Right Wing Discussion Thread V - Emperor's Holy Inquisition

[Napkiraly]

Feudalism was really the opposite though.

It was their property, and they defended their property rights too the death. You just lived on it, on their terms. Feudalism we should recall was not an order imposed by a powerful central state, but an order that grew up organically from the ruins of one. There is more than a little continuity between the sort of social stratification that existed organically in tribal societies and Feudal order; the relationship between the lord and peasant was a more formalized version of the informal relationship between tribal "big men" and the lowliest members who depended on them completely to survive. Except the middle class of free men of independent means that exist in most pre-state societies had been all but squeezed out of existence.

Not true at all. The relationship between serf and lord, while terribly unequal, was an essential development of the advancement of division of labor seen since the classical period combined with the anarchic and ambitious state of Dark Age Europe, as well as the low productive capacity but high wealth of the region. In tribal societies, the 'big men' were not necessarily the best fighters. They were people with great social capital. The reliance of the lowliest members of the tribe on the strong man has very little relation to the protector-protected relationship between the nobility and serfs; the former has more in common with the political cronyism of the late Roman Republic, while the latter more resembles 20th century mafia protection rackets.

The former in particular because the basis of the Roman Republic has a lot to do with the original system used by the initial founding tribes iirc.

[Napkiraly]

If he has the element of surprise, the high ground, more experience, etc then it is possible, to be honest. Not common, mind you, but possible.

One man can't defend himself against even one other if the other has the element of surprise. My point is that being well-armed has its limits.

Fair enough, this is true. Better tactics are not always a sure way to victory if faced with overwhelming numbers (then again, having overwhelming numbers is also a not a sure way to victory if opposing an opponent with better tactics). This is why it is imperative to be both the biggest and the best.

[Conserative Morality]

The former in particular because the basis of the Roman Republic has a lot to do with the original system used by the initial founding tribes iirc.

More to do with a large unemployment rate of free citizens and the nature of a democracy without strong guards or traditions against corruption.

[Conscentia]

Please, I implore you not to write a text wall, because I won't respond to it; an Internet argument isn't worth that much.

My responses are short. The quotes merely make the posts look longer.

Unless I've misunderstood, your elaboration on 'why' is simply that they would otherwise have life and liberty if no-one took them away and somehow that means that they're naturally entitled to them. To that I responded "just because they'd otherwise have it doesn't mean they're entitled to it", which you've not yet refuted.

This is my reasons for natural rights:[Stuff I Already Read]

I know. That's what I was responding to with the quoted like: "just because they'd otherwise have it doesn't mean they're entitled to it".

Also, if you believe in a natural right to life, then you must concede that such things as capital punishment and war-time killings violate those rights - that they are illegitimate and no government has the authority to legitimise them.

Depends. Did the transgressor enter the State of War?

Does this "state of war" fundamentally change nature?

You say property derives from labour. That would mean that the extent of one's ownership would be limited to the land one has actually used. Those resources have not been used, or even necessarily exposed or discovered. They're only part of the tract of the land because the has defined it's bounds as such, regardless of what you've done with the land.

Hence why it is common for all.

Except it isn't. I'm talking about private property.

[Napkiraly]

The former in particular because the basis of the Roman Republic has a lot to do with the original system used by the initial founding tribes iirc.

More to do with a large unemployment rate of free citizens and the nature of a democracy without strong guards or traditions against corruption.

Well that as well. The conquests of the late Roman Republic were a cursed blessing in many ways.

[Benuty]

Stop insulting Ludd with that revisionist garbage that they opposed technological development.

I am aware that the original Luddites were concerned with achieving better bargaining positions, but that is not the modern usage of the term and is the one most commonly known.

The modern usage is still revisionist garbage.

*Immensely triggered prescriptivist*

[Minzerland II]

Please, I implore you not to write a text wall, because I won't respond to it; an Internet argument isn't worth that much.

My responses are short. The quotes merely make the posts look longer.

Just a note for reference. I observed that, by the end, the amount of text was getting larger.

This is my reasons for natural rights:[Stuff I Already Read]

I know. That's what I was responding to with the quoted like: "just because they'd otherwise have it doesn't mean they're entitled to it".

That wasn't what I was arguing, then.

Depends. Did the transgressor enter the State of War?

Does this "state of war" fundamentally change nature?

What do you mean?

Hence why it is common for all.

Except it isn't. I'm talking about private property.

Oh. Okay. Go on then.

[Lady Scylla]

Natural rights implies that a) Such cant be taken away, b) Punishment will occur for attempting to. Rendering someone incapable of exercising their rights is taking them away, indefinitely, in the case of death. Absent of an enforcer such as law, one will escape punishment for it.

I would disagree. I'd argue that to believe in any sort of rights absolutely, you must believe in God or a higher power of some sort. That is why I find it amusing to watch the modern left drone on about the inviobility of "human rights".

I don't believe in God, don't believe in natural rights, and don't think they're inviolable.

[The Kievan People]

Not true at all. The relationship between serf and lord, while terribly unequal, was an essential development of the advancement of division of labor seen since the classical period combined with the anarchic and ambitious state of Dark Age Europe, as well as the low productive capacity but high wealth of the region. In tribal societies, the 'big men' were not necessarily the best fighters. They were people with great social capital. The reliance of the lowliest members of the tribe on the strong man has very little relation to the protector-protected relationship between the nobility and serfs; the former has more in common with the political cronyism of the late Roman Republic, while the latter more resembles 20th century mafia protection rackets.

In Germanic tribes during the migration period social capital was military prowess. They were martial societies where men got ahead by succeeding in battle. The big men of those societies were the ones with the biggest, baddest retinues of warriors on call. And after they overrun the Western Empire they were the ones who the Germanic kings awarded stewardship of fiefs in exchange for military service because they were the ones with the soldiers and the horses in the first place. That stewardship eventually degenerated into hereditary ownership and feudalism was born.

The elite families of Rome, who owned the country estates that did indeed form the nucleus of manorialism and the feudal economy, vanished. They did not survive the end of the western empire. The lords of the middle ages may have had them in their family tree somewhere, but they had long forgotten. In Western Europe it was the Germanic kings and their favoured men who were at the roots. Their dependent labourers and tenants were in many ways the first peasants, but the Roman landowners were not the first lords.

Anyways political cronyism in Rome was an outgrowth of the Patrician-Plebeian divide, which came from.... well, nowhere. A Patrician was a son of a Patrician. They exist from the beginning of recorded Roman history fully formed. Italian tribal culture probably. It's big men all the way down.

[Conscentia]

I know. That's what I was responding to with the quoted like: "just because they'd otherwise have it doesn't mean they're entitled to it".

That wasn't what I was arguing, then.

Then you'll have to better explain what it is you're arguing. I'll repeat my earlier questions: "How do you know that natural rights exist? By what means could I discover them?".

Does this "state of war" fundamentally change nature?

What do you mean?

If the state of war doesn't change the nature from which your "natural" rights are derived, then it doesn't matter whether the "the transgressor [entered] the State of War". They'll have a natural right to life regardless. Natural rights are inalienable and universal.

Except it isn't. I'm talking about private property.

Oh. Okay. Go on then.

Go where? If you've got no objection to what I said, then you must concede that property doesn't come from labour.

[Conserative Morality]

In Germanic tribes during the migration period social capital was military prowess. They were martial societies where men got ahead by succeeding in battle. The big men of those societies were the ones with the biggest, baddest retinues of warriors on call. And after they overrun the Western Empire they were the ones who the Germanic kings awarded stewardship of fiefs in exchange for military service because they were the ones with the soldiers and the horses in the first place. That stewardship eventually degenerated into hereditary ownership and feudalism was born.

... no. You seem to be confusing the late Germanic system of freeman warriors with the later development of feudalism in the 8th century.

The elite families of Rome, who owned the country estates that did indeed form the nucleus of manorialism and the feudal economy, vanished. They did not survive the end of the western empire.

Again, also wrong. The transfer of power from Romans to Germans was never a whole-hog thing. It was a slow replacement, not the ethnic cleansing of modern invasions. Roman families long outlasted the Western Empire, though they were culturally assimilated into the society of the ruling German Christians.

The lords of the middle ages may have had them in their family tree somewhere, but they had long forgotten. In Western Europe it was the Germanic kings and their favoured men who were at the roots. Their dependent labourers and tenants were in many ways the first peasants, but the Roman landowners were not the first lords.

The dependent laborers and tenants weren't the first peasants, assuming you're using the term to mean 'serfs' rather than 'poor farmers', and you are correct that Roman landowners weren't the first lords.

The essential element of feudalism is the contractual nature and individual provisions of protection AND service that the late Roman Empire, with its increasingly degenerated and informal structures and state army, lacked.

[Minzerland II]

That wasn't what I was arguing, then.

Then you'll have to better explain what it is you're arguing. I'll repeat my earlier questions: "How do you know that natural rights exist? By what means could I discover them?".

I think you've misunderstood. My argument isn't that they have these natural rights before (they do, btw) someone, by various means, attempt to take it from them. Therefore natural rights. No. Rather I'm arguing that: 'Man has a property within itself, which none can take from it. Therefore natural rights.' of course there are exceptions to that, but I will elaborate upon that later.

What do you mean?

If the state of war doesn't change the nature from which your "natural" rights are derived, then it doesn't matter whether the "the transgressor [entered] the State of War". They'll have a natural right to life regardless. Natural rights are inalienable and universal.

I guess so. If someone, for instance, wars upon their neighbour they enter the 'State of War'. When they enter the 'State of War' they forfeit their right to Life and Liberty, not their possessions mind you.

Oh. Okay. Go on then.

Go where? If you've got no objection to what I said, then you must concede that property doesn't come from labour.

Here's your post. I'll try to answer the best I can:

You say property derives from labour. That would mean that the extent of one's ownership would be limited to the land one has actually used.

Well, yes, to a degree. 'Labour', and 'use' for that matter, are very broad concepts. For instance, if you gather an acorn from the ground it is yours, because you had gathered it, which is labour.

Of course, this ignores exchange and whatnot too.

Those resources have not been used, or even necessarily exposed or discovered. They're only part of the tract of the land because the law has defined it's bounds as such, regardless of what you've done with the land.

Those resources are part of the property however. If I weren't to use a single grain of dirt from my property, would that mean it isn't mine? No. It is still mine regardless. Land is considered a whole, not a collection of parts.

The law defines property, but ultimately it is derived from labour.

[Napkiraly]

I would disagree. I'd argue that to believe in any sort of rights absolutely, you must believe in God or a higher power of some sort. That is why I find it amusing to watch the modern left drone on about the inviobility of "human rights".

I don't believe in God, don't believe in natural rights, and don't think they're inviolable.

Which is the point I think TEM was trying to make. That it requires quite the mental gymnastics to believe in natural, inviolable rights while also not believing in some sort of higher power.

[Minzerland II]

Not necessarily. Define 'higher power'.

[Napkiraly]

Not necessarily. Define 'higher power'.

Some sort of all powerful, immaterial entity that is capable of punishing transgressors of these rights in this life or the next.

While it is not impossible to be an atheist and a believer in inviolable natural rights, the foundations for it are not as strong and stable. Despite being an atheist, I agree with TEM in thinking that belief in a higher power is quite complementary to the idea of natural rights.

[Minzerland II]

Not necessarily. Define 'higher power'.

Some sort of all powerful, immaterial entity that is capable of punishing transgressors of these rights in this life or the next.

While it is not impossible to be an atheist and a believer in inviolable natural rights, the foundations for it are not as strong and stable. Despite being an atheist, I agree with TEM in thinking that belief in a higher power is quite complementary to the idea of natural rights.

Well, I will admit that believing in a Higher power would make these arguments much more stable, it is certainly not impossible to argue for natural rights as an atheist.

[Napkiraly]

Some sort of all powerful, immaterial entity that is capable of punishing transgressors of these rights in this life or the next.

While it is not impossible to be an atheist and a believer in inviolable natural rights, the foundations for it are not as strong and stable. Despite being an atheist, I agree with TEM in thinking that belief in a higher power is quite complementary to the idea of natural rights.

Well, I will admit that believing in a Higher power would make these arguments much more stable, it is certainly not impossible to argue for natural rights as an atheist.

Of course not.

[The East Marches]

They exist insofar as your ability to defend them with violence of some sort. It is why I am a large fan of civilian ownership of weapons.

Or insofar as you can convince others to defend them. One man cannot overpower ten just as well-armed. That's why we all exist with a certain detente in society - social contract and all that jazz.

The pre-requisite to the use of violence is access to the tools. On that note though, do not underestimate the damage a single man or a small group can cause if properly armed. The question it forces on the larger group, even if they are sure to win, is my goal worth the cost? Arms and munitions will cause that cost to rapidly increase, thus slanting the equation. Which I believe is a fundamentally good thing.

I don't believe in God, don't believe in natural rights, and don't think they're inviolable.

Which is the point I think TEM was trying to make. That it requires quite the mental gymnastics to believe in natural, inviolable rights while also not believing in some sort of higher power.

This is indeed the point I was trying to make.

[Conscentia]

Then you'll have to better explain what it is you're arguing. I'll repeat my earlier questions: "How do you know that natural rights exist? By what means could I discover them?".

I think you've misunderstood. My argument isn't that they have these natural rights before (they do, btw) someone, by various means, attempt to take it from them. Therefore natural rights. No. Rather I'm arguing that: 'Man has a property within itself, which none can take from it. Therefore natural rights.' of course there are exceptions to that, but I will elaborate upon that later.

Can you clarify "man has a property within itself, which none can take from it"?

If the state of war doesn't change the nature from which your "natural" rights are derived, then it doesn't matter whether the "the transgressor [entered] the State of War". They'll have a natural right to life regardless. Natural rights are inalienable and universal.

I guess so. If someone, for instance, wars upon their neighbour they enter the 'State of War'. When they enter the 'State of War' they forfeit their right to Life and Liberty, not their possessions mind you.

Natural rights are inalienable. They cannot be forfeited.

Go where? If you've got no objection to what I said, then you must concede that property doesn't come from labour.

Here's your post. I'll try to answer the best I can:

You say property derives from labour. That would mean that the extent of one's ownership would be limited to the land one has actually used.

Well, yes, to a degree. 'Labour', and 'use' for that matter, are very broad concepts. For instance, if you gather an acorn from the ground it is yours, because you had gathered it, which is labour.
Of course, this ignores exchange and whatnot too.

I had already anticipated that you'd say that. It's why my example was that of underground raw mineral resources. You haven't gathered them. You haven't touched them. You haven't even seen them. You have not used or 'mixed' them with your labour in anyway at all.

Those resources have not been used, or even necessarily exposed or discovered. They're only part of the tract of the land because the law has defined it's bounds as such, regardless of what you've done with the land.

Those resources are part of the property however. If I weren't to use a single grain of dirt from my property, would that mean it isn't mine? No. It is still mine regardless. Land is considered a whole, not a collection of parts.

The law defines property, but ultimately it is derived from labour.

The answer is only no because property does not derive from labour. Otherwise you would first have to apply work to the grain of dirt before you could claim it. However, you clearly do not have to do that before you lay claim. The extent of one's ownership is not limited just to what has been 'mixed' with labour. Therefore to say that property derives from labour cannot be true - such an explanation is insufficient for describing the reality of property.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Hello RWDT. I have a question, and since it is quite odd, you are allowed to ignore it. The question is: Have you ever been to a high school dance? I ask because I attended one yesterday evening (I am 15 years old.), and I want to gauge my experience in comparison to others.

[Old Tyrannia]

Hello RWDT. I have a question, and since it is quite odd, you are allowed to ignore it. The question is: Have you ever been to a high school dance? I ask because I attended one yesterday evening (I am 15 years old.), and I want to gauge my experience in comparison to others.

Not really relevant to the thread topic.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Hello RWDT. I have a question, and since it is quite odd, you are allowed to ignore it. The question is: Have you ever been to a high school dance? I ask because I attended one yesterday evening (I am 15 years old.), and I want to gauge my experience in comparison to others.

Not really relevant to the thread topic.

My apologies then, I shall delete my post.

EDIT: How exactly does one delete a post?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Hello RWDT. I have a question, and since it is quite odd, you are allowed to ignore it. The question is: Have you ever been to a high school dance? I ask because I attended one yesterday evening (I am 15 years old.), and I want to gauge my experience in comparison to others.

Not really relevant to the thread like Old Tyrannia said but I'll answer nonetheless, yes I have, and I embarrassed my self quite badly. I ended up asking a girl out in front of everyone and she said no.

[Free Rhenish States]

Hello RWDT. I have a question, and since it is quite odd, you are allowed to ignore it. The question is: Have you ever been to a high school dance? I ask because I attended one yesterday evening (I am 15 years old.), and I want to gauge my experience in comparison to others.

Yes, on a graduating party. It was alright, better than I thought it´d be.

[-Fahrong-]

Hello RWDT. I have a question, and since it is quite odd, you are allowed to ignore it. The question is: Have you ever been to a high school dance? I ask because I attended one yesterday evening (I am 15 years old.), and I want to gauge my experience in comparison to others.

Felt uncomfortable as I wasnt a fan of the music or of the dancing and I didnt go with anyone. But they had karaoke where I did enjoy myself for a few hours.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXZQd0mQcwg
The above link is so incredibly alt right, I now have cancer.