Im not sure what just happened to my beliefs

[Hitta]

Usually I am very anti-war. The other day I was analyzing things like I usually normally do, and something strong happened. At the time I was thinking about the Libertarian foreign policies. While browsing the net, trying to find new thoughts on political systems and such, I came acrossed a quote for neolibertarianism(I'm usually against neo-conservatism and war policies). The quote talked about how freedom and the concept of freedom shouldn't be held between imaginary lines. In a true libertarian/anarchist society there is no or very limited state. In a way that means that the people in these region do not have a country. If this is the case, why is it wrong to rebel against the state in other countries if it wasn't wrong to rebel against the state in your own country? So, what is wrong with a freedom war.

[Joy]

People should do what they can for freedom. Sometimes that means war, unfortunately.

In an anarchist or libertarian society, struggle and conflict resolve themselves through... well, struggle and conflict. Overall I'm rather libertarian, I suppose.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Hitta]

People should do what they can for freedom. Sometimes that means war, unfortunately.

In an anarchist or libertarian society, struggle and conflict resolve themselves through... well, struggle and conflict. Overall I'm rather libertarian, I suppose.

Well I still don't believe that a government has the right to force people to enter a war. In an anarcho-capitalist society the people would have the right to do what they want, even assemble to start a war. I think the idea of a draft is dumb.

[tcaudilllg]

Why have war at all? For that matter, why have nations? Are not communities of interest more cohesive, more interdependent? I'm just asking, that's all.

[Hitta]

Why have war at all? For that matter, why have nations? Are not communities of interest more cohesive, more interdependent? I'm just asking, that's all.

I don't know.... I mean countries are imaginary, they technically don't exist without a government, or with a limited government. Does freedom stay between the lines?

[tcaudilllg]

There is a difference between the Kurds fighting for autonomy in southern Turkey (assuming they would allow themselves to be annexed by their southern brothers), and terrorists trying to create their vaunted imaginary kingdom of the "blessed". The former are trying to rid themselves of an autocratic theocracy, while the latter are essentially death-worshippers determined to see their way of life expanded at the price of life's quality.

That said, any extreme stance is by its nature destructive.

Traditionally, the U.N.'s role has been one of "honest broker" between existing powers. Either the U.N. needs to take a more active role in intranational disputes or... a new organization is needed to advance the cause of oppressed ethnicities without needing to resort to violence.

But there you come to a problem: what constitutes an ethnicity? Do we let the entire world become a sea of ethnic states? Where does it end? 1,000 nations? 10,000? What if someone desires to create a new ethnicity within an existing one? What right have they to declare it?

Why have ethnicities at all in an age where man shapes his own culture? Why does one need to pay "homage to the water god" when one can turn on the spiggot and get fresher water than the water god ever offered?

[force my hand]

Well I still don't believe that a government has the right to force people to enter a war.

You don't believe they do have the right, or you don't believe they should have the right? Because they do - as rights proceed from force, the government can determine whatever 'rights' they want.

I think the idea of a draft is dumb.

Your opinion matters.

[Ezra]

hitta, you should recognise that shit like that will occur. Your beliefs will be one thing one day, and the next, they can be completely different. For example, a friend of mine told me that liberal socialist teenagers are the most likely to grow up becoming hard rightists with an authoritarian twist.

[Hitta]

Well I'm extremely socially liberal(theres a very very slim possibility this will change) I'm very economically conservative(support of the free market without government intervention, though I'm still confused why this is referred to as conservative). I look at the concept of socialism, or communism as control. Communism and socialism cannot exist without rules. Anyone that says that Communism can be Anarchist is just simply not thinking it through; because if money and free trade are not abolished its just capitalism, and abolishing something requires rules from a government(may it be small or not). I'm extremely against the draft. It is unfair to force someone to go to war. I do not believe that it is possible for a small government to wage war on a country(otherwise it wouldn't be a small government); so my ideology of the government waging war on other countries is to me fascism in the country in which is supposedly fighting against freedom, and this to me seems very hypocritical. I believe though that individuals have the right to come together and fight for what they believe in, whether it be overseas or not. I've always believed that the non-violent way is the best way to resolve a dispute simply due to the idea that it is impossible to wage war without affecting peoples lives that shouldn't be effected(civilians). In a true anarchist society though people are free to wage the wars that they want to though(could be collectively) though I do not agree with the ideology that war should be forcibly monopolized.

[FDG]

Bullshit, hitta. Anarchism can be communitaristic if everybody is morally good and altruistic. Now if you believe the nature of man is different, then you can reach different conclusions. Since I do not - I believe that any other condition is exclusively the byproduct of trauma and not inherently charateristical - then I will keep on supporting it.

[Hitta]

Bullshit, hitta. Anarchism can be communitaristic if everybody is morally good and altruistic. Now if you believe the nature of man is different, then you can reach different conclusions. Since I do not - I believe that any other condition is exclusively the byproduct of trauma and not inherently charateristical - then I will keep on supporting it.

If you are disallowing people to make free trade then its not anarchy, because that is a law. If you are allowing people to make free trade, then it is just capitalism with everyone trying to be communistic and collective.

[tereg]

hitta, you should recognise that shit like that will occur. Your beliefs will be one thing one day, and the next, they can be completely different. For example, a friend of mine told me that liberal socialist teenagers are the most likely to grow up becoming hard rightists with an authoritarian twist.

Isn't that basically what a neo-conservative is?

[FDG]

If you are disallowing people to make free trade then its not anarchy, because that is a law. If you are allowing people to make free trade, then it is just capitalism with everyone trying to be communistic and collective.

Of course people can do what they want, it's anarchy hitta. And yeah you're right, that's why there are such things as mediating anarchists that think that different positions on the matter are basically useless since the absence of regulation allows people to organize themselves as they want to.

[Hitta]

Of course people can do what they want, it's anarchy hitta. And yeah you're right, that's why there are such things as mediating anarchists that think that different positions on the matter are basically useless since the absence of regulation allows people to organize themselves as they want to.

so we are in agreement... true anarcho communism doesn't exist as a political system, anarcho capitalism allows people to collectively be communistic. Laissez Faire means "let happen". Thats what true capitalism implies... true capitalism(capitalism without the state). Communism as a political system is the elimination of currency and free trade and the installation of collective ownership(theoretically ending the need to use currency). This cannot be anarchy, because it forces someone to 1.) abolish the money 2.) disallow free trade. The argument that in anarcho-communism that free trade and currency would be allowed eliminates the ideology behind communism. If anarcho-communism would allow this then it wouldn't be communism, it would be capitalism. True Anarcho-communism is a system that lives within Anarcho-capitalism. Anarchy by definition is capitalism.

[Hitta]

Isn't that basically what a neo-conservative is?

The philosophies of the christian neo-conservatives amaze me. I wonder how people could be so stupid.

[FDG]

so we are in agreement... true anarcho communism doesn't exist as a political system, anarcho capitalism allows people to collectively be communistic. Laissez Faire means "let happen". Thats what true capitalism implies... true capitalism(capitalism without the state). Communism as a political system is the elimination of currency and free trade and the installation of collective ownership(theoretically ending the need to use currency). This cannot be anarchy, because it forces someone to 1.) abolish the money 2.) disallow free trade. The argument that in anarcho-communism that free trade and currency would be allowed eliminates the ideology behind communism. If anarcho-communism would allow this then it wouldn't be communism, it would be capitalism. True Anarcho-communism is a system that lives within Anarcho-capitalism. Anarchy by definition is capitalism.

I tend to disagree because you have to consider the way the definition of capitalism has evolved during the past centuries. I understand that you are trying to use it in a way that is more essential, but you've got to take into account the dynamic aspect of the issue, too, I think. Still, we are in agreement on the basics generally, and yes anarchism would be all-encompassing.

[Hitta]

I tend to disagree because you have to consider the way the definition of capitalism has evolved during the past centuries. I understand that you are trying to use it in a way that is more essential, but you've got to take into account the dynamic aspect of the issue, too, I think. Still, we are in agreement on the basics generally, and yes anarchism would be all-encompassing.

Well the problem with capitalism in the US, as most countries is the state. The state backs corporations which causes an unfair shift in the free market. Capitalism should be free. There isn't a country in the world today that practices true capitalism. Some are close, yes, but true capitalism exists without the state.

[Hitta]

also to note, in true capitalism communism could thrive

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Hitta]

I believe all morals are debatable as well, so we shouldn't be forced to abide by them.

[Logos]

I guess that means if I decide to shoot you, that's okay, because you had no right to life to begin with?

I am not trying to be argumentative or defending hitta here (since he'll probably say something to dig an even bigger hole to stand in), but when you construct a silly straw man like that I feel that it is my place to ensure that this does not go unsaid. But what do you mean a right to life? Does a right to life exist in all cases? Where are these rights established? Who grants rights? If they grant them, can they take them away? How are these rights decided? Are these in fact rights or something else (i.e. an evolutionary survival mechanism) which are given a sort of quasi-sacrosanct quality? If these rights exist, why is there no guarantee that they are enforceable? Who is permitted to enforce these rights?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[reyn_til_runa]

I am not trying to be argumentative or defending hitta here (since he'll probably say something to dig an even bigger hole to stand in), but when you construct a silly straw man like that I feel that it is my place to ensure that this does not go unsaid. But what do you mean a right to life? Does a right to life exist in all cases? Where are these rights established? Who grants rights? If they grant them, can they take them away? How are these rights decided? Are these in fact rights or something else (i.e. an evolutionary survival mechanism) which are given a sort of quasi-sacrosanct quality? If these rights exist, why is there no guarantee that they are enforceable? Who is permitted to enforce these rights?

the essential problem is that life cannot be defined consistently or with any certainty. it is commonly accepted that a person can know observable characteristics of life as they apply to that person's "lifetime," and even that at the end of life, a person may be able to say with some certainty what has been gained and what will have been lost after life, in traditional sense, ceases. but there are too many idiosyncratic versions of "life," too may situations in which life and death are far from absolute, too many possibilities as to the nature of life that have, to this point, remained undiscovered. this necessitates that these rights in question will be unenforceable to some extent. enforcing them with any guarantee would be like saying "broccoli is life, now go eat it!", knowing very well that not everyone eats/doesn't eat broccoli for the same reasons.

[tcaudilllg]

I am not trying to be argumentative or defending hitta here (since he'll probably say something to dig an even bigger hole to stand in), but when you construct a silly straw man like that I feel that it is my place to ensure that this does not go unsaid. But what do you mean a right to life? Does a right to life exist in all cases? Where are these rights established? Who grants rights? If they grant them, can they take them away? How are these rights decided? Are these in fact rights or something else (i.e. an evolutionary survival mechanism) which are given a sort of quasi-sacrosanct quality? If these rights exist, why is there no guarantee that they are enforceable? Who is permitted to enforce these rights?

Rights are granted by the government under pressure from liberals. Behind every right there is a phenomenon that progressives have observed to exist as a problem for one's person. Liberals argue for the right to confront this problem on an individual level. (hence, the development of rights)

In the context of a right, one can advance a response to the environmental problem the right is intended to account for. This is the role of individualists. Communitarians systemize the individualist's strategy into a community-wide effort that ultimately makes the community better suited to the challenges that face it.

So if you want to know where rights come from, ask the liberals. They're the one's always agitating for new rights.

(liberals on this forum that I know of: smilingeyes, reyn til runa, labcoat, maybe munenori)

the essential problem is that life cannot be defined consistently or with any certainty.

I think strong Fe types would disagree.

[Logos]

Why they're "self-evident" of course.

I know you are being cute here, but are they? And I know that I am going to come off as being confrontational and argumentative, but I have just encountered this "rights" issue way too often to count in political philosophy and it is far more muddling than simply saying that we have "self-evident rights" as they are not always self-evident or clear, and the extent to which these rights exist are always debatable.

My point was that if a person has NO fundamental rights then whatever you do to them is beyond reproach. You can kill them, torture them, put them in prison, rob from them, and so on because they have no rights not to be treated that way. It is my opinion that people do have fundamental rights, and the point was to draw attention to the possibilities that would come with rightless individuals.

I'm incredibly confused here. Are you suggesting that if people did not have rights that you would kill hitta anyway? Even if a right to life existed, what would stop you from killing hitta? It is not as if the right to life pops up a force field if hitta's life was in danger. If hitta was killed and society punished the killer, that does not necessarily mean that right to life exists, but that the action is deemed dangerous to the harmonious working of the members who make up this society, which also has an evolutionary component. Again, the right to life must not be that much of a right if there is war. And if you were being mugged and you killed your assailant, then obviously you did not seem to concerned with his right to life.

I personally believe that people as part of having a self, have dignity and rights, and deserve a degree of respect as people. I cannot argue this, because it is my opinion only, there's nothing to say that my beliefs are absolutely correct, but I believe them nonetheless and quite strongly. I know how I want to be treated, and feel that both I and others deserve that kind of respect, that we're all individual and worthy to stand alone however we wish to.

Okay, now you seem to be somewhat getting at what I'm trying to get out. Rights are not intrinsic to a person - you expect to be treated in a certain manner and treat others likewise as a means of ensuring your own treatment - but are instilled societal values or principles that generally involve mutual respect and understanding which are created as a means of maintaining a functioning society.

I also think that people will always try to take from others, and harm them in order to lift themselves up and gain an advantage for themselves, and that is where basic laws are required. People can live under a law to prevent them from infringing on the rights of others. If laws exist to protect rights, they are good, once they start themselves overtaking and undermining rights, they are a problem, and should be disposed of. And the same goes for a government - if it is bound in by law and kept in check by that law and the people, the people can live freely with their rights intact. However, if that government begins to overstep that law protecting the people, people's rights suffer, their freedom is diminished, and that government has become a problem.

I see your point here, but see my original when talking about questions regarding "rights."

Rights are granted by the government under pressure from liberals. Behind every right there is a phenomenon that progressives have observed to exist as a problem for one's person. Liberals argue for the right to confront this problem on an individual level. (hence, the development of rights)

In the context of a right, one can advance a response to the environmental problem the right is intended to account for. This is the role of individualists. Communitarians systemize the individualist's strategy into a community-wide effort that ultimately makes the community better suited to the challenges that face it.

So if you want to know where rights come from, ask the liberals. They're the one's always agitating for new rights.

(liberals on this forum that I know of: smilingeyes, reyn til runa, labcoat, maybe munenori)

You are speaking an entirely different jargon than I am apparently, because I am not sure if your concept of liberals matches its general use in political science. So how exactly are you using the term "liberal" in this instance?

[FDG]

You're absolutely right from an Fi perspective. Fi would say that people tend to have rights. Ti, however, cannot make that claim at all. From a Ti perspective rights are just arbitrary constructions. ExTp's are strong on the Ti and weak on the Fi.

Rights can also arise as a logical consequency from the necessity of forming a cohesive and well-functioning society, which does not entail the possibility of crimes being executed in large quantities without incurring in a sanction if caught. So, if we cannot allow crime, we cannot allow disallowed(from the owner) modification to one's body, and from this stems the right for physical integrity, which implies the right to life.

[tcaudilllg]

You are speaking an entirely different jargon than I am apparently, because I am not sure if your concept of liberals matches its general use in political science. So how exactly are you using the term "liberal" in this instance?

Rights activism: gay rights, feminists, animal rights, Rainbow PUSH Coalition, ACLU.

It's the same as in political science, only considered as an instinctual motive as opposed to a choice.

[Logos]

Rights activism: gay rights, feminists, animal rights, Rainbow PUSH Coalition, ACLU.

It's the same as in political science, only considered as an instinctual motive as opposed to a choice.

No. Do not confuse popular political discourse with political science. Classical political science has a fairly established understanding of "liberal" that does not refer to social issues, but to the government's role in the economy (essentially liberal = libertarian).

I think that description is both Ti and Fi. Ti maps out the logical consequences of the particular decision to form a cohesive well-functioning society. But the decision to have a well functioning society is Fi, possibly Fi/Te.

That is,
1)Fi/Te:need to form functioning society -> goto (2)

2)Ti: crimes hurt individuals -> if everyone is being hurt it will lead to anarchy-> crimes therefore cannot be committed

As you can see, Ti only comes in after the meat of the problem has already been decided by Fi/Te. Ti alone doesn't describe anything except how to connect content from other functions into chains of causality.

I don't think that is the case at all and merely betrays your Fi/Te-centric bias.

[force my hand]

There are two definitions of 'rights' being used in this thread. The first is the notion that each human has an inherent value (the 'right' to live), and that can be argued for or against with equal validity as it simply matters which side of the fence you happen to sit on.

The second kind of rights are essentially those that have some practical use - the right to vote, marry, speak, assemble, exercise mobility, etc. This group is not entirely divorced from the first, but they are far more tangible. They are usuaully what we're thinking of when we speak of rights, and because they 'active' in some way, they can be granted or taken away at will.

We recognize that by living in communities we make trade-offs not only in how far to exercise those rights, but also which ones to grant. It logically follows that if rights were as 'rightful' as we in the West like to believe they are, we wouldn't have the ability to bend and break them as we do.

The only thing stopping me from having the right to kill any one of you is that the community to which I belong has determined that I do not.

[tcaudilllg]

No. Do not confuse popular political discourse with political science. Classical political science has a fairly established understanding of "liberal" that does not refer to social issues, but to the government's role in the economy (essentially liberal = libertarian).

Bullshit. Crawl out of your cave and try some PROGRESSIVE political science on for size.

[Logos]

Bullshit. Crawl out of your cave and try some PROGRESSIVE political science on for size.

Bullshit? Why do you say that? How am I off base? Progressive political science? What is that?

[tcaudilllg]

Bullshit? Progressive political science? Why do you say that?

http://www.ppionline.org

[Logos]

http://www.ppionline.org

That's a political think tank and not a political ideology or a school of political thought.

[UDP]

You're absolutely right from an Fi perspective. Fi would say that people tend to have rights. Ti, however, cannot make that claim at all. From a Ti perspective rights are just arbitrary constructions. ExTp's are strong on the Ti and weak on the Fi.

What a load of hoarse piss

doesn't say anything at all? What the hell are you talking about?

People need to stop talking like that. Nothing against you jxrtes, just BS on the forum in general.

[iAnnAu]

also to note, in true capitalism communism could thrive

Even in America's less-than-true capitalism, a large amount of room has been made - and exploited - for communism. Check out www.fic.ic.org. I spoke to one of the people who worked on the Communities Directory, which has about 600 communities listed for America, and he said that there are about 10 existing for every 1 listed in the directory, because most of them want to stay under mainstream society's radar. While of course his comment to me is unverifiable, it's fascinating to think about. Although a majority of these communities have a religious theme to them, they are all focused on greater self-sufficiency within their own system than the collective American culture.
I'd also like to mention that while a lot of them come off as kooky, woo-woo or leftover from the 60s, I like that they're out there, conducting their own forms of social experimentation. I'd encourage just about anyone - with any ideology - to check out the site & see the breadth of different communities represented.

[force my hand]

Even in America's less-than-true capitalism, a large amount of room has been made - and exploited - for communism. Check out www.fic.ic.org. I spoke to one of the people who worked on the Communities Directory, which has about 600 communities listed for America, and he said that there are about 10 existing for every 1 listed in the directory, because most of them want to stay under mainstream society's radar. While of course his comment to me is unverifiable, it's fascinating to think about. Although a majority of these communities have a religious theme to them, they are all focused on greater self-sufficiency within their own system than the collective American culture.
I'd also like to mention that while a lot of them come off as kooky, woo-woo or leftover from the 60s, I like that they're out there, conducting their own forms of social experimentation. I'd encourage just about anyone - with any ideology - to check out the site & see the breadth of different communities represented.

On that note, it's worth mentioning in general that many small businesses across North America are being run in an 'anarchistic' manner. They are usually only retail outlets or restaurants, but they operate on 'parecon' (participatory economics). There is no 'boss' and wages are the same, but hiring can be pretty tricky as prospective employees often have to be accepted unanimously.