Rational Mysticism?

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Unlike humans, animals aren't capable of recognizing the concept of rights, so the laws of nature apply differently.

Imagine the state of human society if we stopped recognizing rights wholesale and went on pure instinct.

Careful, you mentioned both the recognition of rights and human society in the same sentence.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Burke

Rand held that we should deal with one another by trade and not by force and that it's the purpose of govt to protect us from others who use force as a way of dealing with people who are doing nothing wrong themselves. But she developed this view as part of and as a consequence of a wider philosophy, of one that was founded on reason and self-interest.

Libertarians have taken her views on the use of force as an out of context primary, like a Bible commandment that we should use unthinkingly. This can be said to be exactly the kind of thinking (or lack of thinking) she opposed.

It's the kind of thinking that leads some lunatics to claim that the 2d Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear nukes.

Our highest value is our own life, more specifically, the life possible to is as a rational beings.

That means a morality of rational self-interest.

That means dealing with one another by trade and not by force.

That means having the right of self-defense.

That means having a way of insuring that the use of force is used in a way that we can all have confidence that it is being used in self-defense only.

That means having a govt that has a monopoly on the use of force except in emergency situations.

A govt, by its nature, is a final authority.

"Competing govts," as libertarians advocate are no govt, no final authority.

Those who want to abolish the institution of govt because govts have and do commit wrongs may as well be seeking to abolish the medical profession because there are doctors who commit malpractice and otherwise fail.

Its easy to criticize govt. Few do it more than I do. But it's still better than anarchy, the fairy tail idea that millions of little thugs are better than a govt with the rule of law.

The alternative is always the rule of some over others.

But, of course, you have to have a population of rational people for anything to work.

That's why Rand stated that we must each have a rational philosophy.

I can't recall ever agreeing with you more than now.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

You can claim all the phantom fallacies you want, but the fact still remains that we don't have the liberty to revisit the delegation of power you fictitiously believe we gave government.

Of course we all have the choice individually and collectively of whether to go along with the status quo or not. Each one of us can choose to resist in any number of ways, from the quite subtle refusal to participate within the system to the overt cultivation of insurrection. So long as men have minds capable of holding convictions and acting upon them, we have the liberty to choose our course. And if our cause be just, we will prevail.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Burke

Good govt benefits everyone.

So monopolies provide goods and services cheaper and more efficiently than free market competition does?

So why not just have "good government" monopolize everything?

It's necessary for self-defense.

Based on what, exactly?

How did mankind survive prior to the formation of organized government? Wouldn't we already be extinct if government was necessary for self-defense? After all, early man had no legalized monopolies on aggressive violence.

No one has the right to expect others to not act to defend themselves.

Who says you need a legalized extortion racket to defend yourself?

Referring to this as "lording over and ruling" others is silly rhetoric.

Actually, it's accurate. Every government in the world represents a small group of people lording over and living at the expense of everyone else. Russia. Brazil. Saudi Arabia. China. United States. Mexico... It's all the same.

So, until you can provide some answers that jive with reality, the question still stands:

Can you provide a legitimate justification for one man lording over and ruling another man?

[Minister_of_Information]

It's like you've never cracked open a history book.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

It's like you've never cracked open a history book.

That doesn't say much for you then, since you've repeatedly failed in multiple threads to make any headway against me on the subject of anarchy. Your historical knowledge, if we can call it that, doesn't seem to be helping you one bit here.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Careful, you mentioned both the recognition of rights and human society in the same sentence.

What do I need to be careful of?

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I think the question C&G seeks the answer for is: why must a private group of individuals with a mutual agreement to help each other protect their land necessarily be considered mafiaesque?

Because the line would eventually be blurred--and then cease to exist--between "voluntary choice" to "obligation."

A group of individuals volunteering their time/effort to protect their property/collective safety isn't inherently mafiaesque. But one must maintain active guard/vigilance against external threats/dangers at all times--regardless of whether one wants to or not. For a group of 5 (the original sample size), it would be extremely difficult to maintain the constant vigilance needed 24-7/365 for years upon years.

The options then are to band together in increasingly-greater numbers or, at some level, the degree of protection would slip.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Under natural law, property is property both in and out of any social order or set of man-made laws.

That's a completely inaccurate (or completely ignorant) understanding of what natural law is. Classic natural law--characterized as stemming from God, nature, or reason--is universal in nature and applies equally to all things (survival of the fittest; strength in numbers, etc)...positive laws are man-made constructs. Positive law and natural can overlap, but the two are fundamentally different.

Do wolves, bears, deer, moose, and guerrillas have recognized property rights? Of course not. Regardless of whether they reside on a particular piece of land and/or make use of it.

"property" as you've repeatedly been describing it in this thread is a man-made construct and thus, positive law.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

It's like you've never cracked open a history book.

It's why anarchy is a fundamentally utopian construct. While I'm not really Rand's biggest fan, her little quip about anarchists being naive is completely accurate.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

That doesn't say much for you then, since you've repeatedly failed in multiple threads to make any headway against me on the subject of anarchy. Your historical knowledge, if we can call it that, doesn't seem to be helping you one bit here.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

What do I need to be careful of?

The connection you've been avoiding.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The connection you've been avoiding.

Which would be what? That human beings are incapable of interacting with each other and forming societies without creating institutionalized extortion rackets?

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Which would be what? That human beings are incapable of interacting with each other and forming societies without creating institutionalized extortion rackets?

The connection between rights and society.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Lead me to something other than a retention pond adjacent to a sewage treatment plant and I'll drink.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The connection between rights and society.

Still vague, but how again does this connection necessitate or justify a violently coercive government extortion racket that must violate rights to protect rights?

This is still unclear.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Still vague, but how again does this connection necessitate or justify a violently coercive government extortion racket that must violate rights to protect rights?

This is still unclear.

That's begging the question. And also contradictory.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

You don't have to be a genius to understand that property rights entail some sort of government or "protection racket" (if you will) behind it.

The trick is to keep that government on a very strong and short leash, something we are losing the will to do.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

That's begging the question. And also contradictory.

How so? How is it contradictory? How is involuntary coercive taxation for government protection different than involuntary coercive extortion for Mafia protection?

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

How so? How is it contradictory? How is involuntary coercive taxation for government protection different than involuntary coercive extortion for Mafia protection?

You're begging the question because your argument presumes the truth of its internal analogies without proof. So your argument consists of redefining something you object to as equivalent to something thought to be bad by definition, then asking how the bad thing can be justified.

Your argument is also contradictory as it depends upon the existence of a quality of criminality that is more fundamental than its necessary preconditions such as law, government, and society.