Who owns you?

There's one out of two. How about the other one?

I can see why you are running away from this, since spontaneous order gives the lie to the idea that anarchy = chaos.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/10/spontaneous-order

 

Sounds wonderful in theory on an individual basis. Don't see how it could possibly work on a larger scale where you would have conflicting rules (or no rules) without some enforcement mechanism and means of resolving dispute.

 

Or any government rule for that matter, right?

 

That's a good one. Did you even read the article? There are plenty more where that came from. It's an observable phenomenon, not some theory that you can dismiss so easily.

 

Any evidence it works in a country of 300 million people or so?

 

Yes. Look around you.

 

We have a government.

 

Do you have a pencil?

 

yes
.....

 

There you go.

 

Glad we settled that.

 

I guess you didn't read the article, then. OK.

Why do you think people step aside for each other when passing on the sidewalk? It happens without government telling anyone to do it. It's an instinctive recognition of each other's natural rights. There are exceptions - rude people, criminals, etc. But the vast majority of people get along without anyone telling them to. That's an everyday example of spontaneous order in a country of 300 million people that has nothing to do with regime that claims to be its government.

 

You guessed wrong.

So the fact that people step aside for each other (sometimes) explains why we don't need government?

Sorry, but that is way to large of a inferential leap of logic.

 

You're the one making that leap. If you don't want to explore the subject, just say so.

 

I completely agree with your sentiments, but I think that the concept of "rights" is unnecessary. It's almost like nail soup or stone soup, where all you need is a nail or a stone and boiling water and then you just add a few extras like meat and vegetables. Also kind of like the alleged quip by Al Capone that "You can get more cooperation with just a few kind words and a gun, than you can with just a few kind words." You can even be God's Chosen People and have God-given unalienable rights, and that still wasn't enough to keep hundreds of thousands of innocent Jews from being murdered by the authority of the German National Socialist Workers Party.

 

I mean that it seems to be a lost cause try to argue and prove that you have a God-given right or a Constitutional right to own a gun for self-defense or any other purpose. So, shift the burden of proof to those who would confiscate guns. Make them show how they acquired a right to take away your means of self-defense.

[/B]

 

There is certainly a huge leap between people not bumping into each other on the street to 300 million people living in a nation not needing a government.

 

Not a leap, a path from one to the other. To what might be possible. But I see you're not the exploring type.

 

Why should I, seeing I never said rights by themselves guaranteed a damn thing?

If you had even the merest wisp of a clue about what substance is, you would, at the very least, have no reluctance to answer the question you have now ignored twice.

Really there is no need for such repeated demonstrations that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

So go snivel to someone who cares.

 

Im an atheist, not an anarchist. I do believe government is nesessary for a free and peaceful society, however there is only so far the law can go until it is pointlessly limiting.

 

What I'm saying is that no one needs a "right" to take stuff from others, they just need the power to do so. The fact that we've recognized personal property rights means that we've empowered the government to protect you from others who want to take your stuff, and we have placed serious restrictions on the government's authority to take your stuff. If the government weren't there, and someone were stronger than you and wanted your stuff, then they could take your stuff, no matter what you think his or your "rights" are.

 

An exception - powerful third party using its might to impose a more "friendly" democratic government.

It seems you cannot respond to the FACT that morality is a subjective human construct.

Its rather indicative that the only response you have is - "I don't know what I'm talking about". Apparently you can't formulate an argument so you merely dismiss with an incredibly obvious and lame accusation.


Snivel?
Hardly, just calling out a weasely tactic you seem to default to.

But, I can see that sneering is your intellectual refuge in the absence of substantive argument.

I find such churlishness rather amusing actually.

 

Take a look at the SC decision Kelo vs New London, CT, regarding how Big Brother protects the little guy's stuff.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London?o=2800&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com

 

Actually government is a group of people who frequently use their power to take other people's stuff. They also use it to kidnap, torture, and kill innocent people who themselves have committed no actual crime. How is that better than if government weren't there?

 

I think that your rights are a lot like faith, they only exist if you BELIEVE that they exist. They aren't physical things that are tangible but you KNOW that you have them and will not allow anyone to transgress them. It's best summed up in the phrase "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH" as death is preferable to being forced to be less than who you know that you are. Many have been killed by an oppressor over the centuries but in a sense they were actually freed through their deaths.
I've always been a bit of a believer in karma and I have a feeling that those who wish to enslave or mistreat others will one day answer for it. Weather it be a judgement from a higher power or through spiritual laws of the universe, I believe that there will be a price to pay for violating the basic human rights of others and those who died while defending what was rightfully theirs.