Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Question to fellow AnCaps

Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 8:48:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Natural rights or contractarianism? I think I saw a debate on this and wondered the meaning. Do people(and animals) have natural inalienable rights to things such as life or property, or do "rights" simply come into being through contract?
My manwich!
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 9:02:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 8:58:32 AM, Sieben wrote:
Contractarianism presupposes people have a natural right to contract.

I was thinking that people simply have a right to do what they wish with their property. But is that a right? I guess it would make us delve into the concept and philosophy of 'ownership' and what it entails and allows.
My manwich!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 9:20:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You don't have a contract of self-ownership, do you? If you cut down an un-owned tree and turn it into a table, you don't have a contract, do you?

The only "natural" right that anyone has is might makes right, everything else is a product of the human mind.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 1:11:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 9:20:10 AM, OreEle wrote:
You don't have a contract of self-ownership, do you? If you cut down an un-owned tree and turn it into a table, you don't have a contract, do you?

That's not really what I'm talking about. The homestead principle and contractarianism are not one and the same though they do overlap. Unowned resources and commodities like land and shoes are incapable of forming voluntary contracts, and so under contractarianism would not be afforded rights. Under natural rights theory though, one might argue that by virtue of being a living thing or whatever, they have the right to life.
My manwich!
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 5:09:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Contractarianism. (Though I wouldn't identify the implicit agreement as a contract.)
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 7:18:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A contract doesn't really mean anything though. Force overrides a contract every time. The only way to defend against offensive force is with a defensive force. Contracts are meaningless. Force is the strongest variable in society and the only way to harness that power towards peace and happiness is to harness the motives of defense, justice, and freedom. A unified militia of defense would seem to fit this description quite nicely.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 7:58:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 7:18:16 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
A contract doesn't really mean anything though. Force overrides a contract every time. The only way to defend against offensive force is with a defensive force. Contracts are meaningless. Force is the strongest variable in society and the only way to harness that power towards peace and happiness is to harness the motives of defense, justice, and freedom.
Contracts are exactly as meaningful as freedom and the justice that makes some force distinguishable as defense.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 9:36:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 7:18:16 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
A contract doesn't really mean anything though. Force overrides a contract every time. The only way to defend against offensive force is with a defensive force. Contracts are meaningless. Force is the strongest variable in society and the only way to harness that power towards peace and happiness is to harness the motives of defense, justice, and freedom. A unified militia of defense would seem to fit this description quite nicely.

When are we going to debate AnCap?
My manwich!
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 9:58:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 9:36:06 PM, Merda wrote:
At 6/16/2011 7:18:16 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
A contract doesn't really mean anything though. Force overrides a contract every time. The only way to defend against offensive force is with a defensive force. Contracts are meaningless. Force is the strongest variable in society and the only way to harness that power towards peace and happiness is to harness the motives of defense, justice, and freedom. A unified militia of defense would seem to fit this description quite nicely.

When are we going to debate AnCap?

Debating AnCap on this site is almost pointless.

If you want to oppose my position... I suggest that you do it here.
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 6:12:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 9:58:17 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/16/2011 9:36:06 PM, Merda wrote:
At 6/16/2011 7:18:16 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
A contract doesn't really mean anything though. Force overrides a contract every time. The only way to defend against offensive force is with a defensive force. Contracts are meaningless. Force is the strongest variable in society and the only way to harness that power towards peace and happiness is to harness the motives of defense, justice, and freedom. A unified militia of defense would seem to fit this description quite nicely.

When are we going to debate AnCap?

Debating AnCap on this site is almost pointless.

If you want to oppose my position... I suggest that you do it here.

Why do people always think the forums are a good place to debate anything? Debates are more exclusive, more organized, and you can't really get into ad hominem attacks in a debate without risking losing votes.
My manwich!
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 11:38:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/17/2011 6:12:58 AM, Merda wrote:

Why do people always think the forums are a good place to debate anything?

People don't, trolls do.
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 12:10:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/17/2011 11:38:10 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/17/2011 6:12:58 AM, Merda wrote:

Why do people always think the forums are a good place to debate anything?

People don't, trolls do.

Fatihah, Charleslb, now Justin_Chains.
My manwich!
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 12:44:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/17/2011 12:10:34 PM, Merda wrote:

Fatihah, Charleslb, now Justin_Chains.

Fatihah debates, his responses are just too awesome for people to accept his challenges.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 3:05:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/17/2011 11:38:10 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/17/2011 6:12:58 AM, Merda wrote:

Why do people always think the forums are a good place to debate anything?

People don't, trolls do.

I'm not going to debate you in a forum. I'm going to have a discussion with you in the stance of opposition. There is a big difference.

I don't troll Cliff. You do. Your demeanor of accusing people of trolling is an act of trolling in itself.