DO RIGHTS EXIST?

Yes, they are self evident.

No, they're a fantasy.

Once we claim them, they come into existence.

Only as far as we defend them.

Only as far as others respect them.

[BenTucker]

communism is based on the collective (joint) ownership of the means of production (land, labor, capital)

where you are restricted in use by having to get prior permission from all the other owners or their delegated authority.

what I argue for is private ownership of capital and the return on capital (economic profits)

Same thing, since the government owns the land, the government necessarily controls what is on the land.

There is no practical difference between collective ownership and individual ownership HELD collectively.  Either way the gubmint controls it all.

a collective can be run without a government (can't be too big) as all decisions would be made by consensus (everyone must agree).

in my system:

(a) individuals own their land
(b) individuals own the economic rent that results from the private enclosure of (a)

the government's sole role is to protect the absolute rights to labor products of those being excluded which is infringed upon by the landowners collection of the economic rent.

[mikehz]

Actually, private ownership with public control is more of a socialist idea. I think BT is more advocating socialism than outright communism, even though he uses the term "common ownership."

His philosophy is pretty much what we have today, where you don't really own your property, but just rent it from the state, which holds it in trust of all humankind, and collects the "economic rent" on it.

Sort of socialist lite.

[BenTucker]

Actually, private ownership with public control is more of a socialist idea. I think BT is more advocating socialism than outright communism, even though he uses the term "common ownership."

His philosophy is pretty much what we have today, where you don't really own your property, but just rent it from the state, which holds it in trust of all humankind, and collects the "economic rent" on it.

Sort of socialist lite.

actually I am probably closer to communism as sharing economic rent is the basis of a a gift economy of communism and the smaller scale inherent on trying to run anything on consensus.

but I have no problem with money or markets (anarcho-communist believe they are inherently explotative)...without any state privilege economic interest and economic profit will disappear.

I believe that we are all inherently different in our capabilities/desires and I have no problem with legitimate authority if it is not beyond human scale. I even believe in delegated authority with the right to secede with a variety of decesion binding voting from majority to consensus depending on the situation.

if you pay land value taxes to the state then yes it is akin to the collective ownership of the economic rent rather paying your neighbors which is the common ownership of the economic rent.

[rollins100]

So what you really believe in is small communes with no larger umbrella government, even though this still plants the seeds of government to grow larger as the commune grows due to childbirth, converts, etc.   Got it. 

So, you're a "tiny statist," which is still a statist, is it not?

[BenTucker]

So what you really believe in is small communes with no larger umbrella government, even though this still plants the seeds of government to grow larger as the commune grows due to childbirth, converts, etc.   Got it. 

So, you're a "tiny statist," which is still a statist, is it not?

small voluntary communes are fine by me...with the right of secession.

I view the state and government differently.

the state is used to empower (capitalists, bankers, and landowners) via privilege.
government excercises legitimate authority by enforcing self-ownership rights of individuals.

[rollins100]

Ok.  I got it now.

I was using this debate as a litmus test to accurately gauge your political beliefs, based on other users' assessments of you.  Since I am new to this board, I didn't want to write you off too soon.

However, based on this: "the state is used to empower (capitalists, bankers, and landowners) via privilege.
government excercises legitimate authority by enforcing self-ownership rights of individuals"

and this: "I even believe in delegated authority with the right to secede with a variety of decesion binding voting from majority to consensus depending on the situation"

and this: "the government's sole role is to protect the absolute rights to labor products of those being excluded which is infringed upon by the landowners collection of the economic rent",

I can now confidently classify you as either a pedant (not likely), a Marxist, or a fucking moron with a thesaurus and/or easy access to a public library.

I am now no longer going to waste my time engaging you in discourse.  I do this enough on a day-to-day basis on my local paper's blog comments section to want to do it here, too. 

To put it in terms that have more familiarity: "Have an taxonomy, and don't let rabid terriers maliciously malign your geriatric timbre, heretofore known as 'Pipe Cleaner Fallopian.'"

[ladyattis]

LOL!

But, again the problem with BT's argument is that he drops context. Rights by themselves, like all mental entities, do not exist outside of our field of knowledge. They need a mind to be conceived, retained, and abstracted. Without the mind, there are no rights. And without a mind that can 'know' them, there still are no rights. So, that means rights are principles that follow from action, and action that inversely follow from principles.

What all the natural right worshippers [Anacapists and co] don't accept is that this is the very foundation for a civil society. Not some retarded and grossly generalized warmfuzzy. But, rather it's the evolution of though to a point where humans can exist in peace with one and other in a fashion that is the most optimal, based in causality and tempered by reason. Any other conception is categorically wrong and doomed to failure.

-- Bridget

[rollins100]

Um, ok, Bridget. 

But the point is still this: "Live, and let [fucking] live."  Pardon the vulgarity, but you and the MotherTucker are both overcomplexifying (I think I just made up a word) the libertarian system.  The point is this: if I own the land, and you are on it, respect my authority.  If you leave the land, my authority no longer has weight. 

Example (I'll try to put this in terms that Ben can understand): I own land, and you are dropping acid on it.  I do not want people dropping acid on my land, but I respect your right to do that on your own property.  So, do it there.  That there could be an overpopulation on the available land is not my [fucking] problem.  Buy a condo.  You still own the property, or something.  Whatever. To figure out how you can own some land is not my [fucking] problem.  Just don't drop acid on my property, or I will remove you.

Get it? 

[ladyattis]

No, because if you don't understand the foundation then you cannot understand the conclusions you can draw upon. Just saying, "Live Let Live" is just another way of saying, "I don't want to think about it, so just let me do what I want to do without cause or reason." Which isn't much of an argument, because by that logic you ought to "Live Let Live" Socialists to do their thing, even if it impinges on the lives of those who are too weak to stop them. And so on.

Either there is a right and a wrong, or there is nothing for us humans to stand for in this existence. You can't have "Live Let Live" if you do not accept the principles that drive one's mind to seek a path toward freedom.

-- Bridget

[BenTucker]

if I own the land, and you are on it, respect my authority.  If you leave the land, my authority no longer has weight. 

but by collecting economic rent you still do have authority over those you are excluding...

[velojym]

if I own the land, and you are on it, respect my authority.  If you leave the land, my authority no longer has weight. 

but by collecting economic rent you still do have authority over those you are excluding...

No he doesn't.
You are arguing in collective terms. You are only responsible for yourself.
Try it sometime.

[dubmixxx]

I've been working on an essay about this. 

Did you ever finish this essay?  'Cause I'd really like to read it.  And/or any other manifestos, papers, pamplets you've written.  Thanks!

[Zhwazi]

I think rights come into existance once you claim them.

Being able to claim a right to self-ownership rides on being self-aware, because if you have no concept of self, you can't claim self-ownership because you would never think to claim it.

Ability to communicate specific meanings is also necessary, otherwise you have no way to claim it.

Positive rights like healthcare would be disqualified for violating self-ownership.

I haven't fully developed the idea yet but I'm working on it.