CM - I think a lot of the problems here could be ironed out easily if you would list to us what you believe are people's rights. Then we could maybe figure out where you're coming from.

You can't go around redefining every word in the English language.

Also, you've said that there are no human rights, and then alternately that almost anything is a human right.

I've changed my mind about that, though I have no interest in arguing with you about Capitalism, Ghost, you and I both know it won't get anywhere.

@Drano: I now believe that people have the right to not have harm done to them, to not be exploited, to not have their property taken, and to do anything that does not violate anyone's rights.

CM - Forgive me if I sound a little condescending, but it's extremely hard to take you seriously when your views change so fast and so much. Less than 8 months ago when you joined, you were Conservative, hence your name. Less that 24 hours ago you were a die-hard anarchist who also believed that a person has the right to kill (paraphrased from your quote yesterday). Now, you're a miniarchist who believes that we have an inherent right to not be exploited/have our property taken.

While I DO agree with most of your points/right, I have an issue with the exploited and property ones.

Exploited - What type of exploitation are we talking about? If you're talking about governments/corporations FORCING people to do things (ex: high taxes, blackmail in the workforce), then I agree with you. If you're talking about 2 people making a deal and later one person feels like they were exploited even though they agreed to the deal, then I disagree. The person made the deal with the full knowledge of what they did. Their actions are therefore, their fault alone, not the other persons.

Re: Property - While I agree that property should never be taken forcefully (stealing), if someone defaults on a debt, why should they have a right to not have their property repossessed? Example, you and I make a deal. I loan you 10,000 dollars so you can buy material and build a house. It is agreed in contract that you will repay me 15,000 over 10 years to make up for this. If, at the end of 10 years, you have no paid me, shouldn't I get some of your property to make up for it?

"I've changed my mind about that, though I have no interest in arguing with you about Capitalism, Ghost, you and I both know it won't get anywhere."

You change your mind every few hours. I've got a suggestion for you. Don't post every thought that comes into your head; every idea you've read somewhere on the internet on the forum. It's tiresome.

Finally, " I now believe that people have the right to not have harm done to them, to not be exploited, to not have their property taken, and to do anything that does not violate anyone's rights."

You do understand that one of the important parts of rights is that it is a person's choice whether or not they exercise their rights. Thus, if you have a right to not be exploited, that doesn't make exploitation necessarily wrong, it just means that you need the consent of the exploited.

Thus, in the employer-employee relationship, even if it were exploitative, the employee's consent means it isn't immoral.

"Re: Property - While I agree that property should never be taken forcefully (stealing), if someone defaults on a debt, why should they have a right to not have their property repossessed? Example, you and I make a deal. I loan you 10,000 dollars so you can buy material and build a house. It is agreed in contract that you will repay me 15,000 over 10 years to make up for this. If, at the end of 10 years, you have no paid me, shouldn't I get some of your property to make up for it?"

To be fair, this objection isn't a problem, since the contract would include collateral, and so at that point the property would be transfered in accordance to the contract.

I personally think all anarchists should be enslaved and forced to mine coal. It's dirty work, but we obviously cannot enslave capitalists, as the Thirteenth Amendment specifically prohibits it. However, anarchists reject the rule of law, and if they don't want laws to apply to them, then that also should apply to the law's *protections*, right?

Sure, some will resist, but we'll just kill them all and sell their stuff on eBay. With the proceeds we can exploit more people.

It's the perfect system!

And yes, I'm being deliberately ridiculous. Why not? It's not like certain parties participating in this thread are interested in logic, so if rational debate is not possible, *irrational* debate would seem to be the watchword of the day

I think we should ship them off to Somalia or Antarctica. Afghanistan will also do. Places with no real government where they can fully enjoy the beauty of anarchy.

We can't do Antarctica, Ivo. The aliens there would object

"To be fair, this objection isn't a problem, since the contract would include collateral, and so at that point the property would be transfered in accordance to the contract."

You're absolutely right TGM, but I was just pointing out the fallacy of having a RIGHT to not have your property taken. Owning property is a privilege, NOT a right therefore why would you have a right to not have it taken away if you do something wrong? Same thing with driving. You have a RIGHT to travel, NOT to have a car. Follow the rules or you don't get to drive.

"Thus, in the employer-employee relationship, even if it were exploitative, the employee's consent means it isn't immoral." That doesn't mean it isn't wrong. If I gave you permission to kill me, and you killed me, it would still be wrong.

@Strat - You forget though that the aliens are everywhere. For all we know, CM IS an alien checking for anti-alien sentiment on this forum. : 0

Dammit drano, I *know* he's a flippin alien, I was trying to feed him disinformation! Now he's going to fire up the Orbital Mind Control Rays! Where's my tinfoil beanie?!

Strat +1 (tinfoil beanie from my personal collection)

Actually, I paid my $30 to the Church of the Subgenius, so I'm safe. Until X-Day, that is

Ooooh, I just found a *great* description of CM:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Not even wrong (or the full version "That's not right - that's not even wrong") refers to any statement, argument or explanation that is so at odds with reality that it is considered uncorrectable. The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even seem to understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.

The phrase apparently originates with physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who used the phrase to describe an unclear research paper. Pauli was known for his detestation of sloppy writing and arguments and for his somewhat "colourful" objections to such things. The term has since gathered some popularity amongst those involved in refuting pseudoscience, to reference the difficulties faced in dealing with some of the more out-of-this-world arguments, such as the so-called creationist escape hatches, which are a series of irrefutable (but equally unprovable) claims that defy correction with conventional logic.


A correct argument or explanation is easy to spot; it may look like this:
“ 2 + 2 = 4 ”

A wrong argument, again, just has an incorrect conclusion, like so:
“ 2 + 2 = 5 ”

Something that is not even wrong is usually so far out of the ballpark or so far from reality that it is, quite simply, flabbergastingly irrelevant. For example:

“ 2 + Zebra, divided by a glockenspiel = homeopathy works! ”

As can be seen, the form of a "not even wrong" argument is often an extreme non sequitur, but usually reveals the lack of understanding in the person making the argument.

Strat - Don't worry, on X-Day you shall be saved by the ships of the sex-goddesses. Do not fear the invasion of the men from Planet X.

@CM: "I've changed my mind about that"

That is becoming your catch-phrase. Maybe if you actually spent some time thinking through your ideas, you would come up with a more coherent view.


@dran019: "You're absolutely right TGM, but I was just pointing out the fallacy of having a RIGHT to not have your property taken. Owning property is a privilege, NOT a right therefore why would you have a right to not have it taken away if you do something wrong?"

I'm pretty sure TGM does think that you have a right to your property. Property rights are the cornerstone of everything he believes.

Jamiet - Allow me to clarify. I DO believe that everyone has a RIGHT to make the purchase of property. But I DO NOT believe that everyone has a RIGHT to have property if that makes sense. Kind of like guns. Everyone has a RIGHT to buy one if they want, noone should be able to stop them except in certain situations (past history of gun violence and the like), but it's not like everyone has a RIGHT to be given a piece of property. I guess I stated it poorly before.

@ strat: "....Not Even Wrong"

I love that, excellent - good post.

Stratagos +1

Of course, any argument ending in " = homeopathy works " is inherently wrong, but let's not get into a debate about homeopathy.

@ drano019: "Kind of like guns"

Oh no, please don't pull this thread back onto the gun ownership debate. Ordinary members of the public SHOULD NOT have the right to buy guns.

I won't go there if you don't Jamiet. But you have to admit, it IS a valid belief depending on your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

(Sorry, the word 'back' in my post was a typo - the gun debate has not soured this particular thread... yet....)

Unlike some of CM's arguments (ok most), it actually has arguments FOR it and also AGAINST it and makes a real debate.

@ drano019: "...the 2nd amendment..."

I do not live in the USA, therefore could not care less about the 2nd amendment. I live in the UK, where ordinary citizens may not own guns, and rightly so.

But anyways, back to property......my statement still holds for my beliefs on property too. You have the right to buy it, everyone does, but you don't have a right to OWN it. Does that make sense? Basically, noone should restrict someone from buying it, but if you do something wrong, you don't have a right to keep it.