Are Organized Religions Good For Us?

[LiberalVichy]

Human individuals have a right to private property, to dispose of it as they please and to have its physical integrity respected, and exchange it at will with any other voluntarily agreeing individual. Any invasion of the physical integrity, or the threat to do so, is aggression and evil. Any accidental disruption of their property makes the person doing so liable, because although the act was not criminal they had no right to do as they did, and thus the person with the disrupted property has a right to compensation. To refuse compensation would be a violation of property (since the compensatory property now belongs justly to the person whose property has been invaded) and enforceable. Likewise, any willful violation would entail compensation (terms of this and its limits are primarily decided by estoppel, so you should check out this article on it http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/17/rp_17_4.pdf).
In this view (the only logically consistent one, I believe) there are only individual rights, and all rights are property rights.
Any violation of property, under any circumstances for any purpose whatsoever is evil. The laws of ethics do not change because the sun is up or you're in Turkey, any more than any laws of logic do.

 

[Obdurate]

We could take a poll today and I feel fairly comfortable that most people wold not vote for anarchy. Does that make you wrong? No, but it puts you on the fringe, which may be just fine by you.

While anarchists may be in the minority, I think there's more anarchists than most people think. It's a growing movement, I do believe.

But that brings up a fun task. I wonder if there's a site with those kinds of statistics?

 

[Minor Axis]

Human individuals have a right to private property, to dispose of it as they please and to have its physical integrity respected, and exchange it at will with any other voluntarily agreeing individual. Any invasion of the physical integrity, or the threat to do so, is aggression and evil. Any accidental disruption of their property makes the person doing so liable, because although the act was not criminal they had no right to do as they did, and thus the person with the disrupted property has a right to compensation. To refuse compensation would be a violation of property (since the compensatory property now belongs justly to the person whose property has been invaded) and enforceable. Likewise, any willful violation would entail compensation (terms of this and its limits are primarily decided by estoppel, so you should check out this article on it http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/17/rp_17_4.pdf).
In this view (the only logically consistent one, I believe) there are only individual rights, and all rights are property rights.
Any violation of property, under any circumstances for any purpose whatsoever is evil. The laws of ethics do not change because the sun is up or you're in Turkey, any more than any laws of logic do.

Thanks for the link. I'll take a peak. These rules are really no different than any law. Who mediates? Who decides what the invasion of physical integrity is? Is it a name calling? Physical contact? What level of physical contact- touch, hit? How about actions for the good of the group? Like creating a sewer system?

Yours is a set of rules, just like all the others. Someone has to decide what the laws of ethics are and don't forget we are corrupt humans. Who says under your ideal system that laws would be any more fairly enforced than any other system? And standards do change with time because people change over the centuries. Nothing is set in stone.

 

[Minor Axis]

While anarchists may be in the minority, I think there's more anarchists than most people think. It's a growing movement, I do believe.

Who does anarchy serve? The brief description of rules laid our by LV don't sound all that anarchist to me (but what do I know?) they sound like laws focused on property and personal space.

 

[Obdurate]

Well obviously me and LV aren't friends who know each other much but LV is an anarcho-capitalist and believes in private property.

I'm a... um, anarchist, and I don't believe in private property.

Anarchy doesn't serve anybody! There are no servants in an anarchist society.

 

[LiberalVichy]

Yours is a set of rules, just like all the others. Someone has to decide what the laws of ethics are and don't forget we are corrupt humans. Who says under your ideal system that laws would be any more fairly enforced than any other system? And standards do change with time because people change over the centuries. Nothing is set in stone.

No, it is a result as to an understanding of the necessity of any moral argument to assume private property as a prerequisite and as such arguments cannot be valid if they are self-contradictory, nothing which contradicts private property could ever be moral. Estoppel is another logical concept, it means that if you take my TV you cannot object to me taking your TV, and likewise I may take my TV also (since it was mine in the first place). All of these arguments are complementary and derive from an understanding of argumentation. Here are some links on Argumentation Ethics.
http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-10.pdf

 

[Minor Axis]

Anarchy doesn't serve anybody! There are no servants in an anarchist society.

Sounds like a great deal as long as you don't plan on living a stable happy long life.

 

[LiberalVichy]

People can live through voluntary exchange and organization perfectly fine. Unlike many who consider themselves anarchists, I consider that getting yourself employed is just as voluntary an exchange as me giving you a dollar for a muffin.

 

[Obdurate]

If we brought about a real anarchist society we'd live a much more stable, happy, long lived life.

Not one that LV wants, though.

 

[Minor Axis]

No, it is a result as to an understanding of the necessity of any moral argument to assume private property as a prerequisite and as such arguments cannot be valid if they are self-contradictory, nothing which contradicts private property could ever be moral. Estoppel is another logical concept, it means that if you take my TV you cannot object to me taking your TV, and likewise I may take my TV also (since it was mine in the first place). All of these arguments are complementary and derive from an understanding of argumentation. Here are some links on Argumentation Ethics.
http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-10.pdf

Again, thanks for the link. I think you're fooling yourself if you think it's as simple as 2+2=4. The problems you have with your perception of society deals mostly with arbitrary rules and some form of corruption. Even under your ideal system, you'd have the same types of people running the show. Especially when you introduce worlds like "accidental" into the equation.

 

[LiberalVichy]

This isn't a 'system', it's a moral theory. If under any circumstances people are violating property they are commiting immoral acts. If, without violating private property, the same people were 'running the show', whatever that means in a free market society, then that would be perfectly fine. So long as there is no aggression or threat of aggression there may be things we don't like, but there is nothing which can rationally be considered immoral.

 

[Minor Axis]

This isn't a 'system', it's a moral theory. If under any circumstances people are violating property they are commiting immoral acts. If, without violating private property, the same people were 'running the show', whatever that means in a free market society, then that would be perfectly fine. So long as there is no aggression or threat of aggression there may be things we don't like, but there is nothing which can rationally be considered immoral.

Are you sure this is considered anarchy??

In a way your argument reminds me of the Star Trek Next Generation episode called Justice. Are you familiar?

A planet with a strict legal code, all black and white, no shades of grey. In it Wesley Crusher accidently, through no fault of his own violates a boundary to a garden area, an arbitrary boundary. But the rule is there, violate the law any law and your sentence is death. Excellent show and excellent episode that explores the concept of justice.

I assume the system you are promoting is one of black and white, not shades of grey... This story is an example of why you want a legal system that allows some decretion in how laws are applied.

 

[LiberalVichy]

Yeah, but their absolutes were irrational. There is nothing inherently irrational about absolutes, the answer to a mathematical equation is either true or false (as is any statement); that's an absolute that reflects real facts about the Universe. Irrational absolutes are bad because they contradict reality and cause conflict because they cannot be consistently applied (it is impossible). But actual absolutes are simply an grasping of a necessary fact of the Universe, such as derives from the existence of one's own consequence or existence in general (the laws of logic).

Also, Star Trek is super-fascist, though I've seen most of it.

 

[Minor Axis]

Yeah, but their absolutes were irrational.

Why do you say that? The purpose of the harsh law was to prevent law breaking. As a society it achieved their goal to prevent unlawful acts. I recognize it as being unreasonable, but there is definitely a rational behind it, even if you don't like it.

There is nothing inherently irrational about absolutes, the answer to a mathematical equation is either true or false (as is any statement); that's an absolute that reflects real facts about the Universe.

LV, LV, laws are never and will ever be as simple as math.

But actual absolutes are simply an grasping of a necessary fact of the Universe, such as derives from the existence of one's own consequence or existence in general (the laws of logic).

This sentence means nothing, just some slick anarchist double-talk.

Also, Star Trek is super-fascist, though I've seen most of it.

NOT TRUE!! The STNG world does not put the State in front of the individual. Admit you just don't like their rules structure.

 

[Obdurate]

Why do you say that? The purpose of the harsh law was to prevent law breaking. As a society it achieved their goal to prevent unlawful acts. I recognize it as being unreasonable, but there is definitely a rational behind it, even if you don't like it.



LV, LV, laws are never and will ever be as simple as math.



This sentence means nothing, just some slick anarchist double-talk.



NOT TRUE!! The STNG world does not put the State in front of the individual. Admit you just don't like their rules structure.

Please don't call her an anarchist Minor

 

[Minor Axis]

Please don't call her an anarchist Minor

Hey, I called a sentence slick anarchist double-speak. Let me update it to slick pseudo-anarchist double speak. The real question is if she is not an anarchist, then what philosophy is this? Actually I need to read those links she posted.

 

[Obdurate]

Well she'd claim to be an anarchist, but she's an anarcho-capitalist. I hope you can see the contradiction of that, in even JUST THE NAME OF IT. It's an "off-shoot" of Anarchism that anarchists don't embrace. In fact they scoff it and as I said in another thread, the only reason any anarchist would acknowledge it is because she has the nerve to throw 'anarcho' in front of it.

But just wait til she comes in and starts going off claiming to be a real anarchist, despite going against some of the key issues of anarchy.
Pseudo-anarchist, thanks I think I said in another thread, anarcho-capitalists are anarchists who don't actually want to be anarchists.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Why do you say that? The purpose of the harsh law was to prevent law breaking. As a society it achieved their goal to prevent unlawful acts. I recognize it as being unreasonable, but there is definitely a rational behind it, even if you don't like it.

LV, LV, laws are never and will ever be as simple as math.

Some people just don't like laws.....especially law breakers or those who want to break it.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Looks like this one went OTZ like a mother.

FWIW though, to the OP... I think it has done more good than evil for mankind. :nod:

 

[LiberalVichy]

But just wait til she comes in and starts going off claiming to be a real anarchist, despite going against some of the key issues of anarchy.
Pseudo-anarchist, thanks I think I said in another thread, anarcho-capitalists are anarchists who don't actually want to be anarchists.

As I said before, I have no interest in debating semantics about the word 'anarchy'. My use of the word anarchy stems from its application to De Molinari, Max Stirner and the American Individualist Anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. I consider most of the 'anarchist' movements to be muddled socialism and irrational primitavism, so I have no great liking for that 'movement' in any case. I mainly use the word 'anarchist' because of its literal connotation, a connotation which I am convinced all of this anti-property anarchism is contradictory towards. But I am no more concerned with whether I am called an anarchist, libertarian, egoist, individualist or what have you. My concern is entirely that my behaviour be consistent with my understanding of moral rules.