Anarchism

[MERIZoC]

Now, im a Tea partier that supports personal liberty, limited government, ETC. But when people bring up TOTAL anarchy, i just tell them to watch The Purge.

The Purge is complete shit. Do not draw on it as a source for reality.

[Conscentia]

Arkolon, could you explain what you mean by the "natural" in "natural law"?

Although NST was right in saying that it creates confusion, I was taught with these terms as they were given by John Locke and Robert Nozick. Natural as in human social nature, not biological nature.

Same thing. The mind is what the brain does. Societies are what minds do together. Therefore, our social behaviour is ultimately biogenic.

[Conscentia]

Not with your interpretation of it. Your interpretation being as valid as any other system of ethics.

I disagree. The initiation of force is negatively perceived in all ethical systems. [...]

Not in the ethical systems ascribed to be egotists and misanthropists. They're completely comfortable with initiating force if it benefits themselves/harms the objectionable humans respectively. (Also see: "Might makes right")

And it's irrelevant that humans generally object to initiating force. Doesn't mean views that don't conform aren't valid.

[Arkolon]

Although NST was right in saying that it creates confusion, I was taught with these terms as they were given by John Locke and Robert Nozick. Natural as in human social nature, not biological nature.

Same thing. The mind is what the brain does. Societies are what minds do together. Therefore, our social behaviour is ultimately biogenic.

No. And to prove it to you, such a conflation wouldn't make sense if you read Locke or Nozick.

[Conscentia]

Same thing. The mind is what the brain does. Societies are what minds do together. Therefore, our social behaviour is ultimately biogenic.

No. And to prove it to you, such a conflation wouldn't make sense if you read Locke or Nozick.

That means that Locke and Nozick are wrong, not that neurology is wrong.

[Sociobiology]

Arkolon, could you explain what you mean by the "natural" in "natural law"?

Although NST was right in saying that it creates confusion, I was taught with these terms as they were given by John Locke and Robert Nozick. Natural as in human social nature, not biological nature.

human social nature is part of their biological nature, therefor you were taught wrong.

[Sociobiology]

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.

society is maintained by threat of force, all societies, every single one on the planet.

[Sociobiology]

then you should not define yourself into a corner. Also by your statement I take it you ARE using the most narrow definition of opportunity?

What do you mean re: opportunity?

do you even read the links you give people?

[Sociobiology]

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 also don't exist.

Natural law concludes that your rights end where another's begins.

which is itself a subjective philosophy. thus not a given for a society.

[Sociobiology]

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

No? Just look at anarcho-capitalism.

which exists nowhere on earth, almost as if it can't.
thats like me saying magic can exist, just look at harry potter.

[Sociobiology]

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).

1. nature is not exclusive to biology, ALL science deals with the natural world and natural law.
2. either these things (natural rights) exist independent of human beliefs in which case a society has to have them and you can take them as an assumption AND the fall within scientific law , Or they don't exist indeoendently and you need to justify why the society would have them, and in this case what the society would to to maintain them as well.
Since you fail to justify them, I must assume you incorrectly believe "natural law and/or natural rights" fall in the former category.

Natural law, as you sue the term, does not exist.

[Planeia]

Fuck da anarchists.

[Zottistan]

Not with your interpretation of it. Your interpretation being as valid as any other system of ethics.

I disagree. The initiation of force is negatively perceived in all ethical systems.[.quote]
If this was the case, nobody could initiate force and feel justified. People have, and do. And in any case, just because human ethical systems have rejected the initiation of force so far doesn't mean they will in future. I could create an ethical system right now that has no problem with the initiation of force.

Those who initiate force in your perspective and that have a different ethical system see their initiation of force as justice; as the reciprocation of force. Communists initiate force on the capitalistic system in riots and revolutions because they see that as the initiation of force. In no ethical system is the unwarranted initiation of force justified. It can be given justifications as the reciprocation of force, but never the initiation.

Well, firstly, it is under utilitarian and consequentialist ethics in some circumstances. Whatever you think of them, they're ethical systems and ones that's got a wide following. Hedonist and egoist ethical systems can accept it.

The cleansing of ethnic and religious groups usually can't be described in any way as the reciprocation of force. When a school bully feels justified because the kid he beat up was a "faggot", there's no way I can see that you could claim the reciprocation of force.

Sometimes people are just dicks for the hell of it, and sometimes those people feel very justified in their dickery.

[Zottistan]

Same thing. The mind is what the brain does. Societies are what minds do together. Therefore, our social behaviour is ultimately biogenic.

No. And to prove it to you, such a conflation wouldn't make sense if you read Locke or Nozick.

It's poor form to respond to a point with "these philosophers disagree". You could at least provide a summary of how and why. Societies are the interactions of the biological constructs that are our brains. Like language, morality and culture, it has its roots in physical science.

[Arkolon]

No. And to prove it to you, such a conflation wouldn't make sense if you read Locke or Nozick.

That means that Locke and Nozick are wrong, not that neurology is wrong.

Locke and Nozick were wrong because, for you, nature (science) = nature (political philosophy)?

[Arkolon]

Although NST was right in saying that it creates confusion, I was taught with these terms as they were given by John Locke and Robert Nozick. Natural as in human social nature, not biological nature.

human social nature is part of their biological nature, therefor you were taught wrong.

It's more looking at how and which social constructs form, as well as why. Not sure what that has to do with the digestive system or natural (science) instincts, but OK.

[Arkolon]

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

society is maintained by threat of force, all societies, every single one on the planet.

Using threat of force =/= "using force or threats". Read over the definition you gave again.

[Arkolon]

What do you mean re: opportunity?

do you even read the links you give people?

Yeah, but which link were you referring to? If you're talking about Hazlitt, what does opportunity cost have to do with anything? I haven't sent a link in a few pages.

[Arkolon]

Natural law stems from natural rights,

which also don't exist.

Say, do rights not exist at all in your opinion?

Natural law concludes that your rights end where another's begins.

which is itself a subjective philosophy. thus not a given for a society.

Natural law is the logical conclusion of natural rights. Once you quit disagreeing almost just because you can re: natural rights, you'll see the logic behind natural law.

[Arkolon]

No? Just look at anarcho-capitalism.

which exists nowhere on earth, almost as if it can't.
thats like me saying magic can exist, just look at harry potter.

Magic is not possible. Anarcho-capitalism is. It's actually like me saying this invention is possible, look at this prototype.

[Arkolon]

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

1. nature is not exclusive to biology, ALL science deals with the natural world and natural law.
2. either these things (natural rights) exist independent of human beliefs in which case a society has to have them and you can take them as an assumption AND the fall within scientific law , Or they don't exist indeoendently and you need to justify why the society would have them, and in this case what the society would to to maintain them as well.
Since you fail to justify them, I must assume you incorrectly believe "natural law and/or natural rights" fall in the former category.

Natural law, as you sue the term, does not exist.

1. OK? I gave an example of a science.
2. Rights are a social construct that individuals are born with because they are individuals. You're submitting a dichotomy that has no correct answer, telling me to choose one of either wrong choice. You're the one who came in here with no knowledge of natural rights, remember?

[Arkolon]

No. And to prove it to you, such a conflation wouldn't make sense if you read Locke or Nozick.

It's poor form to respond to a point with "these philosophers disagree". You could at least provide a summary of how and why. Societies are the interactions of the biological constructs that are our brains. Like language, morality and culture, it has its roots in physical science.

It's not so much "these philosophers disagree", but "these philosophers used these words and the new definitions you're trying to forcefully give the very same words in the very same context would give a whole new and illogical meaning to what these philosophers were saying; therefore, I would conclude that that is not their accurate and correct definition.."

[Zottistan]

It's poor form to respond to a point with "these philosophers disagree". You could at least provide a summary of how and why. Societies are the interactions of the biological constructs that are our brains. Like language, morality and culture, it has its roots in physical science.

It's not so much "these philosophers disagree", but "these philosophers used these words and the new definitions you're trying to forcefully give the very same words in the very same context would give a whole new and illogical meaning to what these philosophers were saying; therefore, I would conclude that that is not their accurate and correct definition.."

Hang on a second. You said that this statement: " The mind is what the brain does. Societies are what minds do together. Therefore, our social behaviour is ultimately biogenic." wouldn't make sense if Conscentia was familiar with the works of Locke and Nozick. I don't see what that has to do with definition. They're arguing that social nature and biological nature are different levels of the same thing, which they are. Social nature has its roots in physical science, regardless of however Locke and Nozick defined their terms.

EDIT: I mean, they are criticizing the term "natural rights". Of course they're attacking the definitions.

[Arkolon]

It's not so much "these philosophers disagree", but "these philosophers used these words and the new definitions you're trying to forcefully give the very same words in the very same context would give a whole new and illogical meaning to what these philosophers were saying; therefore, I would conclude that that is not their accurate and correct definition.."

Hang on a second. You said that this statement: " The mind is what the brain does. Societies are what minds do together. Therefore, our social behaviour is ultimately biogenic." wouldn't make sense if Conscentia was familiar with the works of Locke and Nozick. I don't see what that has to do with definition. They're arguing that social nature and biological nature are different levels of the same thing, which they are. Social nature has its roots in physical science, regardless of however Locke and Nozick defined their terms.

Natural rights are hard to describe. They are rights one is born with. I could give you Lindsay's paragraph, but you've probably heard it all too often by now. Perhaps I was wrong in saying that nature meant human social nature, seeing as it created more misunderstandings than it did remove. Ultimately, there is no concise definition to Lockean natural rights I can give you. All I know is the context in which they are (and are to be) correctly used.

[Zottistan]

Hang on a second. You said that this statement: " The mind is what the brain does. Societies are what minds do together. Therefore, our social behaviour is ultimately biogenic." wouldn't make sense if Conscentia was familiar with the works of Locke and Nozick. I don't see what that has to do with definition. They're arguing that social nature and biological nature are different levels of the same thing, which they are. Social nature has its roots in physical science, regardless of however Locke and Nozick defined their terms.

Natural rights are hard to describe. They are rights one is born with. I could give you Lindsay's paragraph, but you've probably heard it all too often by now. Perhaps I was wrong in saying that nature meant human social nature, seeing as it created more misunderstandings than it did remove. Ultimately, there is no concise definition to Lockean natural rights I can give you. All I know is the context in which they are (and are to be) correctly used.

I've never seen Lindsay's paragraph.

If there's no concise definition of natural rights, you shouldn't be surprised when people are critical of the concept and the terminology. It's hard to persuade people to support something you can't define.