NationStates

GeneralHaNor wrote:

Australien wrote:You don't have rights if nobody recognises them. Rights detail how others must treat us, if nobody recognises your right then it basically doesn't exist. By that logic, we need to respect a serial killers right to murder people, because he has assigned that right to himself.

No we don't, because he's already violated other peoples right to live.
I'm not asking you to respect my right to self ownership, or even my right to self property, I'm telling you I have them, and letting you know what the consequences of "War" will be.

Natapoc wrote:

Australien wrote:You don't have rights if nobody recognises them. Rights detail how others must treat us, if nobody recognises your right then it basically doesn't exist. By that logic, we need to respect a serial killers right to murder people, because he has assigned that right to himself.

It does not really matter to the topic anyway. From what I understand, GeneralHaNor would be no less "free" under that system then he is now and may fact have more of his "rights" respected then are currently respected.

I'm sure that HaNor pays sales tax or income tax? Something stolen by the state? If he does not then he has no significant property.

Australien wrote:

GeneralHaNor wrote:
No we don't, because he's already violated other peoples right to live.
I'm not asking you to respect my right to self ownership, or even my right to self property, I'm telling you I have them, and letting you know what the consequences of "War" will be.

Alright, I'm telling you I have the right to murder people, yet haven't done so yet. I've violated nobodies rights, therefore you have to respect my rights.
Also: Consequences? Do tell, what are these "consequences"?

Staenwald wrote:

Australien wrote:Alright, I'm telling you I have the right to murder people, yet haven't done so yet. I've violated nobodies rights, therefore you have to respect my rights.
Also: Consequences? Do tell, what are these "consequences"?

You don't have the right to murder people though. if you steal property, they can legitimately get it back through force.

Natapoc wrote:
It does not really matter to the topic anyway. From what I understand, GeneralHaNor would be no less "free" under that system then he is now and may fact have more of his "rights" respected then are currently respected.

I'm sure that HaNor pays sales tax or income tax? Something stolen by the state? If he does not then he has no significant property.

Staenwald wrote:

Australien wrote:Alright, I'm telling you I have the right to murder people, yet haven't done so yet. I've violated nobodies rights, therefore you have to respect my rights.
Also: Consequences? Do tell, what are these "consequences"?

You don't have the right to murder people though. if you steal property, they can legitimately get it back through force.

GeneralHaNor wrote:

Natapoc wrote:
It does not really matter to the topic anyway. From what I understand, GeneralHaNor would be no less "free" under that system then he is now and may fact have more of his "rights" respected then are currently respected.

I'm sure that HaNor pays sales tax or income tax? Something stolen by the state? If he does not then he has no significant property.

I do, but I'm impoverished, so I tend to get most if not all of it back. (I don't have a strong objection to sales tax, so it doesn't inspire me to violence in the defense of my property, in that I choose to purchase things therefore it's not a compulsory tax)

As for income taxes, I'm currently not engaged with war against the state, because the state is a huge monolithic entity and that would the shortest war ever. One must pick and choose their battles, there is a time and place for such confrontation, it is not today.

Australien wrote:

Staenwald wrote:You don't have the right to murder people though. if you steal property, they can legitimately get it back through force.

I've "Assigned myself that right".

Australien wrote:So you oppose income tax entirely? You simply pay it out of necessity.

GeneralHaNor wrote:

Australien wrote:So you oppose income tax entirely? You simply pay it out of necessity.

Correct, I do not recognize the states right to any portion of my labor (income) in whole or in part. I pay it, because men with guns will make me pay, if I don't. And they have significantly more guns (and the nominal support of the people, via "democracy/tyranny of majority" )

Trotskylvania wrote:Neither the Hungarian Revolution nor the Prague Spring were revolutions against socialism. They were revolutions against Marxism-Leninism. Only in the Soviet official history can they be said to be "counter-revolutions".

The Hungarian workers in 1956 raised a banner of "All power to the soviets", and tried to actually give soviet democracy a shot. For their trouble, they got a column of Soviet tanks.

Australien wrote:And what happens if you need to go to a hospital? Or if you need said men with guns to protect you?

Trotskylvania wrote:I cannot stress this enough. If you had taken even a basic survey of world history, or a basic anthropology class in college, and paid attention, you'd realize that the bulk of human history, and many of the great civilizations, were lacking one of your preconditions at the very least. Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Babylon...they had almost no conception of private property beyond a very narrow sense of personal possession. Real property, especially in land, was almost always held in common, and the vast majority of artisans and craftsmen were employed by the state.

Trotskylvania wrote:I don't know where you get this idea that Marx "gave up" or repudiated his earlier theories. Bohm-Bawerk only published his criticisms of Marx after Marx was already dead, and Carl Menger too didn't have any sort of dialogue with Marx while he was alive. It's easy to say you "trounced" someone when they're too dead to refute.

Trotskylvania wrote:But hey, if they were such luminaries who thoroughly trounced Marx, you wouldn't mind enlightening me on them now would you? Since outside of the Austrian school you don't hear much of these fellows, I'm going to venture a guess that they didn't "trounce" Marx as thoroughly as you think. Given how popular it is to be a critic of Marx, you'd think we'd be hearing more about these luminaries by now, if only because they were useful to the bourgeoisie...

Trotskylvania wrote:It's absurd on face that you even consider the self to be sovereign, let alone that you put it first. Even eminent liberal philosophers like John Rawls, in spite of their methodological individualism, recognize such a claim as contradictory. We're not born fully grown and brimming with wisdom from the head of Zeus; everyone one of us is ripped screaming into the world, poor and helpless. And everyone, without exception, owes their very existence to the millions who came before them, and built the civilization we live in. And from womb to tomb, we are manufactured to be the image of the society we live in. To call the individual sovereign is as absurd as calling the cog on an assembly line sovereign.

Trotskylvania wrote:And I don't get where you seem to think that any self-respecting socialist thinks capitalism diminished the standards of living for society. Any socialist worth his salt acknowledges that capitalism was morally progressive compared to the societies that came before it, and that it served to create impressive productive forces in the industrialized core of the world economy. The socialist position is that capitalism has or will outlive its usefulness.

Considering that Marx had a conception human nature as homo faber: the artisanal man who finds self worth through individual intentioned creation and labor as well as through community, I'd say your talking nonsense when you say he had concept of human activity.

Staenwald wrote:Whether you owe your life to the life of people 100 years ago is irrelevant. People are not means to an end, to say we owe ourselves to people living before us, with no choice about it, and then saying we have a duty to continue on their path, isn't much different from original sin to be honest. I can see where you are going. I was going to say the free market capitalism does not go against the idea of collective ownership, as long as it is voluntary. But Having collective ownership would make it a socialist society. I have a feeling that the most important factor is actually the freedom to decide whether to live individually or collectively. In this case, I wouldn't say communism is possible, because sometimes it will be more rational and self-beneficial to act individually, but as long as it's rational and the results of working together are worth making a few compromises, I'd go for it. That is why i don't think it's good to judge the 'end goal' in an economic sense, but rather in one of freedoms which people have.

If patricians stole land of people who held it collectively, that's stealing- not capitalism. Ancient Egypt was a theocratic dictatorship pretty much, the pharoahs were pretty ruthless.

Australien wrote:

GeneralHaNor wrote:
Correct, I do not recognize the states right to any portion of my labor (income) in whole or in part. I pay it, because men with guns will make me pay, if I don't. And they have significantly more guns (and the nominal support of the people, via "democracy/tyranny of majority" )

And what happens if you need to go to a hospital? Or if you need said men with guns to protect you?

Australien wrote:

GeneralHaNor wrote:
Correct, I do not recognize the states right to any portion of my labor (income) in whole or in part. I pay it, because men with guns will make me pay, if I don't. And they have significantly more guns (and the nominal support of the people, via "democracy/tyranny of majority" )

And what happens if you need to go to a hospital? Or if you need said men with guns to protect you?

The Southron Nation wrote:

Staenwald wrote:Whether you owe your life to the life of people 100 years ago is irrelevant. People are not means to an end, to say we owe ourselves to people living before us, with no choice about it, and then saying we have a duty to continue on their path, isn't much different from original sin to be honest. I can see where you are going. I was going to say the free market capitalism does not go against the idea of collective ownership, as long as it is voluntary. But Having collective ownership would make it a socialist society. I have a feeling that the most important factor is actually the freedom to decide whether to live individually or collectively. In this case, I wouldn't say communism is possible, because sometimes it will be more rational and self-beneficial to act individually, but as long as it's rational and the results of working together are worth making a few compromises, I'd go for it. That is why i don't think it's good to judge the 'end goal' in an economic sense, but rather in one of freedoms which people have.

If patricians stole land of people who held it collectively, that's stealing- not capitalism. Ancient Egypt was a theocratic dictatorship pretty much, the pharoahs were pretty ruthless.

You know, I really enjoy your responses!

Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.

Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.

Staenwald wrote:really? i'm paranoid i always think people are being sarcastic but

Distruzio wrote:

Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.

A bread hat would not be as awesome or tasty, but the Egyptians have already made one so... marketable prospect? Note, if you actually make this product, you will be liquidated by the dear leader as a capitalist pig.