(IFF) you believe in fundamental, inalienable human rights (THEN) you must...

Author: 3RU7AL ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 27
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    I'm suggesting that if you believe in fundamental, inalienable human rights (THEN) you must also believe in some reliable and durable enforcement mechanism that protects those rights.

    Otherwise, you're "rights" are going to be stripped from you.

    What you're saying is not true. If I steal your thing, it does not become not your thing because you did not enforce the possession of that thing. Something can be wrong, even if it happens. There are consequences for actions as seen in natural law. Some call it karma. You do good and good happens to you, generally speaking. Rights do not come from people and are not enforced or protected by people.
    "inherent" "objective" "morality" is a pervasive myth (brainwashing) that turns our natural instincts (core family dynamic) against our fellow man and twists them in favor of those who hold the levers of power.

    It's a con-game that saves them enormous amounts of time and money enforcing their will.

    When our owners violate "inherent" "objective" "morality" and we are outraged, but powerless, and our screams of protest are silenced by a boot on our neck (the boot of a fellow peasant) we comfort ourselves with this idiotic myth, "THEY WILL SUFFER IN HELL", and our owners laugh all the way to the bank.

    Click to watch 3 minutes,


    +proHUMAN +proFAMILY

    Your scathing critique is requested.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL
    I'm suggesting that if you believe in fundamental, inalienable human rights (THEN) you must also believe in some reliable and durable enforcement mechanism that protects those rights.
    Not necessarily. One could argue in a pragmatic sense the utility of rights without a durable enforcement mechanism, but sustenance of those rights are primarily based and contingent on the examination of the human condition, not the capacity to prevent or end the violation of said rights. You're conflating "rights" with "effective control" as demonstrated in the response of your counterpart from your blog:

    What you're saying is not true. If I steal your thing, it does not become not your thing because you did not enforce the possession of that thing. Something can be wrong, even if it happens.

    "inherent" "objective" "morality" is a pervasive myth (brainwashing) that turns our natural instincts (core family dynamic) against our fellow man and twists them in favor of those who hold the levers of power.
    How is inherent objective morality a pervasive "myth" but the concept of instinctual behavior not?

    It's a con-game that saves them enormous amounts of time and money enforcing their will.

    When our owners violate "inherent" "objective" "morality" and we are outraged, but powerless, and our screams of protest are silenced by a boot on our neck (the boot of a fellow peasant) we comfort ourselves with this idiotic myth, "THEY WILL SUFFER IN HELL", and our owners laugh all the way to the bank.
    This presumes that the governed populace in general subscribes to an inherent objective morality. They, for the most part, do not. Immoral systems are sustained by immoral people. "Democracy" for example, which is categorically immoral, is not sustained by just the "fat cats"at wall street. It's sustained by those who believe that congregating with others justifies controlling their resources.

    I respect the intelligence of comedians--good comedians. And George Carlin is no exception.

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    Not necessarily. One could argue in a pragmatic sense the utility of rights without a durable enforcement mechanism, but sustenance of those rights are primarily based and contingent on the examination of the human condition, not the capacity to prevent or end the violation of said rights.
    Here's the crux,

    Is the protection of guaranteed "rights" the responsibility of the state (community) or do you believe the protection of guaranteed "rights" is the responsibility of each individual?

    (IFF) you are responsible for protecting your own "rights" (THEN) you effectively have no "rights".

    You're conflating "rights" with "effective control" as demonstrated in the response of your counterpart from your blog:

    What you're saying is not true. If I steal your thing, it does not become not your thing because you did not enforce the possession of that thing. Something can be wrong, even if it happens.
    (IFF) ownership is NOT determined by legal status (THEN) all ownership claims are disputes that can ONLY be solved by consensus, coercion, or brute force.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL
    Is the protection of guaranteed "rights" the responsibility of the state (community) or do you believe the protection of guaranteed "rights" is the responsibility of each individual?
    First, the State isn't the same as one's "community." The State is a polity which presumes to govern communities by threat of force. Second, why are you presenting a dichotomy where responsibility of the individual and the responsibility of his or her community are discrete? Is a community not a collection of individuals? If the ideal is to respect individual rights, is that not a concurrent assumption of responsibility by both the individual and his community?

    (IFF) you are responsible for protecting your own "rights" (THEN) you effectively have no "rights".
    Elaborate, particularly how protection informs the sustenance of rights.

    (IFF) ownership is NOT determined by legal status (THEN) all ownership claims are disputes that can ONLY be solved by consensus, coercion, or brute force.
    I would argue that by reason of being legal in nature, privileges--not rights--are necessarily informed by consensus, coercion, and/or brute force. In the absence of a state, ownership claims can be disputed and resolved through cooperation--that is, individuals who don't intend to risk escalation or even reprisals.





  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    First, the State isn't the same as one's "community."
    When people find themselves in an unaffiliated autonomous collective, they form spontaneous groups of "community" enforcers (to enact the "will" of the "community").

    These (unchallenged) vigilante groups are proto-governments.

    Please let me know what you think of this sterling example,

    Click to watch 5 minutes,
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    In the absence of a state, ownership claims can be disputed and resolved through cooperation--that is, individuals who don't intend to risk escalation or even reprisals.
    COOPERATION =/= RISK AVOIDANCE

    RISK AVOIDANCE = COERCION

    COERCION is COERCION whether it is EXPLICIT or IMPLICIT.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL
    When people find themselves in an unaffiliated autonomous collective, they form spontaneous groups of "community" enforcers (to enact the "will" of the "community").

    These (unchallenged) vigilante groups are proto-governments.

    Please let me know what you think of this sterling example,

    Click to watch 5 minutes,
    How does your example inform on people's alleged proclivity to form vigilante proto-governments as a result of being part of an unaffiliated collective? Were the baldknobbers the standard or a caricature?

    COOPERATION =/= RISK AVOIDANCE

    RISK AVOIDANCE = COERCION

    COERCION is COERCION whether it is EXPLICIT or IMPLICIT.
    Elaborate.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    How does your example inform on people's alleged proclivity to form vigilante proto-governments as a result of being part of an unaffiliated collective? Were the baldknobbers the standard or a caricature?
    The Baldknobbers are a classic, even prototypical example.

    A "good" organization of concerned citizens will inevitably run amok (like a homeowner association).

    It's the same story as "The Godfather 2".

    Imagine a society where everyone thinks of themselves as BATMAN (self-reliant, punishing "evil").

    Now imagine if 200 of the (ostensibly well-intentioned) BATMEN formed an organization.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    COOPERATION =/= RISK AVOIDANCE

    RISK AVOIDANCE = COERCION

    COERCION is COERCION whether it is EXPLICIT or IMPLICIT.
    Elaborate.
    True cooperation "should be" based on mutual benefit (usually at a third party's expense).

    However, both parties are rarely "equals" and if one side (or both) fears consequences (withholding of resources or violence) then they are being coerced.

    The threat doesn't need to be stated plainly.  Passive intimidation is the most effective form of persuasion.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL
    The Baldknobbers are a classic, even prototypical example.
    You're answering the question with your original assertion. How do they inform the proclivity to form vigilante proto-governments as a result of being an unaffiliated collective?

    A "good" organization of concerned citizens will inevitably run amok (like a homeowner association).
    A homeowner's association is not unaffiliated. They're state sanctioned.

    It's the same story as "The Godfather 2".
    Which collective is that? The Corleone family? The Senate? Hyman Roth's investment club?

    Imagine a society where everyone thinks of themselves as BATMAN (self-reliant, punishing "evil").

    Now imagine if 200 of the (ostensibly well-intentioned) BATMEN formed an organization.
    You do know that Bruce Wayne is/was the head of a Military Defense Contractor empire, whose actions were sanctioned by the police, namely through commissioner Gordon? If we're discussing this in the context of a stateless society, what would "Batmen" be would without the State? What would the criminals be like without the State?

    True cooperation "should be" based on mutual benefit (usually at a third party's expense).
    Why must a mutual benefit come at a third party's expense?

    However, both parties are rarely "equals" and if one side (or both) fears consequences (withholding of resources or violence) then they are being coerced.
    It is only coercion if a person's placed under duress. Considering the possible consequences and calculating the risk one's willing to take isn't coercion. If we extend your reasoning to its logical conclusion, one could just as well argue that one's stove, for example, coerced one into not cooking because he didn't want to risk getting burned.

    The threat doesn't need to be stated plainly.  Passive intimidation is the most effective form of persuasion.
    Who's threatening? Who's intimidating?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    It's the same story as "The Godfather 2".
    Which collective is that? The Corleone family? The Senate? Hyman Roth's investment club?
    In the flashback that reveals the origins of "The Corleone Family" rise to power, regular citizens voice their quibbles to "The Godfather", these are quibbles that the individuals find personally significant, but "the police" and or other official authority figures will not take seriously.

    By appealing to and assisting those who feel powerless, loyalty and thus power is accumulated by the savvy.

    Sometimes it's an "outside" threat, like bands of roving outlaws or raiders.  But once the "outside" threat is vanquished, the organization that vanquished them is loathe to disband.  And like all organizations (organisms) it becomes self-protecting and self-interested (proto-government).

    Membership carries special privileges.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    True cooperation "should be" based on mutual benefit (usually at a third party's expense).
    Why must a mutual benefit come at a third party's expense?
    I was careful to say "usually" and not "always" because true symbiosis is extremely rare in the sphere of human cooperation.

    Please share what you believe might qualify as a counter-factual example.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL
    In the flashback that reveals the origins of "The Corleone Family" rise to power, regular citizens voice their quibbles to "The Godfather", these are quibbles that the individuals find personally significant, but "the police" and or other official authority figures will not take seriously.

    By appealing to and assisting those who feel powerless, loyalty and thus power is accumulated by the savvy.
    Hence the mere absence of government does not suffice. I would never argue nor have I ever argued that. The anarchy of which I speak requires a moral revolution.


    Sometimes it's an "outside" threat, like bands of roving outlaws or raiders.  But once the "outside" threat is vanquished, the organization that vanquished them is loathe to disband.  And like all organizations (organisms) it becomes self-protecting and self-interested (proto-government).

    Membership carries special privileges.

    And how are proto-governments more inclined then governments to become "self"-protecting and "self"-interested?

    I was careful to say "usually" and not "always" because true symbiosis is extremely rare in the sphere of human cooperation.

    Please share what you believe might qualify as a counter-factual example.
    Why is true symbiosis extremely rare in the sphere of human cooperation? What informs this claim?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    Hence the mere absence of government does not suffice. I would never argue nor have I ever argued that.
    The absence (or indifference, or incompetence) of government leaves a power-vacuum which will be filled by the savvy.

    The anarchy of which I speak requires a moral revolution.
    Humans are basically selfish babies.

    Any system that REQUIRES humans to act as intelligent, self-reliant, adults is doomed.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    And how are proto-governments more inclined then governments to become "self"-protecting and "self"-interested?
    And like ALL organizations (organisms) it becomes self-protecting and self-interested (proto-government).

    One type is not "more inclined" than another.

    Although a HOLACRACY takes better care of its own members than a traditional FEUDAL HIERARCHY.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    Why is true symbiosis extremely rare in the sphere of human cooperation? What informs this claim?
    Because humans are basically selfish babies.

    If I raise chickens and my neighbor raises pigs, we might agree to trade some number of eggs for some number of strips of bacon.

    This is a nearly symbiotic (purely voluntary) relationship (as long as bacon and eggs are not considered necessities).

    However, if a third neighbor also raises chickens and undercuts my bacon price, I have to pay more eggs to get my bacon.

    The cooperation between neighbor 2 and neighbor 3 comes at "my expense".
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL
    The absence (or indifference, or incompetence) of government leaves a power-vacuum
    That is the intended end.

    which will be filled by the savvy.
    One would find it optimal that a society reflects cooperation among the savvy.

    Humans are basically selfish babies.
    Why? How?

    Any system that REQUIRES humans to act as intelligent, self-reliant, adults is doomed.
    By extending your reasoning, you're either stating that governments are doomed, or that governments don't require humans to act as intelligent,  self-reliant adults.


    And like ALL organizations (organisms) it becomes self-protecting and self-interested (proto-government).

    One type is not "more inclined" than another.
    So then how is your allegation that proto-governments will emerge in the advent of anarchy a criticism when juxtaposing centralization and decentralization if "one is no more inclined than the other"?

    Although a HOLACRACY takes better care of its own members than a traditional FEUDAL HIERARCHY.
    Holocracies are doomed aren't they?

    Because humans are basically selfish babies.

    If I raise chickens and my neighbor raises pigs, we might agree to trade some number of eggs for some number of strips of bacon.

    This is a nearly symbiotic (purely voluntary) relationship (as long as bacon and eggs are not considered necessities).

    However, if a third neighbor also raises chickens and undercuts my bacon price, I have to pay more eggs to get my bacon.

    The cooperation between neighbor 2 and neighbor 3 comes at "my expense".
    No it doesn't. This presumes that you have a claim to a fixed price of goods. What if neighbor three isn't in the picture, and neighbor two solicits more eggs because his pigs aren't reproducing at his desired rate? You're over-producing because your hens are extremely fertile, and your roosters are incredibly virile. The scarcity of your respective products are different and would, therefore, affect the price--or the standard to which you're willing to trade. The boost in price may be inconvenient but that doesn't inform that a boost in price has "come at your expense."

    Furthermore, I believe "self-interested" is more apropos (though, unfortunately, the English Language doesn't offer much latitude in making the distinction between the two.) So then the solution becomes simple: conceive and rationalize a moral standard which is fundamentally premised on self-interest. The only moral standard that's consistent with respect to the aforementioned directive is individualism. And by extending the premise of self-interest, we can conceive and rationalize autonomy, sovereignty, and voluntarism. Individualism, for lack of a better term, harmonizes the plethora of self-interests by acknowledging individuals discretion to be self-interested. And since it's a moral standard, it is sustained by those who respect the premise and rational extensions.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    ...conceive and rationalize a moral standard which is fundamentally premised on self-interest. The only moral standard that's consistent with respect to the aforementioned directive is individualism. And by extending the premise of self-interest, we can conceive and rationalize autonomy, sovereignty, and voluntarism.
    And how, exactly is your collective of autonomous individual voluntary sovereigns going to protect themselves from a well organized FEUDAL HIERARCHY (without organizing their own FEUDAL HIERARCHY)?
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL
    And how, exactly is your collective of autonomous individual voluntary sovereigns going to protect themselves from a well organized FEUDAL HIERARCHY (without organizing their own FEUDAL HIERARCHY)?
    Presuming this feudal hierarchy is aggressive, then we take up arms and defend our lands. But answer me this: what place would feudal hierarchies have in the advent of the moral revolution which informs the anarchy for which I argue?
  • ebuc
    ebuc avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,067
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc avatar
    ebuc
    --> @3RU7AL
    I love George Carlin!  Thank you for that one and the the "Balance the Budget" one that followed. :--))

    He is like Joan Rivers on steroids. .....'Can we rant and rail?'...
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    Presuming this feudal hierarchy is aggressive, then we take up arms and defend our lands. But answer me this: what place would feudal hierarchies have in the advent of the moral revolution which informs the anarchy for which I argue?
    You will need to immunize your population from coercion.

    And I'm not sure how you can possibly do that without creating some sort of "religion".

    Can you imagine an entire "society" of (individually sovereign) people willing to actually stake their lives for "give me liberty or give me death"?

    The self-interested babies will be the first to collaborate with their invaders, and the rest will die.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL
    You will need to immunize your population from coercion.
    Can't immunize everything. Anarchy is not utopia. My argument for anarchy posits where accountability and authority "ought" to be.

    And I'm not sure how you can possibly do that without creating some sort of "religion".
    Are you appealing to your own incredulity?

    Can you imagine an entire "society" of (individually sovereign) people willing to actually stake their lives for "give me liberty or give me death"?
    Yes, I can. But that is not to say that there aren't those who are unwilling to stake their lives. Hence, moral revolution is a necessity.

    The self-interested babies will be the first to collaborate with their invaders, and the rest will die.
    An unsubstantiated "Hobbesian" consequence. The problem with Hobbes' argument was that it couldn't substantiate how government was immune to the proclivities from which he argued man could not escape.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    Constitutional Holacracy has logic built into the framework itself.

    It's designed from the ground-up to mitigate mob rule as well as preventing power accumulation by a single member.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL
    Constitutional Holacracy has logic built into the framework itself.
    What logic is that?

    It's designed from the ground-up to mitigate mob rule as well as preventing power accumulation by a single member.
    What good is the framework if those who participate are self-interested babies?

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,441
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    What good is the framework if those who participate are self-interested babies?
    The framework mitigates the potential harm by simultaneously limiting and also protecting the influence of individual members.