The fetishization of "Freedom."

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You've gone from denying the existence of unalienable rights to now taking up the cause of property rights as an unalienable right, are you aware of this? Do you even believe in any cause or do you just enjoy playing devils advocate?

Yes of course, I am just playing the devils advocate now (using your own rhetoric to prove that taxation is against natural rights).
If I assume that property rights as defined by natural rights are valid, then taxation disparages natural rights. If taxation would not breach any natural rights as you claim (is done by right), then everyone would be allowed to do it (not just the state), because natural law claims that what does not disparage any rights of others is itself a right.

reply to post by Maslo


You've accomplished nothing with this game. Proven nothing other than you have no real cause other than to just argue for the sake of arguing, which is your unalienable right to do so, but rather pointless just the same.

Forgive my intrusion into this discussion.

I happen to be reading something that I felt like sharing.

It seems that this discussion over terminology always boils down to two groups with cemented ideology.

On the one side is the idea that humanity has rights that are always hampered by the existence of governing institutions, and the other that these institutions can be used for the benefit of a society.

...the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They are the main obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being. The anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of production. Consequently, while combating the present monopolization of land, and capitalism altogether, the anarchists combat with the same energy the state, as the main support of that system. Not this or that special form, but the state altogether, whether it be a monarchy or even a republic governed by means of the referendum.

The state organization, having always been, both in ancient and modern history (Macedonian Empire, Roman Empire, modern European states grown up on the ruins of the autonomous cities), the instrument for establishing monopolies in favour of the ruling minorities, cannot be made to work for the destruction of these monopolies. The anarchists consider, therefore, that to hand over to the state all the main sources of economical life - the land, the mines, the railways, banking, insurance, and so on - as also the management of all the main branches of industry, in addition to all the functions already accumulated in its hands (education, state-supported religions, defence of the territory, etc.), would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny.

I tend to agree with Mr. Kropotkin that handing over power to a few will always be detrimental to human society.

I can never understand the idea that the overthrow of the evil capitalist society to be replaced by a new small group with all the power is any change at all.

reply to post by stephinrazin

On the one side is the idea that humanity has rights that are always hampered by the existence of governing institutions, and the other that these institutions can be used for the benefit of a society.

I don't think you've fully grasped, at the very least, one side of this argument. In all honesty I am not really clear on what Maslo's argument is in this thread, but I do not at all believe that the existence of government necessarily means rights will be hampered, and I certainly believe that government can be used, and should be used for the benefit of individuals of any society.

All people have unalienable rights as individuals, and because each and everyone of them have these rights, it follows they have the right to protect and defend their rights. It then follows that these individuals have the right to form an institution towards that same end, the protection and defense of unalienable rights.

Lord Acton correctly observed that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. IN terms of political power, it makes sense that this power should be spread evenly and equally amongst the people. For this reason the people hold the inherent political power of any government. All governments exist by the good graces of the people, and while Thomas Jefferson correctly pointed out that people are inclined to suffer a long train of abuses before finally breaking free from the shackles of tyranny, it is a flaw Jefferson is pointing to, and if the people have come together to form an institution with the sole purpose of protection and defense of unalienable rights that no train of abuses should be tolerated at all.

They tend to be tolerated for a number of reasons, the greatest being expedience. It is easier to go along to get along than to stand up to every single government abuse, and people will go along to get along until they can no longer get along, and once that happens revolutions follows. Waiting for the train of abuse to become that long train of abuses and trusting that revolution will solve the problem risks needless bloodshed, particularly under a Constitutional republic where government has been severely restrained.

There are other reasons besides expedience, and another reason is the dogma that unalienable rights is really just an ideology, and worse a "cemented ideology". Either unalienable rights are universal or they are not. If they are not then the term unalienable becomes inappropriate, but if the opponents of unalienable rights are represented by the arguments in this thread made against unalienable rights then the opponents of unalienable rights have a long uphill battle that will invariably be lost.

It has certainly not been made clear what the advantages are to arguing that unalienable rights are non existence and that law is a human invention subject to the whimsy of individual politicians, or even the will of the people. Such arguments no doubt benefit the despot and tyrant who would rule over people, but it doesn't benefit the people who would be ruled by such a tyrant. Conversely, it is perfectly clear how unalienable universal rights benefit all, and when all understand they do indeed have unalienable rights that are theirs to be sacredly kept, protected and defended, its hard to imagine how any tyrant could ever gain power to begin with.

It is of course, not so difficult to imagine how tyranny rises to power today. There are a vast amount of people who are all to willing to view unalienable rights as nothing more than an ideology, and ironically cling to a different ideology that holds that clinging to any one ideology is base and uneducated. There are also, of course, too many people who understandably find it prudent to go along to get along until they no longer find such an action to be prudent, but this lack of vigilance is generally imprudent because even the ambitious politician with the best of intentions will gladly usurp the inherent political power under Machiavellian beliefs that the end justifies the means.

It is never the end that justifies means, and always the means that get us to any end, and those who argue the end justifies the means will always have some excuse as to why that end has not yet been met.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I agree with you entirely. What I meant by "cemented" was that both camps have made up their minds, and are usually impervious to all arguments to the contrary.

In my opinion, as soon as the government is institutionalized into a permanent system outside of the local level it begins to move toward tyranny.

Government on a national level nearly always begins to accumulate power, and usually at the behest of those already holding the power of a society.

This makes me think of the Constitution debate. In the past year I learned about the whole idea that a Constitution can be contrary to inalienable rights. Why do inalienable rights need to be codified? It gives the impression that rights are given by the government instead of derived from the people.

Fascinating stuff. What are your thoughts on anarchist political ideas?

reply to post by stephinrazin

This makes me think of the Constitution debate. In the past year I learned about the whole idea that a Constitution can be contrary to inalienable rights. Why do inalienable rights need to be codified? It gives the impression that rights are given by the government instead of derived from the people.

Fascinating stuff. What are your thoughts on anarchist political ideas?

As long as these Bill of Rights come with language similar to or exactly the same as the Ninth Amendment, and many state Constitutions do, the codification of rights is a necessary component of constitutional law. Judicial review would be meaningless without this codification of rights and the evidence of this lies in the fact of how reticent any court is to acknowledge any right not enumerated. Imagine of none were enumerated and how that would affect the courts decision making process regarding the lawfulness of legislation.

I have often been told I am an anarchist, but those making this claim are doing so because of my fierce defense of unalienable rights. I do see the value to government, local, state, and national. I am not a big fan of federalism but see the value in having states aligned to form a nation.

I also agree with your assessment of local government and beyond. However, most rights violations take place on a local level and it is your own local government, friends and neighbors who are more likely to violate your rights than the federal government.