated that I am arrogant here. So he is basically just calling me arrogant instead of responding to my points. That’s what an ad hominem is. And he does it again here along with other snide remarks in response to my criticisms here, where he doesn’t seem to understand MarxistStudent’s points. Even if I am arrogant (and I don’t see how), that has nothing to do with whether or not my arguments are correct. So I don’t see its misuse and hope that I’ve demonstrated the fallacy to you.

I really wish people didn’t take anything I say personally. I’d rather just get back to the topic @ hand.

[Juan]

Stephen, why don’t you provide the ‘correct’ justification for natural rights in your own words and in a couple of paragraphs ? The shorter the better.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Stephen Forde

wilderness then called me arrogant here. I challenged him to prove me wrong here. He refused to answer my challenge here and instead reiterated that I am arrogant here. So he is basically just calling me arrogant instead of responding to my points. That’s what an ad hominem is.

just so you know, insulting someone is not ad hominem fallacy. as KoB tried to explain, only if wild said, you are arrogant therefore your argument in favour of X is unsound, would he then be making the ad hom fallacy. if he does not use the insult to cut against your argument then its not ad hom fallacy.