Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[soveREIGN]

Ragnar-it is hard to be as eloquent as the father of anarchism himself, Proudhon, and that famous quote would just not be the same without the word "right" in it. One of my favorites.

My argument is really no different than Lysander Spooners, and I consider myself somewhat of a student of his. I find his argument presented in No Treason to be a useful tool in turning even the most rabid Statists over to the truth.

I said-Natural rights exist as agreements between rational humans. The second they violate my self-ownership they do not exist. That's it.

The government is not rational, therefore it could never even recognize my rights let alone protect them. I have a question; if give up our rights, what excuse could the government use to maintain it's existence? Even if we gave up our rights, wouldnt we still retain the action in back of our rights?

I believe in natural rights only as an agreement between rational individuals. With the premise always being self-ownership. Self-ownership above all, that means I keep all of my property that is justly acquired by me. Not even having any of it stolen for "justice" or "security". Self-ownership means not being forced to fund the incarceration of criminals. How does everyone feel about that?

I wrote this for a website called zerogov-

http://zerogov.com/?p=1867

[Yuki]

How can there be a "father of anarchism"?

Anarchy has been around as long as humans...

[soveREIGN]

How can there be a "father of anarchism"?

Anarchy has been around as long as humans...

OK, he was the first peson credited with using the word Anarchy.

And the idea of Anarchy was around long before humans; it's humans that thought up the concept of rulers. Beasts were not ruled until humans came along.

[Yuki]

How can there be a "father of anarchism"?

Anarchy has been around as long as humans...

OK, he was the first person credited with using the word Anarchy.

And the idea of Anarchy was around long before humans; it's humans that thought up the concept of rulers. Beasts were not ruled until humans came along.

That's better...

[ZooT_aLLures]

Even if we gave up our rights, wouldnt we still retain the action in back of our rights?

Action comes from reason or motive without reason or motive it's random.............so what you're saying is denounce or deny the reason or motive to justify the action without reason or motive...............

Old lysander spoke of natural rights being born out of the concept of natural law................which exists whether or not men choose to obey that natural law.............and the same goes for natural rights...........

By the same token though..............one who willingly and knowingly defies natural law and thus violates the rights of other, is willingly relinquishing any natural rights they have while in the commision of their crime...............hence the original naming of the concept called "outlaw" meaning not being under the umbrella or protection provided by the law.
This was a common concept until quite recently, when "the enforcers" started protecting the outlaws because they themselves were also outlaws and didn't relish the idea of being held responsible for their crimes against the natural rights which spring from natural law, and "outlaws" held no rights..............period................ as long as they defied natural law and thus  the natural rights of others there was "open season" on them, and even rewards or bounties placed on their heads dead or alive.

[Yuki]

Even if we gave up our rights, wouldnt we still retain the action in back of our rights?

Action comes from reason or motive without reason or motive it's random.............so what you're saying is denounce or deny the reason or motive to justify the action without reason or motive...............

Old lysander spoke of natural rights being born out of the concept of natural law................which exists whether or not men choose to obey that natural law.............and the same goes for natural rights...........

By the same token though..............one who willingly and knowingly defies natural law and thus violates the rights of other, is willingly relinquishing any natural rights they have while in the commision of their crime...............hence the original naming of the concept called "outlaw" meaning not being under the umbrella or protection provided by the law.
This was a common concept until quite recently, when "the enforcers" started protecting the outlaws because they themselves were also outlaws and didn't relish the idea of being held responsible for their crimes against the natural rights which spring from natural law, and "outlaws" held no rights..............period................ as long as they defied natural law and thus  the natural rights of others there was "open season" on them, and even rewards or bounties placed on their heads dead or alive.

And now being called an "Outlaw" by the criminals in gov't is a badge of honor.

[ZooT_aLLures]

with the key word being "criminals" and it goes from top to bottom