In principle a great argument.
I would only caution that it is likely that there is a piece of reality that is being obscured in an argument that focuses exclusively on rights. "Justice, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Consent is a discussion between equals and anti-government types, I feel, lose the plot when it comes to discussions between the stronger and the weaker. We are not all equals and we will never be.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'm not sure what your point is. Some people are stronger, therefore to hell with individual rights? Never mind consent, hooray for coercion, because of inequality?
I am not sure how much more simply I can put this - a discussion about rights can't even begin until the question of power imbalance is resolved. Who will make sure that your rights are recognized? If it is some minimalist state, can people elect not to participate in that state even if that state aspires to protect rights within a given territory?
A question about individual rights IS the discussion that matters. Ignoring that in the name of some collectivist (and authoritarian) solution to "inequality" has led to massive amounts of oppression, even mass murder.
I should clarify that the inequality I am referring to is the inequality of power - if no state exists and a mob of individuals agree to rob their neighbors, what will stop them? What is the 'gravity' that prevents evil, in dirtykarma's phraseology.
Our traditional methodology has been to vest a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in a centralized actor whom everyone must defer to - the state. Perhaps there is another way to achieve this result, I am open to one, but 'natural law' (assuming it even exists) isn't prepackaged with a method of enforcement.
Equal individuals could agree to follow a 'natural law' for their protection and best interests, but if one individual saw himself as capable of subjugating everyone else, why wouldn't he?
WITH the state, EVERYONE is GUARANTEED to get robbed by people with more power than them. If you want to reduce robbery, start by helping people escape the insane notion that "legal" robbery is okay. After that, normal people will have plenty of incentive to organize to defend against private thugs and thieves.
To be blunt, that one individual who saw himself capable of subjugating everyone else wouldn't, because the moment he tried, there would be several million people (including me) ready to put a bullet through him.
Ya. Maybe. Unless a group of people conspired and their opposition didn't group well or resist effectively.
I am with you that the state is robbing people, I just think we need to change the nature of the state, not abolish it. Is it predicated on violence? Yes. Why, though? Because, technically, the state could agree to be moderate in its violations of you in exchange for empowering it, whereas some new ruler might enslave you or rape your wife or something. There are far worse actors in this world than the US government.
Natural Law will make sure your rights are recognized, considering it is a Law of the universe/omniverse/multiverse that is always working and will always do so. No human or sentient being needs to recognize such. Does gravity ask that you allow it to pull you down to the massive object you are located on? No, because it is a law of the universe. Does fire ask you to allow it to burn you or otherwise not recognize its ability to do so? No, because it is a law of thermodynamics that you will be burned if you come into contact with something hot or on fire. Please listen to Mark Passio, all of his podcasts and presentations to gain a more valuable understanding/overstanding/innerstanding of these Laws of the Universe. Also, look into The Kybalion for more learning.