Natural/inherent rights

I dodged nothing. I can answer your question (all property rights originate from your right to life) but without this ground work it will only cause confusion and throw the conversation into chaos. I promise I will answer it inorecdetsil with this line of questioning.

Your question was a response to my question:

"Now, since we have established (physical) things can be owned, is a body a physical thing?"

So please answer: is a body a physical thing?

 

Correct.
When push comes to shove and mans rules, rights, laws, etc break down, might rules.

 

"you calling me a liar"? i have a Happy camper policy. just make an appointment and insist i prove it.

 

I don't agree with that at all. I get that some want to equate morals with divine providence. I don't see it that way. Morals are a byproduct of our belief system derived from our environment. If an individual is brought up that might is right then might is right. Unless or until you demonstrate that there is a better way.

How do you know when government action is legitimate? I guess that depends on the level of trust you have in your government.

 

In a rational world, you know your government's actions are legitimate by consulting the law that created the government, like our US Constitution.

 

I am of a mind that those who created the constitution were way more rational than those in current times elected to uphold it. I believe the original intent was for the people to tell the government what it cannot do rather than the government telling the people what they can do.

 

I am looking for objectively legitimate action. I don't believe there is any. As you said, rights don't exist. Therefore, there is no right to rule or monopolize justice.

 

What do you mean by "laws"? Do words on paper backed up by ritual make right? Laws no more exist than rights or rules.

 

Laws and rules do not exist any more than rights.

 

They do when a society creates them

 

"Society" is a conceptual label for an aggregate of individuals. Only individuals can act, and only individuals can choose to act against other individuals.

Rules and laws, like rights are just words on paper. They do not exist any more than rights.

 

They exist when they are enforced.

And that comes from a society.

 

@Spooky care to continue the conversation or have you "already (ran) out of steam" as you put it earlier? Specifically, can you please answer the emboldened question that I have asked on two separate occasions?

 

"“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else."

IO was going to quote that in response to Spooky, however she isn't ready for it in the context of the conversation that I am attempting to have. However, these words are the first you ever recommended that I read- what some 15 or more years ago?

I am still looking for a nicely used edition of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" at my local book stores. I know Amazon has them all over, but I like toi support local business whenever possible.

 

Correct, there is no right to rule or monopolize justice. If people are to co-exist in a civilized society there needs be some structure and rules to maintain order. There also must be an empowered organization to back and enforce those rules. Preferably that organization is appointed by and accountable to the members of said society.

Now if you want to question if man is capable of sustaining a civilized society and has some sort of predisposition to eventually ruin a civilized society one has only has to look at history.

 

Thanks for the reminder. Has it really been 15 years??

Tolstoy has a lot to say about responsibility in The Kingdom of God is Within You. I don't subscribe to his absolute pacifism, but most of his work is logically sound.

 

Just one?

 

Closer to 20, really.

 

Organization(s) Better?

or did i miss your point?

 

Same thing. Just without paper

 

Oh, yeah. I did read Tolstoy a bit. Seemed okay, sans the pacifism, which is kind of a deal breaker.

 

The pacifism is attributable to Jesus' commandment to eschew all violence, at least as he saw it. I liken it to a commandment to not drink alcohol. It's not terribly logical, but much of Tolstoy's work was logical and even his pacifism gives pause to consider just to what extent violence is just when used in self defense.