Daily Anarchist Forum
October 06, 2022, 09:53:43 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: Religion, Anarchism, and Collectivism ...  (Read 15336 times)
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 06, 2012, 08:59:28 PM »

Okay than. So to clarify while you are saying that you DO find it a bad thing to "throw the baby into the fire/furnace" that you believe that that is an arbitrary preference...and that while you're arbitrary preferences support NOT throwing the baby in the fire the preferences of the mother may differ...
Correct.

Quote
so basically you're saying it's morally neutral to throw the baby into the fire?
It depends what you mean by morals. In MY morality, it's immoral. In hers it might not be. Morality is a cultural/social phenomenon. It's not well defined, and it's constantly changing. It varies from person to person. I don't believe in an objective morality. So I didn't block quote the section about slavery, because it's explained the same way.

Quote
I apologize if I am misunderstanding what you are saying and I'm glad you both replied promptly and didn't get offended when many people would.
Again, no apologies needed. I try to respond promptly when I can, but I tend to disappear for a few weeks at a time here or there. I feel one of those times fast approaching...
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Tom J
Full Member
***
Posts: 106


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 07, 2012, 06:13:27 AM »

...

But don't confuse the word "rights" associated with property, to the "natural rights" that other philosophers talk about. Property rights, in common usage and everyday language, refers only to a custom of respecting property claims...it has nothing to do with "rights" in the philosophical sense.
...

Although there may be some who define property rights philosophically, it's not a choice between either defining property rights philosophically or defining them legally.

Would it be accurate to say that you regard the very concept of possession to be subjective?
« Last Edit: March 07, 2012, 05:45:26 PM by Tom J » Logged
Mark Stoval
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 07, 2012, 11:07:51 AM »

... But many libertarians, myself included in the past, would claim that the government is taking away our rights. But they are not taking away our rights. ...

Exactly. It is very important that we assert that we have our right to "life, liberty, and property" as they used to say in the Americas just before the Revolution. We assert the Non-Aggression Principle as a unalienable right as a Human. When the overwhelming majority come to see we are right, then we will be far along the road to convincing the society that Statism is the opposite of that and always will be.

As my pagan ancestors used to say: "as you harm no one else, do as you wilt". (they were close at least)

I have no "right" to free beer, good looks, willing women, fast cars, or anything else I might desire. But I should be free from worry that if I ever get some beer that you will come along and demand half of it "for the less fortunate"!
Logged
Tom J
Full Member
***
Posts: 106


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 07, 2012, 02:26:45 PM »

...

I see on that page near the middle that  --- “Right” in its older, objective sense means “what is just” or “what is fair.” --- and that holds true for the modern intuitive concept of the word.


I think the term rights can be used in an objective sense, when associated with an objective definition of aggression; I wasn't one of the "me tooers".  However, the definition you provided doesn’t do that; it raises the question, what is “just” and what is “fair”.  

Also, I don’t agree that everyone “knows” that aggression is wrong and that “We all knew that slavery was wrong”. History, the world, and our lives would be very different if that were the case. For example, in my observation, a great many people in the US and the world aren’t bothered in the least by the mass murder, maiming of people, and destruction of property and lively hoods, done on a grand scale by states and empires; it makes them feel safer and good about their country.  
« Last Edit: March 07, 2012, 03:34:04 PM by Tom J » Logged
Mark Stoval
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 08, 2012, 06:22:31 AM »



I think the term rights can be used in an objective sense, when associated with an objective definition of aggression; I wasn't one of the "me tooers".  However, the definition you provided doesn’t do that; it raises the question, what is “just” and what is “fair”.  

Yes, the terms "just" and "fair" were used without formal definition. Thanks for noticing that! Many have written books trying to define these words we toss about in political debates or conversations. My short answer is that "just" and "fair" are meaningless terms unless they start with the non-aggression principle. That is the one rock to which we libertarians should always begin. No?


Also, I don’t agree that everyone “knows” that aggression is wrong and that “We all knew that slavery was wrong”. History, the world, and our lives would be very different if that were the case. For example, in my observation, a great many people in the US and the world aren’t bothered in the least by the mass murder, maiming of people, and destruction of property and lively hoods, done on a grand scale by states and empires; it makes them feel safer and good about their country.  

It is true that the agitprop of the government and its war-mongering allies has fooled many people with fear and loathing. But I have never found anyone in personal life who did not agree that aggression against some innocent person was wrong. That is a big part of the reason we have to "demonize the other" to make him less than human so we can aggress against him with a clean consensus.

We must find a way to change the philosophical debate and engage the masses on "what is right" and "what is just" rather than let the politicians continue to just engage the masses on "here is what we will give you". Rothbard did a great job of that and built a large following. Even those libertarians who don't care for Rothbard (they believe the propaganda against him) owe him a huge debt for rescuing the ideas of liberty and freedom that our Classic Liberal forbears held dear. 
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2012, 05:53:28 PM »

...

But don't confuse the word "rights" associated with property, to the "natural rights" that other philosophers talk about. Property rights, in common usage and everyday language, refers only to a custom of respecting property claims...it has nothing to do with "rights" in the philosophical sense.
...

Although there may be some who define property rights philosophically, it's not a choice between either defining property rights philosophically or defining them legally.

Would it be accurate to say that you regard the very concept of possession to be subjective?

I'm not understanding the question well enough to give a very confident answer. But if by subjective you mean not objective, I'm leaning towards yes.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!