Long term, virtually everyone would be better off under an anarchy. Apart from criminals and power-hungry war mongers. — Clearbury
I have justified my belief. Perhaps you missed it. Here it is again: if governments determine what rights people have then the Jews had no rights under the Nazis (and thus in exterminating millions of Jews, the Nazis violated no one's rights, certianly not the Jews they exterminated).
The Nazis violated the rights of the millions of Jews they exterminated
Therefore, governments do not determine what rights people have.
That is a case. It is an argument and its conclusion follows from its premises and its premises are obviously true. — Clearbury
Note, I am talking about moral rights here, not legal ones. — Clearbury
The issue is much simpler than people think. It is almost always wrong to use violence or the threat of it against another person. No one - no one worth arguing with, anyway - seriously disputes that. Yes, it can be justified under some circumstances - when one is in immediate danger or someone else is - but not otherwise. (There's of course room for a bit of debate over when one can legitimately use violence against another, but not much....every reaonable person is going to agree that the boundaries are pretty tight, even if there's no consensus on precisely where they lie). — Clearbury
Yet that is what the state does. So yes, the state can protect our basic rights, but it cannot use force and the threat of force to fund such an enterprise. — Clearbury
It just doesn’t follow from any of this that we require a master. — NOS4A2
When I think about everyone I’ve ever met, and pick the individuals who I believe might run amok if government disappeared tomorrow, the number is very close to zero. And just dealing with people in my day-to-day leads me to believe that people aren’t as anti-social as statists make them out to be. — NOS4A2
Blood feuds were common in societies with a weak rule of law (or where the state did not consider itself responsible for mediating this kind of dispute), where family and kinship ties were the main source of authority. — Wikipedia:Feud
Can a single violent crime (ex. the rape of a loved one) initiate a feedback cycle of violence in a community due to the natural need/impulse for retributive justice (tit for tat). — Nils Loc
I don't follow your argument. — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem here is the complete omission of those who would not only defy your basic rights, but use -- not only threat of force -- but force, willfully and in many cases gleefully. Often times for the sheer joy of it absent of anything to gain or rectify ie. "for fun". This is the dynamic of the world we live in. So, your options are a structured society where disputes can be solved in a court of law and grievances can be made known socially enacting real social change, or you can have the same threats of force and use of force, with no accountability or avenue for recourse on your part whatsoever. Any sort of attempt to reframe this unchangeable dynamic is simply dishonest. — Outlander
As I wrote previously, if what you propose hasn't ever happened, won't ever happen, can't ever happen, then your idea is a fantasy. Meaningless. If you can't see that or show me how anarchy might work, then we'll never come to any resolution. That's my best shot. — T Clark
No, they did have rights and those rights were not respected. I am not sure I can argue with someone who thinks a person has a right if and only if the government of any community of which they are a member says they do. That view is so plainly false to me that I am at a loss to know how to argue with someone who is willing to embrace its implications. — Clearbury
Saying that your opponent is obviously wrong and leaving it at that is a conversation-ender. — SophistiCat
Ought implies can. The idea that all forms of government are unjust must be rejected until it can be shown (against all available evidence) that the alternative is possible in a society larger than a modern-day commune. Even then it would likely come down to choosing one injustice over another, because there is no rule that rejecting one form of injustice leaves you with a (more) just state of affairs. — SophistiCat
I am pointing out that those in power are among them! — Clearbury
What governments do is allow some of those who enjoy violating the rights of others the opportunity to do so on an industrial scale. — Clearbury
In a democratic society they can be removed. — Outlander
Look, if you think the Jews had no moral rights under the Nazis then it follows that the Nazis did nothing wrong in exterminating them. I can't argue with someone who thinks that way. — Clearbury
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.