Natural Law continuation thread, Statists BTFO

If all legitimate governmental power is derived from people, and individuals have never had the right to initiate violence on a peaceful person, how could they legitimately delegate that "right" to the government? Can you give something to someone that you do not possess yourself?

Other urls found in this thread:

stephankinsella.com/2010/10/the-problem-with-natural-rights-and-true-believer-activism/
m.youtube.com/watch?v=tBIKP4W50-I
plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuition/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Statism is the most murderous, psychopathic cult to ever exist. Prove me wrong

Someone please take the bait

Please. I'm lonely.

Because natural rights are an abstract construction that can only be enforced as long as the whole of the population agree on the premise. Americans today are much more willing to compromise on their commitment to natural rights as the foundation of the social contact as a result of having inherited a government that had chipped away at the concept little by little over the past century, especially.

They are called rights because they are not wrong. They are objective and can be discovered through common sense.

Natural Law is the real red pill.

Just because the concept is ubiquitous in the West does not mean it is an intrinsic quality in nature. A morality that justifies rape and pillaging cannot be refuted deontologically, but rather through a utilitarian rejection of the results of such a system of ethics.

To be sure, I agree with natural rights as a presupposition on which to organize society, I am just merely stressing how as a concept it is fragile and without any force of its own.

stephankinsella.com/2010/10/the-problem-with-natural-rights-and-true-believer-activism/

A "morality" that justifies rape isn't moral. Just as a "morality" that justifies murder and theft isnt moral. They are all wrong/immoral acts and cannot be justified.

Why isn't it moral? I say YOUR morality is amoral because it prevents me from asserting my dominance on others. You personally just don't like the outcome. We are at an impasse.

It's moral because it doesn't harm another human being. You asserting your dominance is immoral because it results in harm to other human beings.

Why is morality contingent on that fact alone? You have a loaded conception of morality rooted in the supposed innate value of human life when in fact there is no empirical way to measure value; it is entirely a construction of human consciousness. You are just taking it for granted. Natural rights are not real.

I may value my life and you may value yours, but it does not follow that I am under any obligation to value yours or vice versa. Natural rights is a theory that unempirically tries to close this gap, which is why you see such fallacies in the Declaration of Independence as "self-evident truths." Circular logic.

So you do not believe that raping, murder, and theft are immoral?

Not him, but whether he believes it to be immoral or not is immaterial. There are people in this world that believe it is moral to commit rape and murder. They believe this with as much fervor and faith as you believe the opposite. The only way you can justify your belief in opposition to theirs, is by the results of a society based on your belief. If your society works better, then your belief is more moral.

I am saying that whether or not I do is never anything more than a subjective claim. A claim that it just so happens a vast swath of humanity makes in the affirmative.

>more moral

Says who? You? What authority do you have to say that? You're determining what is or isn't moral based on preferred outcomes, which is entirely subjective which is my whole point.

Key word you used is "believe". The way you phrased "there are people in this world" shows that you KNOW they are WRONG (not right). Truth is objective and can be known.

>something
You conflate ``rights'' with ``permissions''. No idea from mankind is natural.

Morality isn't subjective. It is objective. Based on truths that can be known. You can't RIGHTfully initiate force on a peaceful person, therefore it is wrong. Are you really trying to argue this?

I am arguing that I prefer a society where people respect the private property of others, but that does not mean that such a society is written in the stars. Your deference to natural rights will get you nothing and nowhere in North Korea, and the universe will not care.

Just because I believe something to be objectively true, does not mean I must ignore the possibility that I am wrong. I do believe in an absolute morality. However, just because I believe it, doesn't mean it is necessarily true. I must use the evidence available to me to support my belief.

Reading comprehension. I explicitly said that I judged the morality of a belief by how well the society based on it performed.

Rights aren't an idea of man. They are a creation of nature and embedded into consciousness itself. And no, not conflating. I understand in the context of government control that "rights" are temporary permissions but I am talking in the free natural world. And that's the whole point, if you're talking about "rights" from government, they are completely arbitrary and can be decided by the whims of legislatures. Natural/spiritual laws are eternal and self evident.

It won't get me much here in murica' either, that's not an argument. And the universe actually does care about you but OK.

You are making unsubstantiated claims about the natural world.

Your judgment is not what is at issue here. Natural rights as a measurable concept is.

If something is objectively true, there is no need for belief, because you KNOW.

>Unsubstantiated
So you're saying rape is moral and right?

>This is true because it's true.

Holy shit man, learn2logic. No offense.

This topic requires college education in politics. Not Sup Forums's domain.

Okay, so if you're sitting at a table with a cup of coffee, do you believe that you are sitting at a table with a cup of coffee? Or do you know that you're sitting at a table with a cup of coffee?

Derp.

I'm saying that you can't prove it is, only hope I go along with you on the assumption.

More like
>this is true because it is self evident
L2Logic

Okay, could you prove that it is NOT?

Yeah I know. It's just fun to drop real red pills on the Trumpites.

Here's Bernie panicking and avoiding the fact that you cannot delegate a right that you dont have
m.youtube.com/watch?v=tBIKP4W50-I

Just now discovering Passio?

I was where you are once, man, so I sympathize. The Enlightenment was a really important time in moral and political thinking but it is okay to criticize many of the assumptions that came out of it without unraveling everything we've built on top of those principles. As I said before, I think doing so leads to a greater appreciation for how we have to preserve a lot of those ideals as they are a product not of the universe but of the whole canon of Western civilization. There was a while lot of trial and error leading up to that.

Been into him for awhile. Is this supposed to be an argument or nod of approval? Lol

Nod of approval. Passio is great.

Okay, so what is RIGHT and WRONG can be made up by anyone? It's called right because it is based in truth which is objective. I can't believe how shitbrained you are. Did you just drop acid for the first time or something?

>".....everything we've built on top of those principles."

Do you even know what a principle is?

principle (n.)
late 14c., "origin, source, beginning; rule of conduct; axiom, basic assumption; elemental aspect of a craft or discipline.

You're just confirming what I'm saying

Larken Rose and Mark Passio have definitely been breaking a lot of mental chains the past few months

I'll say it one last time. If you are determining what is right and wrong based on whether or not you or a plurality of people prefer the outcome of that something, you are making a value judgment. Value judgments are subjective by definition, ergo it is not an immutable quality of the natural world.

Muslims believe it is moral to kill apostates to the faith. Why are they wrong and you aren't?

It's been awhile since I last listened to him. I'm going to log onto his site. For years now any time I read, listen to, or watch any kind of work meant to learn from, philosophical or otherwise, Mark Passio is always in my head saying "align yourself with the truth."

>prefer the outcome ?
What? It has nothing to do with my preference that people shouldn't be murdered. It's a self evident truth. It's an axiom, you don't need BELIEF.

Yup. His work is about us regaining control of our minds. By understanding right and wrong, we align ourselves with truth, we just need to think, feel and act in unison to bring it into the world

>Natural law
PROVE IT
Come on, fucking prove something is "natural law". Pro tip: YOU CAN'T

Proof has already been displayed faggot

I reject your axiom. Whoever can exert their will on others has a moral claim to the conquered and all their possessions, because survival of the fittest, etc. To argue against this self evident truth is to go against the natural order. There.

I've read the thread and I see no proof. Point it out to me.

it's your idea of peace that's wrong.

You believe in the legitimacy of slavery? I have no problem with you believing you stumped me on the subject of morality. This is satanic brainwashing at its finest.

Explain? My idea of a peaceful person it's someone who hasn't harmed the rights of another human

If you don't get it you don't get it. Try again later.

Natural rights have been debunked a long time ago, bro. Keep digging, you'll one day remember this thread.

So no proof? Only "it's common sense"?
Survival of the fittest is common sense. "Do what you can get away with" is common sense. "Natural law" being anything other than cause and consequence is utter bollocks.

That other person doesn't have those rights. You are just pretending they do and then choosing to adhere to that projection accordingly based on what your personal philosophy demands.

Something that is self evident can't be debunked lol.. natural law exists like math does. It doesn't physically exist, it's self consistent. It's really just simple logic and common sense.

the people do not necessarily have a particular legal right to execute violence, however, they are certainly capable of it, and so it is an obvious natural law.

thus, when a population successfully revolts, the state is no longer legitimate, because it itself can no longer maintain the monopoly on violence.

Okay, you still don't understand what rights are.

If something is unfalsifiable it is not natural.

>it's self consistent
Yes, and that's all it is. It's not consistent with reality, only itself.

This thread just exposes the plain evil of moral relativism. People don't know what is wrong and right. If you don't know your rights, you won't complain when they take them.

No, I do. The difference is I understand them from the outside looking in. You are operating under a worldview that does not allow you to do the same.

Physical reality? No, but it is objectively true in the mental. You yourself just admitted it is self consistent. Denying right and wrong is like denying 2+2=4. Ultimately, it's just lying to yourself.

Lol yup you just dropped acid for the first time

If only you could prove objective morality, this would all be avoidable.

"X is true if X is true" is self consistent, it doesn't mean that X is true.

Objective morality doesn't exist

Dominance is more natural than your "natural law" since it exists everywhere in nature, unlike your theory which exists only in your mind.

Okay, so is rape ever OK?

So murder isn't wrong?

Holy fuck, dude. Don't be afraid to step outside of your paradigm. Drop your pretenses. You're guilty of the same mental slavery you accuse statists of.

Yeah that's fucking stupid. It's no wonder your entire worldview based on this flimsy shit is W R O N G

build a tower on sand and watch it tip over.

Define 'OK', 'wrong'. If your definition is 'things that make you feel bad', then it's wrong. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH NATURE. An earthquake and a tornado will kill you with no remorse.

Lmfao I've been where you're at. I was a noob to psychedelics also at a time.

Does your mum know you're gay?
Don't ask bullshit, leading questions. The world makes a lot more sense if you assume rights are just social constructs we use to make it more likely that we pass on our genes.

'My subjective opinion that is based ob my fee-fees is objective natural reality, even if the history of the world proves me wrong', the thread.
Domination is natural law, that is what we can deduce from experience and not our mentally-ill minds, if anything.

So at a deep psychological level, you understand it's wrong. At least you're not completely cut off. And you're trying to equivolate a natural phenomenom with a human being with free will. You're a funny guy

You think rights are made up. Meaning you think they lack truth. So you think they rape, murder, and slavery can be viewed as righteous and moral. This is called satanic brainwashing

Lmao not saying domination hasn't ruled mankind, just saying it's immoral. You're actually retarded.

ITT : state worshipping cult members that keep the system of slavery in place.

Take a logic course. I mean this without offense, you are not able to make logical progressions. Everyone in this thread is pointing out the flaws in your thinking but you are too emotionally committed to your worldview because it makes sense and feels just and you see a lot of it as enshrined in the US Constitution so there is a patriotic aspect to it. But you must understand that it is all a human invention that just so happens to have a widely preferred social result.

Meaning they only exist within your head. "righteousness" doesn't exist in nature. "morality" doesn't exist in nature.

Look, we're not getting anywhere here, let's try something simpler. Name a natural law and prove that it's a natural law.

Assertions are not arguments.

So how's your weekend going? Having fun trolling people on le 4chinz?

I'm not convinced that he is trolling. There are people that legitimately believe the world is flat you know?

You're conflating nature with natural. Natural just means pre-existing. I'm talking about fundamental governing principles of consciousness. This might be 2deep4u

Some idiots believe the world is flat, other idiots believe slavery can be justified.

Take a logic Course? Lmao this whole thread is based on Socratic dialogue. The amount of contradictions I've pointed out in your thoughts process is unreal.

Other idiots believe justification is anything other than a mental construct.

Does consciousness exist in nature? I'm talking about fundamental principles of consciousness. You're just denying the truth

No, I complately understand justification is of mental creation. I understand the roots and meanings of these words unlike yourself.

I don't like some of the arguments you're making and think they're weak.
Particularly the idea that intuition has anything to do with objective facts or truth.

Prove to me what the fundamental principles of consciousness are.

There hasn't been anything intuitional about anything I've said. Its all been logical reasoning.

>They are called rights because they are not wrong. They are objective and can be discovered through common sense.
Common sense = intuition.

Do you believe rights exist outside of ones mind?

Common sense is not at all equal to intuition. Is this a troll?

Yes and no. Everything is of mental creation. But yes, these rights exist regardless of whether you know about them or not.

Absolutely they are. Intuition the word used in most modern philosophy, but colloquially "common sense" is the effective substitute.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuition/
If you could actually distinguish them substantively that'd be one thing, but for most effective purposes in regard to the point you were making I doubt you could.