Slutty Monarch explains Anarchy (with rebuttals)

[Kaelik]

Actual sane anarchists want a system where everyone takes it in turns being a sort of executive officer for the week but all decisions have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. Because expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. If I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

Sounds a lot more like Democracy than Anarchy. I think it is time that you consider the possibility that there are no sane Anarchists.

[DSMatticus]

sane anarchists

That is not an adjective that fits on that word. At best, anarchy is the childish naivete that humans are inherently respectful of one another's rights, no force is ever necessary, and without that ebil gubment we could all have our rights respected without resorting to force. At worst, it is the belief that it would be better if force were used by private institutions with obligations only to themselves instead of public institutions with some non-zero amount of obligaton to the people they subject to force. Neither of those is sane.

[hyzmarca]

sane anarchists

That is not an adjective that fits on that word. At best, anarchy is the childish naivete that humans are inherently respectful of one another's rights, no force is ever necessary, and without that ebil gubment we could all have our rights respected without resorting to force. At worst, it is the belief that it would be better if force were used by private institutions with obligations only to themselves instead of public institutions with some non-zero amount of obligaton to the people they subject to force. Neither of those is sane.

Not at all.

I'm afraid that you're sorely missing the more classical anarchist and libertarian thought, which is heavily tied to socialism, having arisen from the same conditions around the same time amongst the same sorts of people.

Plenty of social anarchists and anarchy-communists will tell you that private ownership of the means to exert force and coercion is just a stupid as the private ownership of the means of production and that any police or military organization must be publicly controlled, just as the means of production must be.

Of course, anarchist thought is all over the place and the only thing that the different flavors have in common is the conceit that the modern Westphalian state is coercive and exploitative and that these are bad things.

Of course, a lot of people who claim to be anarchists are idiots, which doesn't help the public perception or make anarchist philosophy any more coherent.

[Kaelik]

Yeah, I agree all those anarchists who believe in a strong government are totally sane.

Just like all those cats that speak human languages, live in human bodies, and are human are smarter than cats.

Oh wait. Maybe the cats who are humans are really humans, and the anarchists who believe in a strong government are not anarchists.

[DSMatticus]

Plenty of social anarchists and anarchy-communists will tell you that private ownership of the means to exert force and coercion is just a stupid as the private ownership of the means of production and that any police or military organization must be publicly controlled, just as the means of production must be.

If you aren't being sarcastic, then I want you to read this paragraph and think about it very, very hard. In what sense is a society in which the legitimate use of force is publicly owned and regulated a society without a state? Insofar as there are anarchists who are not anarchists and secretly people who are just bad at words, yes. Oh so very yes. You don't even have to go far for an example. Our resident anarchist seems to fall into this category.

[hyzmarca]

It works sort of like this:

Woman: Oh. How do you do?
King Arthur: How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Whose castle is that?
Woman: King of the who?
King Arthur: King of the Britons.
Woman: Who are the Britons?
King Arthur: Well, we all are. We are all Britons. And I am your king.
Woman: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
Dennis: You're foolin' yourself! We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working class...
Woman: Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.
Dennis: Well, that's what it's all about! If only people would...
King Arthur: Please, please, good people, I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
Woman: No one lives there.
King Arthur: Then who is your lord?
Woman: We don't have a lord.
Dennis: I told you, we're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week...
King Arthur: Yes...
Dennis: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
King Arthur: Yes I see...
Dennis: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs...
King Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: ...but by a two thirds majority in the case of...
King Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?

King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis:Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
King Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
King Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

[Kaelik]

Again, if your definition of anarchy results in the United States of America being called an anarchy, you are fucking retarded and you need a new definition.

The US government does not claim authority based on the Divine Right of Kings. So your completely flippant answer to a very real question is not fucking helping your case that Anarchists totally want to move to America because anarchy means "not Divine Right."

You bullshit liar. You refusal to understand what words mean does not make you clever or edgy or refined or anything else except a collosal fucking retard, now excuse me while I eat a banana, picture below, in the anarchy that is the United States of America.

[Koumei]

I would like to hope that people who are not called isp and possibly hyzmarca are just being stupid on purpose, and that any references to Monty Python and the Holy Grail are done for comic effect*, not because they think that is a valid source of political definitions.

Any minute now we'll have the weight of swallows and the knights who say Ni! I just can't wait!

*although, given this is 2013, not that much comic effect.

[hyzmarca]

I could spend a couple of days thouroghly researching the history of anarchism and give a scathing rebuttle, but I have other things to do so I'll just cut and past a bunch of shit from wikipedia instead.

Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be immoral,[8][9] or alternatively as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations.[10][11][12][13][14][15] Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on what sometimes is defined like non-hierarchical organizations,[10][16][17] and in another times is defined like voluntary associations.[18][19]

There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[20] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[9] Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[21][22] Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[23][24] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain supporting a market economy and private property, or morally unrestrained egoism.[25][26][27] Some individualist anarchists are also socialists or communists while some anarcho-communists are also individualists[28][29] or egoists.[30][31]




Anarchist communism[1] (also known as anarcho-communism, free communism, libertarian communism,[2][3][4][5] and communist anarchism[6][7]) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property),[8] and in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[9][10] direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Collectivist anarchism (also known as anarcho-collectivism) is a revolutionary[1] doctrine that advocates the abolition of both the state and private ownership of the means of production. It instead envisions the means of production being owned collectively and controlled and managed by the producers themselves.

For the collectivization of the means of production, it was originally envisaged that workers will revolt and forcibly collectivize the means of production.[1] Once collectivization takes place, money would be abolished to be replaced with labour notes and workers' salaries would be determined in democratic organizations based on job difficulty and the amount of time they contributed to production. These salaries would be used to purchase goods in a communal market.[2] This contrasts with anarcho-communism where wages would be abolished, and where individuals would take freely from a storehouse of goods "to each according to his need." Thus, Bakunin's "Collectivist Anarchism," notwithstanding the title, is seen as a blend of individualism and collectivism.[3]

Collectivist anarchism is most commonly associated with Mikhail Bakunin, the anti-authoritarian sections of the First International, and the early Spanish anarchist movement.



Mutualism is an economic theory and anarchist school of thought that advocates a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market.[1] Integral to the scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate, just high enough to cover administration.[2] Mutualism is based on a labor theory of value that holds that when labor or its product is sold, in exchange, it ought to receive goods or services embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility".[3] Mutualism originated from the writings of philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Mutualists oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through loans, investments, and rent, as they believe these individuals are not laboring. Though Proudhon opposed this type of income, he expressed that he had never intended "...to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose."[4] Insofar as they ensure the worker's right to the full product of their labor, mutualists support markets (or artificial markets) and property in the product of labor. However, they argue for conditional titles to land, whose ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation (which Proudhon called "possession");[5] thus advocating personal property, but not private property.



Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a branch of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as an appropriate vehicle for workers in capitalist society to get control of an economy and with that control, influence broader society. Syndicalism is viewed both as a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as being an alternative co-operative economic system upon which to base a democratic regime of production for the satisfaction of human needs. Adherents view it as a potential force for revolutionary social change, combining general defense of rights and advance of interests in the present with longer term strategies designed to facilitate development in workers of the class consciousness and capacity for self-activity necessary before capitalism and the state can be replaced with a new democratically self-managed society.

Anarcho-syndicalists seek to nurture their ideas through modes of organization and action such as solidarity, and direct action (meaning action undertaken without the intervention of third parties such as politicians, bureaucrats and arbitrators) and direct democracy, or workers' self-management.

The end goal of anarcho-syndicalism is to abolish the wage system, which adherents regard as wage slavery. Anarcho-syndicalist theory therefore generally focuses on the labour movement,[2] though there have been moves to broaden anarcho-syndicalism in the direction of a syndicalist intersectionality.[3]

Anarcho-syndicalists regard the state as a profoundly anti-worker institution, ironically agreeing with James Madison that the primary function of government is to 'protect the minority of the opulent from the majority.'[4] They view the primary purpose of the state as being the defense of private property and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, even when such defence denies its citizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy which springs from it.[5] In contrast to other bodies of thought (Marxism–Leninism being a prime example), anarcho-syndicalists deny that there can be any kind of workers' state, or a state which acts in the interests of workers, as opposed to those of the powerful, and that any state with the intention of empowering the workers will inevitably work to empower itself or the existing elite at the expense of the workers. Reflecting the anarchist philosophy from which it draws its primary inspiration, anarcho-syndicalism holds to the idea that power corrupts.[5]


Veganarchism or vegan anarchism, is the political philosophy of veganism (more specifically animal rights and earth liberation) and anarchism,[2][3] creating a combined praxis that is designed to be a means for social revolution.[4][5] This encompasses viewing the state as unnecessary and harmful to animals, both human and non-human, whilst practising a vegan lifestyle. It is either perceived as a combined theory, or that both philosophies are essentially the same.[6] It is further described as an anti-speciesist perspective on green anarchism, or an anarchist perspective on animal liberation.[5]

Veganarchists typically view oppressive dynamics within society to be interconnected, from statism, racism and sexism to human supremacy[7] and redefine veganism as a radical philosophy that sees the state as harmful to animals.[8] Ideologically, it is a human, animal, and Earth liberation movement that is fought as part of the same struggle.[citation needed] Those who believe in veganarchy can be either against reform for animals or for it, although do not limit goals to changes within the law.[9][10]

The philosophy was first popularised by Brian A. Dominick in Animal Liberation and Social Revolution[1] and later promoted by anarcho-punk band Virus using symbolism, Roots of Compassion, a zine named 'veganarchy', and political prisoner Jonny Albewhite.[2][3][11] The ideology is sometimes referred to as radical veganism, total liberation, or total revolution; however, not all who believe in the terms perceive them to be veganarchy.[7][8]


National-Anarchism is a right wing (although this is debated[1][2][3][4]), radical anti-statist, anti-capitalist, anti-Marxist, meta-political and cultural ideology which emphasizes ethnic tribalism,[5] but not exclusively.[1][3][4][4] As a prelude to an anticipated collapse of the capitalist system, National-Anarchists seek to establish autonomous villages for, but not exclusively[1][3][3][4][6] völkisch communities, which have seceded from the state's economy and are no-go areas for unwelcomed groups and state authorities.[5][7] Graham Macklin suggests that this is a prelude to an anticipated racial civil war and a collapse of the capitalist system.[5][7]

The term National Anarchism dates back as far as the 1920s.[5] However, it has been primarily redefined and popularized since the 1990s by British ideologue Troy Southgate to promote a synthesis of ideas from the Conservative Revolutionary movement, Traditionalist School, Third Positionism, Nouvelle Droite, and various anarchist schools of thought.[8] National-Anarchists therefore argue they hold a syncretic political or metapolitical stance that is "beyond left and right" because the conventional left–right political spectrum is obsolete and should be replaced with a centralist–decentralist paradigm.[9]

Four scholars counter that National-Anarchism represents a further evolution in the thinking of the radical right rather than an entirely new dimension.[10][11][12] National-Anarchism has elicited skepticism and outright hostility from both left- and right-wing critics. The former accuse National-Anarchists of misappropriating a sophisticated left-wing anarchist critique of problems with the modern world only to offer neo-fascism as the solution, while the latter argue they want the militant chic of calling themselves anarchists without the historical and philosophical baggage that accompanies such a claim.[7][13][14]

Anarcho-primitivism is an anarchist critique of the origins and progress of civilization. According to anarcho-primitivism, the shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural subsistence gave rise to social stratification, coercion, and alienation. Anarcho-primitivists advocate a return to non-"civilized" ways of life through deindustrialization, abolition of the division of labour or specialization, and abandonment of large-scale organization technologies.

Many traditional anarchists reject the critique of civilization while some, such as Wolfi Landstreicher, endorse the critique but do not consider themselves anarcho-primitivists. Anarcho-primitivists are often distinguished by their focus on the praxis of achieving a feral state of being through "rewilding".

There.


Now, some anarchists are fucking insane. But the problem that they have with the state is that it is hierarchical. Most anarchists recognize the need for some form of organization and posit non-coercive non-hierarchical institutions to replace the coercive and hierarchical state. This is stupidly hard to make work on any scale larger than a handful of people, and most anarchists fail to recognize this, which is why the philosophy rarely works in practice for long, but it's certainly not the case that they throw away the concepts of public institutions along with the state.

Of course, Infected Slut Princess is on the crazy side of anarchism.

[Username17]

Most successful anarchist systems are small and communal. No one has ever made large scale anarchism work. But anarcho syndicalism is a real thing and totally works.

Purely voluntary associations with no hierarchies work fine as, for example, collective farms or other corporations.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

But the problem that they have with the state is that it is hierarchical. Most anarchists recognize the need for some form of organization and posit non-coercive non-hierarchical institutions to replace the coercive and hierarchical state. This is stupidly hard to make work on any scale larger than a handful of people, and most anarchists fail to recognize this, which is why the philosophy rarely works in practice for long, but it's certainly not the case that they throw away the concepts of public institutions along with the state.

Hyzmarca, you do realize that non-hierarchical institutions can hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and therefore be a state, yes? The question of whether or not a hierarchy of authority exists is a completely separate question from whether or not a state exists. You can have a state without an hierarchy of authority (a commune that uses mob violence to enforce its rules), and you can have an hierarchy of authority without a state (violent gangs/organized crime is probably a good example).

As a matter of fact, I'm going to have to insist that you stop referencing the Monty Python skit, because everything the peasant says is compatible with the statement "and when people refuse to abide by decisions made, we beat them to death," which would make it a state (unless the community tolerates other uses of force, which would be weird). He explained how the community made decisions, not how it handled enforcing them or force in general, which means as an explanation of how the use of force can be controlled and regulated by public institutions in an anarchy (hint: it can't) it sucks. It doesn't explain that. At all.

It is absolutely the case that anarchy throws away the concept of force as a public institution. That's the fucking definition of anarchy. It's what the word means.

[infected slut princess]

What a delightful discussion.

Kaelik, like most statists, fails to grasp the problems inherent in the idea of people murderizing each other to the max unless they stop murderizing each other to create a government. i.e. the Hobbesian thesis. Either one is forced into a infinite regress of supra-sovereigns (this is Jasay's argument), or one is compelled to admit that people can in fact murderize each other less than max without government. So the very notion that people cannot cooperate without cooperating to make a government is a huge problem.

I'm sorry you fucking retarded monkey shit, if the US government doesn't have rightful claim to territory then how the fuck do you think a homeowners association that derives it's right to property from the US government (or some other government) does have a rightful claim?

Human rights do not come from the government. I feel sorry for you if you think this. You probably want to become a diplomat when you grow up so you can molest kids with immunity.

Governments are not the source of rights. We presuppose this when we criticize governments for violating the rights of their citizens, like in Qatar where the state will murder you for being gay.

The fact that you fail to recognize that morality precedes law just shows how intellectually pathetic you are.

I can think of literally no possible system imaginable that gives you a rightful claim to your house, but doesn't give the US government a rightful claim to your house.

I guess you are just ignorant then. Maybe you should read some different books about theories of rights.

If the Swedish government is literally the best possible situation, then how the fuck do you go about calling it bad

LOL Sweden "best possible situation". But there are a lot of smokin' hot women there and good metal bands, so it's got some relative advantages I guess.

You have already admitted that absent government is worse than with government, so if you can't name a single alternative that is better, then yes, the literal best possible universe is justified.

The state is just a systematization of private criminal behavior. So because I think the world is better without crime, obviously the world is better without the state, which commits the biggest crimes of all. Look at the last century of warfare and states slaughtering their own people in unfathomably high numbers. But you probably think all of that is totally awesome.

Mao, Stalin, and Hitler (all of them your heroes, I'm sure) would all love your philosophy, which lends support to their violence. You oppose people using private violence to get what they want, but you advocate the state using violence to get what it wants. The correct position, which is my own, is to make no moral exception for the state's evil. But that is a moral issue so I'm not surprised you and your crew of state-fapping friends are so confused about it.

Propose any better system at all before you start calling something bad.

The "system" that is obviously better is any social order characterized by peaceful human relationships, and that is the opposite of the state and private criminals, which operate by hegemony.

[Kaelik]

Either one is forced into a infinite regress of supra-sovereigns (this is Jasay's argument), or one is compelled to admit that people can in fact murderize each other less than max without government.

Unless governments have some qualities that people don't. Which they do. Retard.

Human rights do not come from the government. I feel sorry for you if you think this.

Governments are not the source of rights. We presuppose this when we criticize governments for violating the rights of their citizens, like in Qatar where the state will murder you for being gay.

The fact that you fail to recognize that morality precedes law just shows how intellectually pathetic you are.

Oh, you believe in souls. Nevermind then crazy person.

I can think of literally no possible system imaginable that gives you a rightful claim to your house, but doesn't give the US government a rightful claim to your house.

I guess you are just ignorant then. Maybe you should read some different books about theories of rights.

Translation: You can't think of one either.

The state is just a systematization of private criminal behavior.

That is not the definition of state, if you want to claim that all states are inherently systematization of criminal behavior, you should damn well make some kind of argument for it, because if you don't, I'm just going to start asserting that the definition of state is "perfect utopia" with the exact same level of justification.

But before you make your argument:

So because I think the world is better without crime, obviously the world is better without the state,

That is not the definition of crime. Seriously, you need to define crime before you base your entire post on the idea that the state is organized criminal behavior.

an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law

[Koumei]

Well perhaps isp thinks No state -> No laws -> Nothing is in violation of the laws -> No crime. And that would technically be correct in a completely fucking meaningless manner. Because suddenly it's not murder (the crime), it's just "killing some dude against his will", and because it's not a crime (there being no laws to forbid it), that's okay.

And the problem is that might actually be the thought process here. Which is a fucking mental thought process, but I can't tell if that's what isp really thinks.

[Kaelik]

Well perhaps isp thinks No state -> No laws -> Nothing is in violation of the laws -> No crime. And that would technically be correct in a completely fucking meaningless manner. Because suddenly it's not murder (the crime), it's just "killing some dude against his will", and because it's not a crime (there being no laws to forbid it), that's okay.

And the problem is that might actually be the thought process here. Which is a fucking mental thought process, but I can't tell if that's what isp really thinks.

That isn't his position, because he defined the state as the systematization of private criminal actions. Which means he believes there are criminal actions without a state.

I suspect that crime is defined as bad things, and bad things is defined as morality, and morality is totally universal and not based on the consensus of people because souls.

[DSMatticus]

Governments are not the source of rights. We presuppose this when we criticize governments for violating the rights of their citizens, like in Qatar where the state will murder you for being gay.

Rights do not objectively exist. They are not physical objects, like rocks. They are not properties of physical objects, like being blue. They are not mathematical statements derived from axioms we find useful, like 2+2=4. They are constructs that exist because someone with the force to make others listen to them says they do, and any belief otherwise is SOOOUUULLLSSS level bullshit. Saying that rights objectively exist because people criticize states for murdering gays on the basis of human rights violations is like arguing that the rules for football objectively exist because people criticize players for taking steroids in violation of those rules. It turns out that people can violate arbitrary, artificial frameworks, and you can complain about that. You can even argue about what the rules of football should be compared to what they are, all while it being completely and totally obvious that they are arbitrary and artificial.

If someone with the force to do so kicks you out of your house on the basis that they have the right to your property, they are correct. You can say that you don't care much for them doing so. You can insist that they should not have done the thing they did. But they are living in your house now and no one cares. The universe isn't going to intervene on your behalf and kick him out. Rights exist if and only if they are respected, and force or the threat thereof is the only way anyone's ever ensured that happens for any group larger than a small community.

When one institution claims a monopoly on force, they are declaring that they will decide (either implicitly through whatever actions they happen to take or explicitly through whatever they declare and follow up on) what everyone's rights are. Sometimes that institution has a system in place such that all those subject to its force have some say in the institutions actions and proclamations (i.e., you vote and it matters). Sometimes the institution does whatever the fuck it wants and you can't stop it because it's backed by a force you cannot contest. But when no institution claims a monopoly on force, everyone is free to use force to declare and enforce their own idea of what their rights are or should be. Any right you declare exists only because no one with the force to deprive you of it has shown up. Given that distribution of force certainly won't be equal, the distribution of rights won't be either. If you happen to like some particular arbitrary rights framework (for example, because you are SOOOUUULLLSSS idiot), anarchy fails spectacularly on that front. Anarchy can't guarantee everyone has the rights you think they should have, because it definitionally depends on the exertion of force from many, many different parties with no common motivation.

[infected slut princess]

If someone with the force to do so kicks you out of your house on the basis that they have the right to your property, they are correct.

So just to clarify:

If Kaelik has sufficient force at his disposal, breaks into your house and rapes your children on the basis that he has the right to your children's bodies, he is correct?

That is an interesting view. Let me know if I am misunderstanding you here.

[...You Lost Me]

If Kaelik's "sufficient force" means the US military (plus anyone other military that steps up) hunting him over the course of years, then yes.

[Chamomile]

ISP, if Kaelik has sufficient force to break into your house and rape your children and get away with it, what are you going to do about it? Are your magical rights going to unrape your kids? Are they going to vaporize Kaelik for violating the Way Things Were Meant To Be?

Of course not. Rights only exist if they are enforced, and failure to acknowledge this is morally abhorrent because to claim that rights are inherent is to claim that they do not require protection; if the state is fundamentally incapable of taking your rights away, you don't have to worry that they'll do so. But the state is capable of taking people's rights away and we do have to worry that they'll do that, which is why laws and methods of enforcing them are important. If you don't have laws and methods of enforcing them, you only have your rights until someone with a bigger stick and more friends comes along to take them.

[DSMatticus]

If someone shows up at your door intending violence and there is literally no one on the entire planet with both the ability and inclination (including you, presumably because of the former and not the latter) to assert otherwise, uhh, yes? Magic fairies aren't going to pop out of the nearby woods and blast them with pixie dust until they stop. You can argue that some nebulous, untestable, intangible property (SOOOUUULLL) exists that says "things like this shouldn't happen to me," but that nebulous, untestable, intangible property isn't going to protect you. The only way your "rights" have any observable influence on the world at all is if the people around you agree you have them and agree to respect them. Don't you think that's rather telling?

When the state claims a monopoly on legitimate force and someone shows up at your door intending violence, you can tell them "fuck off." And then they have the options "fuck off," "contest the state's monopoly on violence," or "do it anyway and hope the state doesn't catch them/deal with the consequences." #3 totally happens. Crime is a thing. No agency, how ever powerful, will have its dictates obeyed 100% of the time. But criminals aren't (successfully) claiming the right to do the things they do. It's the difference between legitimate force and force. You can never have a monopoly on force - it's pretty much impossible to stop me from swinging at the next dude I see if I really want to. But the government will go to great lengths to stop me from doing so, punish me for doing so, and remind everyone that they have a monopoly on violence and behaving like me will cause Bad Things to happen to you.

[infected slut princess]

Ok, someone is going to have to explain the shit about magic faries and souls? Firstly, "SOULS" is rather nondescriptive and superstitious language and I don't know what you are even talking about with reference to _this_ discussion. Moral philosophy covers a lot of ground beyond just "SOULS" (whatever you may mean by that) and relativism, and you guys betray a lack of sophistication by framing the options in such a limited way. There are a lot of moral philosophers out there who are not relativists and yet do not talk about souls. The way you guys talk and your homogeneity of opinion makes it seem like everything you 'learned' about moral philosophy was off an internet message board far too insulated from differing viewpoints (also indicated by your shared use of the term "souls" as if everyone else should understand that).

Anyway, the relativists of TGD claim that Kaelik somehow acquires the right to rape children if he can “enforce” that right. That is completely absurd and represents pure confusion about rights. I mean, does that really deserve a sober argument, or should I just laugh at how fucked up that is? Because it is absolutely seriously fucked right up.

On the theory of the moral relativists at TGD, it is incoherent to say “The government of Qatar is violating the rights of gay people by murdering them,” because Qatar's government can enforce its "right" to murder and the gay dude cannot enforce his right to not be murdered. It is incoherent to say, “The government of Afghanistan is violating the rights of orphan boys by raping them,” because Afghanistan's govt can enforce its "right" to rape and the orphan cannot enforce his right to not be raped. Amazing.

I think I win the argument automatically just by letting you guys write your crazy stuff, because it shows your moral degeneracy. You are your own reductio ad absurdum.
-----------

For the relativist gang, I'm curious about what your favorite relativist philosophers, legal theorists, and books are.

[Username17]

Anyway, the relativists of TGD claim that Kaelik somehow acquires the right to rape children if he can “enforce” that right. That is completely absurd and represents pure confusion about rights. I mean, does that really deserve a sober argument, or should I just laugh at how fucked up that is?

You would have to make a sober argument, because "rights" only exist by virtue of common agreement and common enforcement. If someone can take away your rights (which they can), and people can acquire new rights (which they can), then you're going to have to make some sort of coherent argument as to why someone can't simply acquire rights you don't think they should have by virtue of having more friends and bigger sticks.

Recall that there are places in the world today where men do have the right to rape children. Yemen, for instance, in which girls as young as 8 are forced into marriages. In fact, millions of girls are forced into marriage every year, meaning that there are really a lot of people who have the right to rape children as we speak.

Now you can argue, and I would agree that it is not a good thing that people have the right to rape children. But they obviously have that right, because they exercise it every day and nothing happens to them.

And as an anarchist, you're really going to have to explain how splitting into smaller, mutually voluntary associations is going to reduce child rape. Because if we had a single super-state that covered the whole world and set a single age of consent for marriage it would be a lot higher than eight. And yet if we look at, for example, Mormon communes in the United States, we note that we would very definitely have sanctioned child rape in the United States tomorrow if we didn't have a state to gainsay that. From where I'm sitting, child rape is a really bad example for anarchists to talk about, because right now a super majority of people and political institutions are opposed to it, but there are numerous small and voluntary associations that are individually in favor.

-Username17

[Whipstitch]

Acknowledgement of how the world currently works is not the same thing as approval of how it works. Despite our best intentions it is a demonstrable fact that many people do not have the rights I currently enjoy, and that's awful. Hell, the UN has repeatedly found that it's really not enough to just say that people have some fundamental rights on their charter. You actually have to define that shit and put some teeth behind it or else it just doesn't fucking matter. It's a depressing thing to acknowledge, but to ignore it is flat out irresponsible.

[DSMatticus]

Firstly, "SOULS" is rather nondescriptive and superstitious language and I don't know what you are even talking about with reference to _this_ discussion.

You are advocating that people have a nebulous, untestable, intangible property called "rights" that has no observable influence on the world whatsoever but must be acknowledged without evidence because reasons. It isn't a rational belief, because it definitionally pisses in the face of evidentiary requirements (it's an un-fucking-testable hypothethesis!). You know, like SOOOUUULLLSSS, which is another nebulous, untestable, intangible property people are supposed to have.

You are going to have to learn to make the distinction between "what rights people have" and "what rights ISP wants people to have." When people point out the seven billion people on the planet living under rights frameworks you (probably) don't agree with, saying "those people don't actually have the rights they're succesfully exercising, it's all just one big misunderstanding" is WTF-hilarious. It's like the is-ought problem in reverse.

On the theory of the moral relativists at TGD, it is incoherent to say “The government of Qatar is violating the rights of gay people by murdering them,” because Qatar's government can enforce its "right" to murder and the gay dude cannot enforce his right to not be murdered.

Saying that rights objectively exist because people criticize states for murdering gays on the basis of human rights violations is like arguing that the rules for football objectively exist because people criticize players for taking steroids in violation of those rules. It turns out that people can violate arbitrary, artificial frameworks, and you can complain about that. You can even argue about what the rules of football should be compared to what they are, all while it being completely and totally obvious that they are arbitrary and artificial.

That point was already addressed. Damningly. People can and do argue about arbitrary frameworks.

[infected slut princess]

1+1 = 2 regardless of whether someone somewhere declares that 1+1=3. It's essentially the same with the right not to be raped. Kaelik or some dude in Yemen can declare he has the right to rape a kid because force is on his side, but that doesn't make it so. It will NEVER make it so. Only someone who is an idiot or wants to rape kids would deny this. I am proud defend a child's right not to be raped against you idiots who say "yes, you can get the right to rape a kid."

The fact that you guys think there can EVER be a right to rape a kid under any circumstances is twisted and fucked up and so obviously wrong. Hint: the flipside of a right is an obligation.

Again, I don't have to argue against it, because to any sane person you've smashed yourselves with the ultimate reductio ad absurdum. You guys make your own arguments against yourselves just by talking. Which makes it easier for me, since there are about 10 of you dicklickers, and then there is me, the only person apparently on this entire message board saying no matter what the law says, no matter how many guns you have, or how many dudes in your crew, you will never have the right to rape kids.

So what's the deal? Do you guys read moral philosophy and rights theory books or do you just spend all your time in the Frank Trollman relativist echo chamber? What philosophers and legal theorists have informed your opinions? Are there any non-relativists on the board? Just wondering about your intellectual backgrounds on this subject. You guys are all HARDCORE relativists and it's surprising to see so many in one place haha.

Re: Qatar. If what DSmattticus ssays is true, then it is incoherent to say that the gay dude's rights are being violated in that situation, because a right must be enforced to be "real". But it is clearly not incoherent to say rights are being violated in this example, or a billion others. Comparing arbitrary football rules to the right not to be raped or murdered just goe to show how far you folks have drifted from civilized thought. Hilarious.