Reminder that the following ARE human rights:
The right to own an unlimited amount of property
The right to freedom of speech
The right to bear arms
But the following are NOT:
The right to food and water (i.e. to not starve)
The right to life
The right to housing (i.e. to not be homeless)
If you believe humans deserve any of the second category you might just be a dirty commie. Now go back and work in my factory for 10 more hours or you're violating the NAP, this is my property!
Actually the right to water was a thing until people started making a killing on bottled water
That's too bad. It's their property you know. The... water. That they didn't make. But it's theirs.
In Communist China workers have a right to labor which is what the government uses to use military enforcement to make people work.
>bear arms
FUCKING PLEBS WE CAN DRINK OUT OF THE FUCKING SINKS!
>The right to own an unlimited amount of property
Why did you specify unlimited?
>The right to freedom of speech
Do you think there should be no freedom of speech?
>The right to bear arms
Do you think people shouldn't be able to bear arms?
>The right to food and water (i.e. to not starve)
You have the right to get your own food and water, nobody can force you to consume someone else's water and pay them for it. Other people have the right not to give you their food.
>The right to life
The hell does that even mean? Should the state support you if you are morbidly obese since it's life threatening? The state recognizes your right not to be killed.
>The right to housing (i.e. to not be homeless)
See food. Who is supposed to provide housing for you if you don't want to pay for it? What about their rights? They too want to drink, eat, live in their own house and not deal with your bullshit.
>If you believe humans deserve any of the second category you might just be a dirty commie
No, you might just be a dirty commie if you believe that other people are your slaves and should serve your lazy ass simply because you managed the feat of being born.
Not a right to be given unlimited property...You earn the things you have a right to have, they’re not given to you for free. Your logic a shit.
Moron - you are not entitled to free shit just by virtue of exiting a vagina. Nobody owes you food and water you lazy asshole. Not me, not the ‘evil capitalist’, not God himself. Go earn your own survival and stop demanding others hand over a livelihood to you. I am not your fucking slave, you rat-commie prick, and you may not take what I have created. Fuck off.
Angry neet leaf
>military enforcement to make people work
Do you mean this as them forcing people into the military or they send out the military to make people work? The draft exists in a lot of countries, you know
Tap water? That's inefficient, let the corporations take care of it
>Why did you specify unlimited?
Because ancaps don't want to make the distinction between private and personal property.
>Do you think there should be no freedom of speech?
Yes I do. But I don't think it's more important than a right to food (since, you know, you die if you don't eat)
>Do you think people shouldn't be able to bear arms?
It depends. If there was a situation like in the US today I think there should be at least a temporary suspension of it. I know the reason in the US isn't because "people have guns" but it would temporarily fix the problem.
>You have the right to get your own food and water
When property rights exists this statement breaks down. Your right for owning property should not override their right to obtain food.
>The hell does that even mean? Should the state support you if you are morbidly obese since it's life threatening
>Who is supposed to provide housing for you if you don't want to pay for it
I'm saying that this whole "rights" thing is bullshit.
>you might just be a dirty commie if you believe that other people are your slaves and should serve your lazy ass simply because you managed the feat of being born
You might just be a dirty capitalist if you believe that other people are your slaves and should serve your lazy ass simply because you managed the feat of owning the property they use to produce things
>You earn the things you have a right to have, they’re not given to you for free
What about inheriting? What about natural resources? How can someone own natural resources/land?
Hey yea.
People should have a right to a wife and kids too.
And video games. Why don't we have a right to video games?
Can you say AIRPLAINES?
Think of this: Everybody has a right to an airplane.
That would be fucking awesome. Let's do it.
>Go earn your own survival and stop demanding others hand over a livelihood to you
But you can't do that if someone else arbitrarily decided they own all the property. So either you accept this and waive property rights or you recognize that their right to life (and to live you need food and water at very least) overrides your right to property
If i don't have kids, my genes will die. So, my right to have a wife and children overrides her right to her body.
>And video games. Why don't we have a right to video games?
Since video games are information I think a right to information would be pretty awesome. Fuck intellectual property.
You can't stop natural death. Your children are not "you".
>my life, food, and water aren't my property
>The right to own an unlimited amount of property
Trustbusters want a word with you out back.
>The right to freedom of speech
says the user on a board widely hated for it's free speech principles.
>The right to bear arms
How else are you going to physically remove international communism
>The following are NOT
They are for my kith and kin, and that's who
matters.
Why would you ever need to hold more food and water than you could possibly consume in a lifetime? Once you do that, and if you're in a time of scarcity, you're denying others access to food and water that you were never intending on consuming yourself. You're denying their right to life.
None of the OP are human rights, human rights are an abomination invented by kikes.
That's what I was trying to say. Humans rights are nothing more than privileges granted out of the common good, they're goals to strive towards. If you don't believe everyone should have enough food to live then you're just an asshole, you're not taking the moral high ground because giving away some of your food would violate your "rights".
/thread
>Because ancaps don't want to make the distinction between private and personal property.
Because there is none. Personal property turns into private the moment you use it to generate profit. It's an arbitrary distinction that can only be tracked by an ideal surveillance state.
>It depends. If there was a situation like in the US today I think there should be at least a temporary suspension of it.
Who will enforce it and who they are accountable to?
>I'm saying that this whole "rights" thing is bullshit.
Now we are talking. My "right" to own property is bullshit and your "right" to food is bullshit. I agree. Except I also don't believe in monopoly on violence and can enforce my ownership of property. Can you enforce your right to food?
>you managed the feat of owning the property they use to produce things
If owning the property is that simple then why don't you do it?
>Personal property turns into private the moment you use it to generate profit
Correct
>It's an arbitrary distinction that can only be tracked by an ideal surveillance state
Or by, you know, the person you want to make a profit off.
>Who will enforce it and who they are accountable to?
Depends on how society is set up, obviously.
>My "right" to own property is bullshit and your "right" to food is bullshit. I agree
Good. This post is mostly directed to stupid ancaps that think their ideas are in any way grounded in reality.
>can enforce my ownership of property. Can you enforce your right to food?
Uh yeah, by killing you? (purely hypothetical situation)
>If owning the property is that simple then why don't you do it?
It's not. But if you believe in property rights then it's supposed to be.
>You can't stop natural death. Your children are not "you".
My genes are my genes, though.
nice gif broski
Your genes are not you. They're a blueprint to make a new, slightly different you.
>Or by, you know, the person you want to make a profit off.
That person isn't interested in reporting it because he gets some added value too, otherwise he would just leave and I wouldn't make any profit. Remember that we are talking about personal property turning private, i.e. relatively small things I have no monopoly on.
>Depends on how society is set up, obviously.
You were talking about "a situation like in the US today".
>This post is mostly directed to stupid ancaps that think their ideas are in any way grounded in reality.
I don't think that you've argued with many AnCaps if you think that they believe in rights. AnCaps are not libertarians, even though there is a significant ideological overlap.
>Uh yeah, by killing you?
Jokes on you, me and my buddies who think that people should be able to own property kill you first and give some food to other poorfags to calm them down. But there is no right to food here, see. It's just more convenient to feed the proles than fight them all the time. It can even be a profit oriented market solution. Competing corporations that specialize in pacifying lower classes.
I'm not saying they're me. I'm saying they have a right to live. More right to live than I do.
>because he gets some added value too
Incorrect. You steal some of his value.
>Remember that we are talking about personal property turning private, i.e. relatively small things I have no monopoly on
You could just... you know... loan your things out to them. Like a good person.
>You were talking about "a situation like in the US today".
Well I don't know how the intricacies of the US government look like. I live in Sweden.
>AnCaps are not libertarians, even though there is a significant ideological overlap
Sure they are? Aren't libertarians just ancaps that argue "some government" is needed to keep things in check?
>Jokes on you, me and my buddies who think that people should be able to own property kill you first and give some food to other poorfags to calm them down
All I wanted to claim was that my "right" to food was just as valid as your "right" to property. As in, both are void because we can just kill each other. The argument then comes to what you find more important: food or property.
They don't exist yet.
>I live in Sweden
like pottery
Water isn't a right, it's a privilege
>They don't exist yet.
My genes exist, and they have a right to life.
Hell yeah, supporting communist regimes since 1975
Same thing with property. And freedom of speech.
Your genes are not alive. That's the same as arguing that your ballsack is alive.
>Your genes are not alive. That's the same as arguing that your ballsack is alive.
They are, and it is.
Is your ballsack dead? Do you know what life is?
and we are destroying them since 1991
boy do I like not being starved
Your ballsack is only alive because it's attached to the rest of you. Your genes are merely a tool to keep the rest of you alive and to create new yous. The future creation of your genes doesn't exist yet so you can't give it a "right to life".
hoardin' grain since 1930
>commie walks into Jow Forums acting like he owns the damn place
>Your genes are merely a tool to keep the rest of you alive and to create new yous.
You have it backwards. You only exist to keep your genes alive.
>hoarding grain since 1930
AND THAT'S A GOOD THING!
would rather feed my own people than some churka from muttscovy
>I literally can't tell the difference between positive and negative rights: the post
>The right to own an unlimited amount of property
This is the absolute dumbest statement I've read all day. The whole concept of property is based on the fact that only a limited number of people can use or occupy property at any particular time. All of these things added up constitute the limit of what can be made into property and is clearly not unlimited.
Commies are fucking tards who believe in the myth of the dialectic and thus never challenge their theories with observation or logic.
>Incorrect. You steal some of his value.
I used my personal car to give a ride to a person who needed to get from point A to point B and he paid me $10. How much value did I just steal and will he think that I'm a fucking capitalist pigdog who ought to be reported to the state? This isn't an entirely abstract question. You could go to jail for shit like that in the USSR, but almost nobody ever did because nobody reported it since people need convenient transportation and state taxi service was garbage.
>You could just... you know... loan your things out to them. Like a good person.
Rights don't exist but acting like a good person does. Great.
>Aren't libertarians just ancaps that argue "some government" is needed to keep things in check?
No.
>The argument then comes to what you find more important: food or property.
No, the argument comes to what you can realistically get. Ownership will be enforced by upper classes as long as scarcity exists. Right to food has a lot less ground and right to housing is complete bullshit. It is entirely possible that communities that adapt those principles will be more successful and dominate the shit out of those that don't the way it happened with some of the natural rights, but I wouldn't be so sure about that.
>he actually believes in surplus value
right, because capital isn't also an input
>right to life
No such right exists, at least in the sense you're using it.
implying u guys are any different from muttscovians
No I don't. I exist because I exist. There's no deeper meaning to it.
That's because the difference disappears once more than one person exists in society.
>The whole concept of property is based on the fact that only a limited number of people can use or occupy property at any particular time
Why should the people occupying the property not own it collectively then?
>I used my personal car to give a ride to a person who needed to get from point A to point B and he paid me $10. How much value did I just steal
None. He paid you for your labor. If he drove YOU and you demand payment then you're stealing the value of his labor.
>You could go to jail for shit like that in the USSR
lmao I KNOW you don't have a source on that
>Rights don't exist but acting like a good person does. Great.
Sure. It's subjective but since the idea exists it exists. You can act like a good person ACCORDING TO ME or vice versa.
>No.
then wtf are they
>Ownership will be enforced by upper classes as long as scarcity exists
Which is why we should work to abolish social classes the closer to ending scarcity we get. This is Marxist theory 101.
>Right to food has a lot less ground and right to housing is complete bullshit
Only in a capitalist society. Property rights only exist because people believe in them. If believing in private property wasn't the norm then private property would effectively cease to exist.
I don't really get what you're saying but capital is only useful for the purpose of labor.
No rights exist. That's the point.
>The right to food and water (i.e. to not starve)
You have every right to OWN as much food and water as you can, just like the first point you made for human rights (The right to own an unlimited amount of property). However, you have no right to demand that others pay for your food or water because you are asking them to give you their resources.
>The right to life
I'm in agreement with you on this one, but for a different reason. It turns out that it costs more money to execute prisoners than it does to imprison them for life. As such, it is beneficial to keep prisoners alive and make them work for their daily bread.
>The right to housing (i.e. to not be homeless)
Same argument as #1. You have the right to own as many homes as you want, but you have no right to demand that others pay for your home.
If you have a right to own as much of everything as you want then isn't society just a race to the finish? The first person to acquire all the capital wins and holds the rest of society hostage. Extreme example of course but such a thing would be possible when you hold that as a right.
Here's a pro-tip: you have every right to spoon water out of public river and drink it.
What's that? you don't want to because it's polluted as shit? Then you better pay up to the people who either:
1) bring you unpolluted water from a distant stream
2) Purify th water to make it drinkable.
Why is every river not public? How did they become private in the first place? Why can anyone own land?
>the right to own an unlimited amount of property
Strawman. No one says you're entitled to property.
>The first person to acquire all the capital wins
It could be, if that was even possible.
You're stpidly forgetting that people age, and that even though Jeff Bezos owns a personal fortune, he will have to eventually give it up to someone (likely his kids).
Can his kids then expand upon that fortune? Sure, but that's highly unlikely. How do I know that? Because the children of great conquerors rarely end up as good as their fathers, and every European empire has at one point or another collapsed in place of another.
I never said that.
It was an extreme example to show the fault in your argument. Saying "his kids might not want to hold all the property" doesn't work because the system itself still ALLOWS it. It COULD happen and that shouldn't be possible.
>Why is every river not public? How did they become private in the first place?
Because some rivers are small enough to be encapsulated by 1 person's land.
>Why can anyone own land?
Anyone can own land Downie boy. That was the point of your original post (Reminder that the following ARE human rights:The right to own an unlimited amount of property)
>Anyone can own land Downie boy
But not if someone else already owns it. So not everyone can own land. Which is why negative rights break down once more than one person exists on the planet.
What are you saying then?
>"his kids might not want to hold all the property"
I never said his kids "might not". As a matter of fact, I implied that his kids WILL maintain their father's property.
What I did say, however, is that kids are not their parents, and their kids can either succeed or fail. In the setting where they succeed, good for them: they expand their wealth. In the setting where they fail: they will lose their wealth. Something you will find is that the more successful someone is, the more they have to lose and the quicker they can lose it. For example: if two hobos fight and one kills the other, the hobo murderer will hardly lose anything by going to jail.
On the other hand, if a millionaire kills someone, they will at the very least have to pay tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars to escape prison. Read up on Mike Tyson's history, and you'll find that this (among other things) is what made him go bankrupt.
That someone has the right to "own" property they've already acquired. Isn't that how you would define property rights too?
So your argument is basically "I hope they fail!". Change the system instead of hoping the people in the current system do good.
Under your gibsmedat regime, should universal donors be forced into giving as much blood as humanly possible and having half their organs harvested? After all, your right to your property shouldn't take precedence over some's right not to die :-)
>But not if someone else already owns it.
This is simply untrue. You can purchase that piece of land by naming its price. For example: the recent proposed purchase of Greenland that Trump wants and Denmark doesn't.
Imagine that Trump proposes 25 trillion dollars for the whole of Greenland (note that Greenland has a GDP of 2.5 billion). It doesn'tmatter how much the Danes hate Trump because they will take that deal no matter what, simply because the return on investment for that purchase means they can buy 10,000 Greenlands for that kind of money.
What does that mean? It means that you CAN buy something that someone owns, assuming you pay the price that the market is willing to sell this good at (land or otherwise). And that is the principle behind supply and demand.
But if no one is able to afford it then the point still stands. Someone holding ALL the property wouldn't want to sell it.
>should universal donors be forced into giving as much blood as humanly possible and having half their organs harvested
I would classify blood and organs as personal property
Just makes the most sense you know!
>No I don't. I exist because I exist. There's no deeper meaning to it.
You exist because humans are exceptional tools when it comes to gene propagation. If not for that, you would not exist. You can deny it all you like; it's a fact of the world.
I know how evolution works but if I CHOOSE to never have any children then I wouldn't be existing to keep my genes alive.
So if someone was dying and I was the only compatible donor to save my life, I'm free to sleep in while they die if I so choose?
>no rights exist. That's the point
Yes, but unironically. Nature will be even faster to disabuse you of your natural right to life than I could be. In fact, it's only nature that you really have to worry about enforcing this right against.
>Change the system instead of hoping the people in the current system do good.
Change it to what? A communist type system where a microscopic elite (communist party) controls 100% of the goods, under the guise of "the people controls everything"?
You are asking for people to have equal wealth distribution, while failing to realize a fundamental flaw in what you ask: in order for that to happen, you need everyone to give their wealth to a public entity (i.e. the government). HOWEVER, this government IS NOT UNDER THE CONTROL OF EVERYONE. Governments, especially in communist countries, are under the control of INDIVIDUALS (i.e. Xi Jinping, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.) Once you give your entire nation's wealth to these INDIVIDUALS, who / what is going to force them to distribute this wealth to the people rather than keep them for themselves?
Ask yourself this simple question commie: Was Joseph Stalin the equal of the average Russian? Was anyone communist dictator the equal of the average citizen, ever? No, and that will never happen.
The communism you hope for is a fleeting dream that relies entirely on idealism rather than empiricism.
Then that choice would be an expression of your failure.
sage and gay
communism is judaism and human rights don't exist
those aren't human "rights" btw
They are God given rights to humans based on the divine and natural law, minus the whole own unlimited property thats jews aka communist piog fucks like your sugar daddies Soros, Gates, and Koch do....juden
Since every reasonable person would object to it if it didn't cause any harm to you you're in for a bad time.
>flag
lol
And that matters? I still exist even as a failure.
>Since every reasonable person would object to it if it didn't cause any harm to you you're in for a bad time.
That doesn't answer my question. Am I free to decline donating blood/organs, even if it's vital to someone's life, or should the state force me into it?
You forgot to take off your shitposting flag, 3/10 made me reply
How can I give any answer to this other than "it depends"? I'm not even talking about the state, I'm talking about the people standing next to you while you hold a fit about "muh NAP" and "muh moral high ground"
die.
commutard.
take your all-powerful faggot state to the grave with you. gtfo go to a commie shithole stop trying to turn us into one.
fuck you to death i hate you.
You're a bit of an idiot
1. What happens when the only water you can buy is also polluted?
Literally nothing prevents someone from laying claim to every "public" river and saying you can't touch that shit or else.
Ultimately the only decider of any 'rights' is violence.
If you want clean drinking water and some asshole is telling you pay up or else and you have no other options but to pay up or else, then you either acccept his ability to enact violence against you, or you fight back.
It's a simple question, I really don't know how you're struggling with it, especially since the consequence of public opinion wasn't even a part of the original issue. If your only answer is 'depends' then elaborate on what it depends on, otherwise you're just copping out.
It's a really simple question: Should the state force me into donating blood or one or more organs if someone's life depends on it?
>especially since the consequence of public opinion wasn't even a part of the original issue
but how can it not be when society consists of more than one person?
THE ANSWER IS THAT IT DEPENDS ON THE MATERIAL CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE QUESTION IS ASKED, SUCH AS THE URGENCY OF THE MATTER AND THE WILLINGNESS OF THE OTHER PEOPLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE INJURED AND WILLING TO USE VIOLENCE WHEN YOU REFUSE TO DONATE BLOOD EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD BE OF NO DETRIMENT TO YOU
THE STATE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE AND WHEN YOU'RE IN A HOSPITAL SURROUNDED BY 50 OTHER PEOPLE THEY ARE A SMALLER MORE LOCAL "STATE" THAT CAN DECIDE TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, THEY OUTNUMBER YOU
You're still fucking up so I'll try and break things down for you.
>THE URGENCY OF THE MATTER
homeboy will die within 24 hours. Let's say he needs a Lung.
>WILLINGNESS OF THE OTHER PEOPLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE INJURED AND WILLING TO USE VIOLENCE WHEN YOU REFUSE
Their willingness is irellevant. What matters is whether or not you think they would be justified in doing so and whether or not they deserve punishment afterwards.
>homeboy will die within 24 hours. Let's say he needs a Lung.
Are you going to suffer any long-term consequences as a result of donating the lung? Because in that case I don't think it's justified.
>Their willingness is irellevant
It cannot be irrelevant unless they cease to exist. You can't ignore other people for ideology good boy points. They exist outside of ideas and "justifications" in your head.
>Are you going to suffer any long-term consequences as a result of donating the lung
I mean it's having a lung removed. Don't have to be a surgeon to know that can have lasting consequences.
>It cannot be irrelevant unless they cease to exist
Fine, let's dumb it down further and say the people intend to corce me into having a lung removed to save the patient's life. Are they morally justified in doing so, and do they deserve retribution, in your opinion?
>Don't have to be a surgeon to know that can have lasting consequences
Right. But you're not really playing in the real world right now so I just wanted to make sure.
>Are they morally justified in doing so, and do they deserve retribution, in your opinion?
I believe so in this specific case. I know you're going to try to make my statement into an universal law but it doesn't work like that. Different situations require different analysis.
Rights can only exist in any capacity when they can be guaranteed by either an individual or an institution; being a government or international organization. Governments literally cannot guarantee a right to food and water or any of that other crap you said. It's not possible, either because the means to do so don't exist or are outside of their ability to do so. That might include uncertainty in markets/weather, such as droughts. The other ones are easy. Write it into law, and simply don't step on those rights and don't allow any sub-governments to do so either, think states and cities.
Yeah, exactly!
Statements and situations define precedent, its the basis by which legal systems work, and this sets a precedence that the difference between 'private' and 'personal' property is arbitrary and can be ignored when inconvenient, while any liberty or autonomy of the individual can be ignored if a mob decides it's for a greater good.
Why on earth would I want to live in a society that sets such a precedence?
>that the difference between 'private' and 'personal' property is arbitrary
No one said otherwise.
>while any liberty or autonomy of the individual can be ignored if a mob decides it's for a greater good
That will literally always be true. It's true right now.
>Why on earth would I want to live in a society that sets such a precedence?
Because pretending otherwise leads to those with power using the precedence as a justification for doing harmful things.
So ultimately, you're trying to sell me a society in which we're not even going to *pretend* that natural rights exist and that the individual exist only to serve whoever holds the most power. I mean credit where it's due, it's a lot more honest than the cultish utopia lie that commies decide to peddle, but I fail to see how this is preferable in any way to the current existence I live in.
>*pretend* that natural rights exist
Yeah? Who ever made a good society out of pretending? "natural rights" can only exist if a god exists. It's better to recognize reality and recognize that we should do what we believe is best within the framework of reality.
>that the individual exist only to serve whoever holds the most power
No, the individual has ALWAYS been able to choose what they serve. This has literally always been true, it's only a case of changing attitudes over time.
>the individual has ALWAYS been able to choose what they serve
But as shown in choice doesn't matter when whatever monopoly of force decides otherwise.
Again, you've completely failed to sell your pitch of communism. Why even bring up your 'right to not starve' in the OP if you think rights are a spook?
>choice doesn't matter when whatever monopoly of force decides otherwise
This has also ALWAYS been true. Either recognize that or stay in your fantasy world where everyone respects the NAP and property rights.
>Why even bring up your 'right to not starve' in the OP if you think rights are a spook
Because I think it's a good goal to work towards. Because that's all rights are. A collective agreement of sorts.
So I'm giving up the collective agreement of my rights and getting... what exactly, in return?
You wouldn't give up a collective agreement of your rights, but you would also recognize that rights are nothing more than that. Private property rights only exist to serve the rich so it's in the interests of the workers to erase them for collective ownership of the means of production.
So my garage, tools and apparently even my organs are now under mob rule, and this is supposed to benefit me. No thank you.
I never said that. Stop arguing in bad faith.
You explicitely said that the difference between private and personal property is an arbitrary one, and that you think a mob is justified in violating my individual liberties and bodily autonomy for their percieved greater good. Jesus christ man, this is a train-wreck of a pitch for gobbudism.
It's arbitrary because the concept of property is arbitrary. Is a lemonade stand with two workers private property? Technically yes. Does it cause any actual harm as private property? No. The general rule is that private property is property that is used to exploit workers. Exploitation means that you're stealing a part of the value they create using the property.
>that you think a mob is justified in violating my individual liberties and bodily autonomy for their percieved greater good
I never said it was justified. I just recognized they COULD. No amount of rights written down on a paper is going to change that.
>I never said it was justified
>Are they morally justified in doing so, and do they deserve retribution, in your opinion?
>I believe so
Wait I read that wrong before lol
No, I don't believe they're justified in taking your lung. Even if you go by the "collective" you'll hurt one part of the collective just as much as you heal another one. I do think they would be justified in the case of donating your blood because I see no reason not to.
I think you're confusing positive and negative rights. I don't want the right to gibs, I want the right to be left the hell alone.
I'm not because they're the same thing. They're both guarantees that have to given to you by other people.