Anarchism

[Arkolon]

Because the key word in "initiation of force" is "initiation". If force hasn't been initiated, then what you're doing is coercive. If force has been initiated, then it's justice/self-defense.

Trying to justify coercion.. it's a slippery slope from here on, Lib.

It's fairly easy to not do messed up things without believing in natural law and objective moral good. I manage it all the time, along with the majority of moral nihilists. Just because coercion is justified (or requires no justification, to be precise) doesn't mean coercion is effective or desirable.

Perhaps you could look at it through such a consequentialist perspective, but we are, as I understand it, operating under the anarchist axioms of voluntary cooperation, which include natural rights and natural law. This is a thread titled "Anarchism", so I could find that only just. In that case, coercion wouldn't be justified.

Also, aside from "it's a social construct so whatever", I haven't really heard any valid arguments against natural rights..

[Liberaxia]

Boo freaking hoo. Like there is anything wrong with it.

Rape, murder, and theft are understood when you say "coercion", so I'm going to assume your remark wasn't totally serious, there.

Of course I'm serious. Of course, I don't mean "rape, murder, and theft" (nice straw man), but I am absolutely okay with giving it to people who deserve it. This "initiation of force" really screws people up when talking about this stuff.

[Zottistan]

It's fairly easy to not do messed up things without believing in natural law and objective moral good. I manage it all the time, along with the majority of moral nihilists. Just because coercion is justified (or requires no justification, to be precise) doesn't mean coercion is effective or desirable.

Perhaps you could look at it through such a consequentialist perspective, but we are, as I understand it, operating under the anarchist axioms of voluntary cooperation, which include natural rights and natural law. This is a thread titled "Anarchism", so I could find that only just. In that case, coercion wouldn't be justified.

Within certain ethical systems coercion can't be justified, yeah. But saying that justifying coercion leads to a slippery slope of unacceptable behaviour is wrong.

Also, aside from "it's a social construct so whatever", I haven't really heard any valid arguments against natural rights..

I haven't really heard any valid argument for them. Just another ultimately arbitrary ethical code that's no more valid than any of the others.

[Arkolon]

Rape, murder, and theft are understood when you say "coercion", so I'm going to assume your remark wasn't totally serious, there.

Of course I'm serious. Of course, I don't mean "rape, murder, and theft" (nice straw man), but I am absolutely okay with giving it to people who deserve it. This "initiation of force" really screws people up when talking about this stuff.

Some people deserve to be raped?

[Sociobiology]

Because hierarchy is natural but the modern state is coercive?

Hierarchy is natural because humans naturally behave that way?

humans naturally developed states.

[Sociobiology]

opposing it doesn't matter if when asked to describe the society they still include it in the society.

Sorry, I think you might be a bit lost here. Where in the Anarchism thread did the anarchists favour the existence of a monopoly on violence?

this one.

I'm not even an anarchist.

I don't care what you call yourself.

[Sociobiology]

99.8% without private property, man, 99.%.

There is a natural right to property. The state can enforce natural rights, property rights, but it's not like property rights arrived alongside the state.

actually they do without a state they are not rights, just common social practices.

[Sociobiology]

A state is not necessarily coercive.

A state with a coercive monopoly on violence is coercive. A voluntary state isn't coercive.

co·er·cive
adjective \-ˈər-siv\
: using force or threats to make someone do something : using coercion

all societies are coercive

[Sociobiology]

It's fairly easy to not do messed up things without believing in natural law and objective moral good. I manage it all the time, along with the majority of moral nihilists. Just because coercion is justified (or requires no justification, to be precise) doesn't mean coercion is effective or desirable.

Perhaps you could look at it through such a consequentialist perspective, but we are, as I understand it, operating under the anarchist axioms of voluntary cooperation, which include natural rights and natural law. This is a thread titled "Anarchism", so I could find that only just. In that case, coercion wouldn't be justified.

Also, aside from "it's a social construct so whatever", I haven't really heard any valid arguments against natural rights..

aside from pointing out universal "natural law" does not exist.
the natural laws defined by science exist it is objective, the term natural law you refer to is something subjective, and varies from person to person and society to society.
I see the use of the term a purposeful effort to confuse the terms.

[Sociobiology]

Conflicting with natural rights doesn't make something unnatural. It makes it a violation of natural law. There are people who naturally engage in coercive behaviour, that's how states came to be in the first instance.

Yes, that's what I must have meant, sorry. Coercive behaviour through the initiation of force needn't be tackled by a state apparatus necessarily, you know.

of course not, unless you want a large society, then you do need a state.

[Zottistan]

Hierarchy is natural because humans naturally behave that way?

humans naturally developed states.

That was the point.

[Zottistan]

Hierarchy is natural because humans naturally behave that way?

humans naturally developed states.

That was the point.

[Arkolon]

Sorry, I think you might be a bit lost here. Where in the Anarchism thread did the anarchists favour the existence of a monopoly on violence?

this one.

I'm not even an anarchist.

I don't care what you call yourself.

Pardon?

[Arkolon]

A state with a coercive monopoly on violence is coercive. A voluntary state isn't coercive.

co·er·cive
adjective \-ˈər-siv\
: using force or threats to make someone do something : using coercion

all societies are coercive

A voluntary state wouldn't be. Threats or force wouldn't be used, because it would rely on voluntary payments by customers to operate.

[Arkolon]

Perhaps you could look at it through such a consequentialist perspective, but we are, as I understand it, operating under the anarchist axioms of voluntary cooperation, which include natural rights and natural law. This is a thread titled "Anarchism", so I could find that only just. In that case, coercion wouldn't be justified.

Also, aside from "it's a social construct so whatever", I haven't really heard any valid arguments against natural rights..

aside from pointing out universal "natural law" does not exist.
the natural laws defined by science exist it is objective, the term natural law you refer to is something subjective, and varies from person to person and society to society.
I see the use of the term a purposeful effort to confuse the terms.

Natural law stems from natural rights, which are rights not granted by a state (not positive) but are rights that every individual is born with. Natural law concludes that your rights end where another's begins. Nothing about Molyneusian universalism here.

[Arkolon]

Yes, that's what I must have meant, sorry. Coercive behaviour through the initiation of force needn't be tackled by a state apparatus necessarily, you know.

of course not, unless you want a large society, then you do need a state.

No? Just look at anarcho-capitalism.

[Conscentia]

Hierarchy is natural because humans naturally behave that way?

humans naturally developed states.

Only after several hundred thousand years of existing without them.

[Conscentia]

97.25%.
And really, if hierarchy can be considered a natural development of human behaviour, so can states. There's no reason they should be any different.

Because hierarchy is natural but the modern state is coercive?

Coercion is natural.

[Cymrea]

Natural law stems from natural rights, which are rights not granted by a state (not positive) but are rights that every individual is born with. Natural law concludes that your rights end where another's begins. Nothing about Molyneusian universalism here.

The entire notion of "rights" is a humanocentric social construct with no basis in nature at all. The natural world has no concept of mandated entitlements.

[Cymrea]

humans naturally developed states.

Only after several hundred thousand years of existing without them.

There were analagous groupings, however small.

[Arkolon]

Natural law stems from natural rights, which are rights not granted by a state (not positive) but are rights that every individual is born with. Natural law concludes that your rights end where another's begins. Nothing about Molyneusian universalism here.

The entire notion of "rights" is a humanocentric social construct with no basis in nature at all. The natural world has no concept of mandated entitlements.

Again, please do not conflate nature (biological sciences) with nature (political philosophy).

[Conscentia]

The entire notion of "rights" is a humanocentric social construct with no basis in nature at all. The natural world has no concept of mandated entitlements.

Again, please do not conflate nature (biological sciences) with nature (political philosophy).

Er, what?

[Arkolon]

Again, please do not conflate nature (biological sciences) with nature (political philosophy).

Er, what?

Natural law (political philosophy) and natural law (science) are not at all the same.

[Cymrea]

The entire notion of "rights" is a humanocentric social construct with no basis in nature at all. The natural world has no concept of mandated entitlements.

Again, please do not conflate nature (biological sciences) with nature (political philosophy).

Again? When did I do this previously?

Regardless, the political philosophy is another social construct. There are no such things as rights except where we invent them. To do so requires a subjective value system, making "rights" no different than "beliefs".

[Conscentia]

Er, what?

Natural law (political philosophy) and natural law (science) are not at all the same.

Again, what? No-one mentioned "natural law".

There is no distinct political concept called "nature".