I don't realize that because the state also denies rights, or otherwise granted themselves selectively: to nobles, the wealthy, members of certain races, members of certain sexes, and so on. The examples are myriad and not worth repeating.
I also grant rights, as can anyone else, and we don't need any legislation to do so. Should someone infringe on your rights I'll be right there defending you. — NOS4A2
My point is it doesn’t matter if the confiscation is legal or not; it is still theft. If someone confiscates my resources without my permission and for their own use, whether state or man on the street, it’s theft. I don’t excuse someone for theft because he makes the laws or claims a right to my income.
I can’t see why it would matter if the income is fair and equitable. What matters is that someone is confiscating what another has earned. — NOS4A2
Social power is often contrasted with state power. It’s wherever the locus of power is in society or the community and not in the government. It might be an outdated term but I couldn't think of a better one. — NOS4A2
I think it was Benkei who pointed out that individual rights tend to diminish with government reduction. — praxis
But this raises the question; what rights exists without the State? Only moral rights. But moral rights will be ignored by most people if they can get away with it. It's quite obvious from history that rights are best preserved and protected in a civilised society. Human rights, unfortunately, really are a luxury not available to most and a recent invention.
I would therefore argue that rights are only meaningful, if they are legal and therefore protected by the legal order and organisation of a State. Morality still informs us about the content of what those legal rights should be. The "I can grant rights" doesn't exist - it's merely a sentiment. You're not capable of protecting me from Russian or Chinese interference, or indeed Facebook's abuses, or enforce a contract for me against an unwilling counterparty. Your "granted rights" are in that sense worthless and in any case a contradiction in terms if your position is that I have intrinsic rights (who are you to grant me my rights?).
It’s not confiscation if you don't have a claim to the income.
The reason why it matters whether it's fair or equitable is that if your morality is merely procedural, then obviously the legal procedure creates the moral basis for taxes. If you want to have a moral claim to income, you need to prove your claim to specific income is fair and equitable. But this isn't "priced" into markets, so the income paid is not a reflection of moral worth but happenstance.
You cited writers and philosophers before that I have read a long time ago but I'm not familiar with this. What is this "outdated term" based on?
Nothing, as long your individualism doesn't trample on another's right to be an individual. In this sense, you cease being pro-individualism the moment you think your individuality trumps someone else's. The whole point of individualism is realizing that you are not the only individual, else you cease being pro-individual and begin being authoritarian.So what, then, is the problem with individualism? — NOS4A2
... you cease being pro-individualism the moment you think your individuality trumps someone else's. The whole point of individualism is realizing that you are not the only individual, else you cease being pro-individual and begin being authoritarian. — Harry Hindu
The whole point of individualism is realizing that you are not the only individual, else you cease being pro-individual and begin being authoritarian. — Harry Hindu
Not all wrong - half wrong. Freedom and personal liberty for not just one individual, but all individuals. Seems like a pretty simple concept to grasp to me.Ohhhhh, I thought the whole point was freedom or personal liberty. Boy did I have it all wrong — praxis
Or free to make something better for themselves. Anyone trying to prevent that isn't a freedom-loving individualist, rather a freedom-is-only-for-me authoritarian. So your complaints are never about a fault in the idea of individualism, rather about the faults of the idea of authoritarianism. Why is that so difficult to grasp?Sure, an individual in a weak socioeconomic position is entirely free to fuck-off and die, for instance. — praxis
Why is that so difficult to grasp? — Harry Hindu
So your complaints are never about a fault in the idea of individualism, rather about the faults of the idea of authoritarianism. — Harry Hindu
The point here is, there is no free lunch. The individual externalizes the cost of his existence onto the backs of those who did not agree to assume those costs in an arm's length, informed transaction. — James Riley
Nor did the individual agree. — Tzeentch
This situation you sketch is brought about by individuals who chose to have children, and by a state that facilitated a certain standard of living. — Tzeentch
One cannot force these conditions on an individual and then claim one is entitled to their coorperation. — Tzeentch
Do I understand you correctly that you believe people not killing themselves is a sign that they agree? — Tzeentch
Lets say I trap you in a cage and force you to work for me. Every moment you do not kill yourself by holding your breath until you die of asphyxiation is a moment you agreed to my terms, no? — Tzeentch
People didn't choose the society they were born into, so the analogy of a cage fits perfectly. — Tzeentch
Are you being serious? — Tzeentch
One cannot force these conditions on an individual and then claim one is entitled to their coorperation. — Tzeentch
I don't see how that changes the fact that these conditions are forced upon the individual. — Tzeentch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.