-
Alternatives Considered wrote: Do you disagree with that? Does a mental abstraction/construction like "natural rights" actually have any power over anyone unless they voluntarily agree to let it have power over them? That depends. Have you agreed to let gravity affect you? Have you agreed with your arm that only you may control it? If not
-
"What is the source of your expectation (right?) to have your contracts respected by the parties with which you had signed them?" Alternatives Considered: Mutual self-interest The crook also steals out of self interest. What's needed is an enforcement mechanism that makes it less likely rather than more that not being productive (by instead
-
Alternatives Considered : Aha, now I see why I'm not finding much common ground with you: I (and most people here) am an anarchist, and think that embrace of a state is embracing aggression. But, are you some kind of pacifist? The state's use of force is often appropriate--specifically to prevent your rights from being violated. Without some
-
(how the hell does the quote function work on this forum? I highlight text, hit 'quote' and nothing happens. And there don't seem to be any quote controls in the box down here >:| ) Alternatives Considered wrote: Anenome , can you explain what you mean by "society"? - I mean something like a community of individuals. Could be
-
Wheylous: Why not? Inalienable rights doesn't mean that you yourself can't give them up. They're just inalienable by anyone else. - No, even you cannot alienate your rights from yourself. This is a basic legal principle even our system recognizes today. If, even in our system, someone paid you not to speak and you spoke--there's no law
-
Alternatives Considered wrote: But that is just a statement of what *I would choose* in a free market of societal rules systems. Like any other market choice I would make, who am I to insist *via force and violence* that my market choice should be everyone else's? - What you're missing here is that aknowledgement of natural right is what your
-
Em_ptySkin wrote: I think that taking over a state is impossible. The more feasible option would be finding a large enough place of land (Not an entire state) that a community can function completly independent in terms of food and jobs from multi national corporations. Then to form a City-State there... I'm working on a plan to do just this, but
-
Alternatives Considered: I'm an AnCap who rejects any notion of "rights" except to the extent that they are defined in agreements ("contracts") between people, so we do not all frame these questions in terms of rights and whether or not they are alienable or unalienable. That's simply not possible. The legal concept of a
-
Birthday Pony: It depends on whether rights are alienable or inalienable. If self-ownership is inalienable, then there's a problem with alienable rights. (Re: the $1m to not swim in the ocean example above) You'd be free to sign away your rights, but it wouldn't be enforceable in a court of law. You'd simply lose whatever privilege the
-
Birthday Pony: "you have picked up on the paradoxical nature of defining capitalism as voluntary trade. Defining capitalism as "voluntary trade" leads us to this: Capitalism is voluntary trade All anarchists support voluntary trade (which would include socialist anarchists) Socialist anarchists are capitalists. Now do you see the problem