Daily reminder that rights come from the state

Who is this guy and why does he matter?

File: PNG.png (275KB, 600x514px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 600x514px

Rights come from the Fuhrer

>>135214886
Daily reminder that rights are innate, and while your ability to exercise them can be infringed upon by tyrants, no right can be given. Get fucked.

Rights come from the lack of state

Reminder that rights are taken from the state. The state covets and tries to deny you access to them.

File: leviathan.jpg (223KB, 1000x632px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1000x632px

>>135214886
>>135215070

Thomas Hobbes is, in my opinion, the best political philosopher of all time.

I did a philosophy degree and he's one of the only ones I read who attempted to say WHY society exists, WHY we would choose to be a part of society.

According to him it's because life in the "the state of nature" (the time before civil society) was total shit. We all fought and killed each other. So we take part in society because it's of mutual benefit to us.

And this also applies to why we allow there to be a state. We agree to give up some of our "natural rights" (anything that we are physically able to do - e.g. the right to murder people) to the state, so that they may protect other "rights" (e.g. the right to live without someone murdering you).

This idea is called the "social contract" and he was one of the pioneers of it. Before social contract theorists, people didn't really question WHY there was a society. They just thought that was the natural order of things as ordained by God. Hobbes was a bit of a genius for explaining it, I think.

I guess now that I'm an adult, it's easy for me to see Hobbes' ideas as not terribly groundbreaking. When you're an adult, you realise why we agree to live by certain social standards. Because you can understand that there would be violence otherwise. But when I was an undergraduate reading Hobbes, it blew my fucking mind. Because I had been looking for an explanation of what "morality" was, and what was "good", for a long time. And suddenly this guy gives the answer - there's no such thing as objective "goodness", there's only what men agree to.

File: jackboot.jpg (41KB, 233x400px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 233x400px

>>135215557
"Divine" """""""rights"""""" are based upon an unfalsifiable claim i.e. the existence of God. Therefore the OP is correct in his assertion that rights come from the state and are therefore not rights but mere privileges. All hail the state.

File: 1494705433163.gif (4MB, 603x373px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 603x373px

>>135215557
Prove it or die, parasite.

>>135215557
>>135215630
/pol/ displays its lack of intelligence yet again. You're all just a bunch of rednecks, aren't you?

Hobbes believed in natural rights. The right for any man to do as he pleases. But he says that men agree to give some of these rights up, in return for the state protecting other rights (e.g. the right to live without being murdered by someone).

And that's exactly what both of you are doing - committing to that agreement. Unless you become criminals. That is how you break the social agreement, and agree to live by your own rules. Or you can go on the run and live in an remote area where no one will find you. But if you live by the law (mostly), then you have made a social contract - a covenant with the state.

Inb4 you go all redneck and say "BUT I NEVER AGREED TO BE RULED BY A STATE!!!"

Yes you did, by abiding by the law. If you don't agree to be ruled by a state then go and live a lawless life. Or move somewhere where no one will be able to enforce laws upon you. Or to another country.

>>135216080
Do you mean taken *by* the state? Anyway see what I wrote above.

>>135216695
>>135216853
They're just rednecks who are impotently mad at the fact that there's a government - and they don't have the balls to either live as criminals or go and live in another country.

>>135216853
He can't prove it. It's based upon an unfalsifiable claim. Curiously enough, it also relates to why the Nietzchian views on morality or closer to being correct than the views on morality espoused by the church. The only "Good" that can be had is the "Good" that comes with self improvement.

>>135217107
Based Brit once again proven to be one of the more intelligent posters on this board.

>>135214886
rights come for the barrel of my gun

File: eric frein manhunt.jpg (98KB, 634x391px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 634x391px

>>135217343
The state has more guns than you.

>>135215070
>>135216476
He wrote a book about how Protestants needed the state to allow them to rob Catholics and exploit poor people legally.
It was an international best seller and shortly after Anglos spread all over the world.

>>135216476
Just adding to this very well written answer, Hobbes was also a great human comportamental philosopher. Sadly many tend to forget this side of him in light of the brilliant second part of Leviathan (on society), still purely based in the description of man previously given.

File: john_locke.jpg (25KB, 293x412px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 293x412px

>>135214886
I disagree.

File: sage.jpg (535KB, 1229x922px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1229x922px

>>135214886
poor bait faggot.

>>135215070
American Education
>>135215194
Another way of saying the state
>>135215557
>>135215630
>>135216080
A state, or some entity isomorphic to it, is necessary for civilization. I'm assuming you're all pro-property rights. It's the height of irony to me that anti-government types are also so pro-private-property. Which entity do you think is the thing that protects and enforces property rights, and is the only entity capable of at least efficiently doing so?
>>135217343
You're really not wrong but that's basically agreeing with the point I made.

File: GiveMeABreak.jpg (186KB, 967x1450px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 967x1450px

>>135214886

Oh please. Divine rule is only with the consent of the social contract. Every noble understood this going back to Byzantine. If the Rights came from the State then States would never fall.

And yet, every time the state becomes fallible their power is taken and redistributed so that a new State can emerge from the Social Contract.

If you were right then absolute dictatorships would be impossible and incorruptable, yet history and policy have proven absolute statism to be the most fragile of all political systems.

>>135217501
Mao was wrong when he said rights come from the barrel of a gun. Rights come from the barrels of many guns.

>>135214886
Thomas Hobbes is /ourguy/

The First Counter-revolutionary
https://www.thenation.com/article/first-counter-revolutionary/

>He was the first and, along with Nietzsche, the greatest philosopher of counterrevolution, a blender avant la lettre of cultural modernism and political reaction who understood that to defeat a revolution you first must become the revolution.

>>135217107
>I NEVER AGREED TO BE RULED BY A STATE!!!
Yes you did, by abiding by the law

So, as a criminal, I don't agree to be bound?

>>135214886
Rights are social games.

File: batman.png (155KB, 476x362px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 476x362px

>>135217815
>Locke
authority > liberty

>>135218050
>I don't agree to be bound?
Nope, and now you're a trespasser on someone else's territory so you'll be dealt with accordingly.

>>135217107
>Unless you become criminals. That is how you break the social agreement
What if the state makes you a criminal? Just makes you out, for race or religion or opinion or whatever?

> "Fucking Papist! You broke the social contract by saying Mass. No rights for you! Nyaha".

What a useless philosophy.

>>135216476
Is this pasta?
>>135217107
>Yes you did, by abiding by the law.
I agree to abide the law inasmuch a shopkeep agrees to pay off the Mafia, that is to say: under duress.
His view of Law & Order, of Justice, and Injustice, of War and Peace is a very Anglo one, and can be summed up as:
>From that law of nature by which we are obliged to transfer to another such rights as, being retained, hinder the peace of mankind, there followeth a third; which is this: that men perform their covenants made; without which covenants are in vain, and but empty words; and the right of all men to all things remaining, we are still in the condition of war.
>And in this law of nature consisteth the fountain and original of justice. For where no covenant hath preceded, there hath no right been transferred, and every man has right to everything and consequently, no action can be unjust. But when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust and the definition of injustice is no other than the not performance of covenant. And whatsoever is not unjust is just.
Which is surprisingly simple to understand; an action's justness or unjustness can be qualified and quantified in relation to the harm done by one to another, either in contract or in tort, which is the basis of English Common law. However, as Hoppe, David Friedman and others have posited, there is no need for a State to be the administrator of this system.
It seems you're conflating him a bit with Rousseau , whose ideas of enforcing the Social Contract also do not necessitate a State.

>>135217501
>The state has more guns than you.
Overall, Americans own an estimated 265 million guns – more than one gun for every American adult, according to the study by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities.
Now how many guns does the government have? Not one for every employee, I would imagine

>>135218530
It's the equivalent of saying someone's no longer welcome in your house.

File: 1479885942504.jpg (57KB, 600x444px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x444px

>>135215557
>Daily reminder that rights are innate, and while your ability to exercise them can be infringed upon by tyrants, no right can be given. Get fucked.
false! supreme court already rule on this.
For example felons cant own guns and lose many american rights for turning against their country as traitors.

>>135218492
I was born here and bought my land legally from another citizen

>>135214886
Correct

>>135218623
>Implying the State is the same as the bureaucratic institutions of the government.
Even if it were, the standing military still outguns you.
You forget that the second amendment was implemented specifically to protect the State.

>>135216476
The state of nature lacks a higher purpose society can provide but it isnt always total shit, its better then societies sometimes.

>>135217859
>Which entity do you think is the thing that protects and enforces property rights

The entity that can enact policies that protect private property and presumably enforce them is also the one that can renege on them at will. In that case it becomes clear that your private property was actually the de facto property of the government the entire time

>>135214886
lol so thats why i cant speed eh?

>>135218559
Well said,anon

>>135214886
>the state

the state is supposed to represent the people
the rights came from the law, the law has been changed by the state to cement their power, it was supposed to protect the people from the state's power.

>>135218870
>bought my land legally from another citizen
These are substitute words used to create the illusion of you being sovereign.
The citizen didn't own any land to sell you.
You didn't own any monetary currency to buy it from him.
The land remains owned by the State, same with the paper you're trading to rent it out.

>>135214886
AND LEFTS? :D :D :D

>>135218626
Except it's their house.
They could live their whole life there under your bullshit social contract, but if they're the wrong religion or voted Trump or whatever you can tell them to get the fuck out because you got enough Parlimentarians to wipe snot on paper or whatever.

The "state" is horseshit. It's all a conjob. A fucking panto. Made up words to justify exploitation. You have no rights unless you have money or know the right people. End of.

Of course they do. Anyone who thinks rights are anything but a legal farce is a fool.

If you want to have liberty, it can only come from strength. Arm yourself.

>>135217884
This. The intersubjective consensus (or mass delusion that the State is necessary for functional societies) is used to keep more people in line than actual force. It's the old meme of keeping bears in chains since birth, then after a period of gradually removing all chains until there are none left, the bear will still act as if it still is bound by them.
>>135218134
This, in the Game Theory sense. A critical number of people, at once and in unison, have a consensus of certain sets of "rights", which allows them to function.

>>135216476
That isn't really true, though. The state isn't due to a social contract. It is due to a powerful group being able to enforce their will through threats and violence. It isn't a contract, just the weaker party understanding they have more to lose resisting than they have to gain.

>>135218880
>the second amendment was implemented specifically to protect the State.
The 2nd was only codifying a natural right granted by God

File: Study_after_Velazquez's_Portrait_of_Pope_Innocent_X.jpg (26KB, 280x356px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 280x356px

>>135217562
there is literally nothing wrong with robbing catholics, prove me wrong.
>>135217815
>the original skeptic(tm) liberal
no thanks

>>135219097
Jesus Christ, you're totally brainwashed.
Lick your master's boot

File: IMG_0212.jpg (198KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1024x819px

>>135214886
Rights come from God, anon.

>>135219115
>it's their house
If I come onto "your" property and build a treehouse in your back garden, how strong a claim do you reckon I have on it?

>It's all a conjob
>You have no rights unless you have money or know the right people.
Unnecessarily black-pilled, friend. Power and authority doesn't necessitate anything malicious.

>>135218899
Yes, which is the case and I wouldn't argue against that.

>>135216476
>philosophy major
>this many post modern leanings

Jesus Christ... every fucking time

File: 1492118193030.jpg (216KB, 1200x728px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1200x728px

>>135219274
>>135219436
Prove it or die.

>>135219422
All I'm doing is laying things out objectively and honest. If you want to hide behind the colorful magic goggles of your political """theories""", be my guest.

>>135214886
Read the Declaration of Independence faggot.

>>135218880
>the standing military still outguns you
"As a matter of weapons to the active military is concerned the rule of thumb is about 3.4 per SSAM"
As of Jan. 31, there were close to 1.4 million people serving in the U.S. armed forces, according to the latest numbers from the Defense Manpower Data Center, a body of the Department of Defense. That means that 0.4 percent of the American population is active military personnel.Mar 19, 2015.

So, 0.4 percent of the American population owns more weapons than 99.6%?

File: 1498671283863.jpg (155KB, 980x551px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 980x551px

>>135219846
0.4 percent of the American population outguns 99.6 percent.

>>135219846
Try fighting a sherman main battle tank, nuclear vessels and warheads and guided misssiles with your Ar-15 lol

>>135219455
I reckon you'd have no fucking claim. So why should you be able to write a law and throw me out of it?
It's not your house. It never was. It's mine. Fuck away with your "state".
>Power and authority doesn't necessitate anything malicious.
Confirmed underage. Power and authority is always malicious. Always exploitative. Always corrupt. If you want to get something done honestly, you ask people, you persuade, you win the argument, you pay people to work. If you want your will done for free, you abuse power and authority.
No-one agreed to this. Power and authority are exploited, always, by the people who cheat to obtain them.
>>135219145
>It is due to a powerful group being able to enforce their will through threats and violence.
This anon knows what's up.
They also enforce it excluding others from influence and power. And fooling people into thinking it's all for the better when it's not.

States are shit. Hobbes was wrong. Don't believe lies from children's stories.

>>135214886
Rights come from each individual's willingness to enforce them.

>>135219679
>Prove it
How can you prove something like that? You either believe it or you don't, it's that simple.

File: washington_flag.jpg (224KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 600x600px

>>135214886
nigger shill, rights are God-given. you know that.

unironically neck yourself.

>>135220062
I don't own an AR. But I think you won't have to look far to find a situation in which a guerilla force with small arms and explosives defeated conventional military forces.
Also, an aircraft carrier is useless inforcing the state's will in Oklahoma

>>135214886
Rights come from God. They are not privileges, and must be defended.

>>135216476
the social contract with regards to women has been destroyed by tinder.

instead of being a scientist, I'm gonna lift weights, strip, and sell expensive shit. oh, and fuck everyone else's women with no regard for their needs. lol.

but I'll vote to repeal the 19th and expel the Jews, like a good citizen should

>>135220000
59,764,677 fit for military service

2,000,000 current military personnel.

File: IMG-20170131-WA0005.jpg (33KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 960x960px

>>135215557
Why hasn't the whole /pol/ still read Plato's "Criton" and "Republic"? Who am I wasting time to?

>>135220062
>>135220000
How many times does it need to be explained?
>You can't enforce a curfew with a fighter jet
>You can't search a house for contraband with a tank
Especially when your families share a country with the forces you're attempting to route.
Your base is surrounded by their territory
They speak your language
They could be your neighbor
They could be the guy next to you

Not even taking into account the expected 50% defection rate to rebel forces.

Daily reminder that the state comes from the people.

>>135218880
A security of a "free state", not just the State in any and all iterations. Look up the Green Mountain boys, and other non-state-affiliated militias.
>>135219115
This.
>>135219131
What do you think of these arguments?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYloEOwKjjA

>>135220551
How?

>>135220551
>>135220278
>>135219436

God is not on earth to maintain them

>>135220832
How fucking stupid are you?

What shitty third world flag is hiding under that swastika?

>>135220699
The newest numbers I could find were 2015

>>135218364
>authority > liberty
Yet you have the audacity to call others cucks

>>135214886
Daily reminder that rights don't exist

>>135214886
He's right.

If we lived in anarchy, there'd be no one to protect you from marauders. There'd be no law or equality. There'd be nothing except law of the jungle.

Society is what guarantees your rights. Except I hate the word rights because that implies that society owes them to you. They are actually privileges. If you wake up and someone protects you from getting knifed and eaten, that's a privilege they are affording you, one that doesn't exist in nature.

File: 1497979864771.jpg (100KB, 510x600px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 510x600px

>>135220120
>It's not your house. It never was. It's mine.
Exactly. Your "house" in that example represents the territory governed by the State. The "treehouse" I built in your garden represents the actual house you built on the State's territory.
I can't write a law to claim my treehouse and throw you out, and you can't create "rights" to claim the State's territory.

>Power and authority is always malicious. Always exploitative. Always corrupt.
You say I'm confirmed underage while you're sitting there reciting "The Rebellious Teenager's Guide on Not Listening To Your Parents"?
>If you want your will done for free, you abuse power and authority.
Why did you need to add "abuse"?

>Don't believe lies from children's stories.
The State is present throughout all of human civilization. The only children's stories are your fables of it not needing to exist.

>>135220994
How does god give and defend rights?

>>135220935
He doesn't have to

>A

File: 1491187706509.jpg (265KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1280x960px

My rights are whatever I can protect with my fists and my aim, everything else is a fucking spook.

File: 1447906122516.jpg (112KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 803x688px

>>135214886
Daily reminder that only might makes right and that all other notions of rights are spooks

>>135217107
I don't abide by the law though. I speed all the time, steal shit, and do drugs. Checkmate faggot

>>135218725
Thats a funny way of running a state. Here in canada we make sure our biggest, Osama-linked felons get millions of dollars of compensation for being in jail.

>>135214886
No, they do not. The state can't prevent me from growing and smoking my own weed, building and using my own firearms, buying and selling whatever I want with my neighbors, etc. They can only arrest me afterward, ergo my rights to do those things are natural rights derived of my own free agency and not of the state.

File: 1497703028167.gif (818KB, 340x212px) Image search: [Google]

818KB, 340x212px

>>135220230
The other option is die.
Because that's the most concrete way we can prove the philosophy behind our system.

File: IMG_0082.jpg (186KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 2048x2048px

>>135219679
They're axioms created by man meant to be a projection of divine law, that is to say the perfect law (an idea impossible to achieve but simple to conceive)

The state exists to serve man, it is created by the consent of the governed, the rights of man were created as simple truths that must be followed as the foundation of a society's laws.

As the collective wisdom of humanity grows, the spirit and truth of the rights do not change, they are immutable, but our conception of them is inherently flawed, thus it is on each successive generation to build upon the foundation of the previous ones and better flesh out the true vision of the perfect society.

>Tl;dr our rights are a metaphysical "perfect law" that serves as the foundation for the perfect state, that man occasionally catches glimpses of and attempts to create in a vain but noble quest for perfect harmony between individualism and collectivism.

>>135221075
Of course, thats the job of the state

>>135220832
For one the state is not God. No man is God. For another animals can defend themselves from predators, and men should also declare that right.

>>135217107
What this guy said

File: waco.jpg (18KB, 316x238px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 316x238px

>>135220440
This isn't a scenario of natives fending off foreign invaders.
You have no homefield advantage here.

>>135221274
If the state is stronger than you and prevents you from exercising those rights completely, do you really have rights in any sense other than as an abstraction? At the end of the day, you only have the "rights" the state allows you to have.

>>135221108
Never thought I'd agree with a Stirnerite.

>>135221522
There's a reason why so many far-right thinkers (Evola, Schmitt, Junger, etc.) claim Stirner as an influence. Do you like Nietzsche?

>>135221052
>There are no private defense firms
>Conflates Society with the State
Top cuck. Keep licking the boot of the State, but leave me out of your fetish.
>>135220823
Platitude.

>>135221064
Why are you so stuck on that?

It's a philisophical metaphor for something that comes from the divinely righteous innermost tendencies that mankind possess but too often falls beneath.

Being "bequeathed to us by god" is historically the highest level that an idea could be held to.

This is why we have labeled things like free expression and gun ownership with it. We believe that they are rights so sacred and inherent they are above our ability to give or take.

I believe any reasonable person would agree with that.

>>135220827
The State is the State.
What terms a country uses to define the legitimacy of it doesn't change anything. It's still a body that's above you and your gun.

>>135220935
Fair point, it is the duty of EVERY man, institution, and man to defend and propagate them.

This is the battle between good and evil, men's who seek to use their power to protect the core humanity of every man (this term is not as simple as you'd believe) and those would seek to use their power to infringe upon them.

>>135220728
As many times as it needs to be explained that enforcing the law and crushing a rebellion are two different things.
>expected 50% defection rate to rebel forces
Lol.

>>135221487
Is the state going to hold me at gunpoint my entire life? And at that point I can still make my own choices, but it might just mean I get shot.

>>135221679
I've just started reading him but yes. His views on morality (personal self improvement) seem the closest to correct in my opinion. With that said, I wouldn't really consider myself right wing. My ideas are mostly a synthesis of left and right.

>>135221052
>every morning I lick the ass of the president because he ensures my safety

It's The sole duty of the government to protect your rights, it's very existence is dependent on it. The government should be praising you everyday for letting it exist.

>>135221404
It's the job of the individual.

>>135221108
Might and right are both spooks.

>>135220440
>>135220728
There are obvious limitations to the use of military personnel against national civilians, but considering:

1) the likelihood of a dictatorship overpowering the American government and taking control of the military assets, including men;
2)the lack of union within hypothetical rebelling movements;
3)the probability of the american Army turning against the 200 years old institutions there are there...

I find it highly unlike for the civilians' guns being needed or being effective (due to ammo controls and other nasty shit the government can do agsint rebels) in defending "freedom".

Defending an armed population in America through this argument doesn't make much sense. In fact, I think the very little probability of the guns you have being needed to protect your "freedom" weights much less than all the violence generated by letting everyone (niggers, I'm looking at you) have a gun.

>>135221696
I think you're mistaken, he meant actual anarchy, not your contrived fantasy of a society organized on the illogical concept of ""voluntary association"".

Ancaps are lower than dogs.

>>135221949
>Lol
Show your flag so i can laugh at your complete ignorance of America

There have been many studies on the exact situation and that is what they predict.

>>135222379
>this is what they predict
For what scenario?
What """""rebel forces"""""?

>>135221726
This

"Given by god" really taps into metaphysics more than theology, though certainly the two are heavily intertwined.

The idea is that the Rights of Man are a foundational Truth of our existence and beyond the capacity of any man to change.

>>135222231
America has ~1 billion guns in country and all of the ammo bans a hypothetical tyrannical government could hope to impose wouldn't put a dent in the amount that is out there.

>Army turning against the 200 years old institutions there are there...
American service members swear one oath to the Constitution.
Any that followed through with a total civilian crackdown would be traitors

>>135222009
Sure, but then again you're still only capable of acting in such a way if the state doesn't interfere or if you're stronger than the state. You don't really have any natural rights in the sense libertarians talk about. You only have the freedoms you're capable of acting upon or taking for yourself. All the talk about rights is just smoke and mirrors. By all means, grow your weed and sell it or smoke it, but don't pretend you have some sacred god-given right that no one may impede upon.

>>135222023
You should definitely read Stirner. /leftypol/ and /lit/ have ruined him on here, but you would probably enjoy him.

>>135222584
i.e. Natural Law?
How could you possibly think your "rights" qualify as that, when didn't manifest in human society until only recently?

>>135222468
A government vs citizenry in America scenario

>>135222642
>would be traitors
I'm sure calling them that will prove extremely useful in the resistance.
Also please drop these brainlet tier assumptions that the 300 million guns (1 billion??) would be used against the State in any conflict.
It would be a tiny fraction.

>>135221762
I counter with the idea that the perception of a state and thus how it can use its power are hinged on the pretense of its conception.

The state's authority and purpose is hinged upon what the collective's consensus, the name/identity of the state can thus alter the perception of the masses and the entire being of the state.

>>135222782
A man has always had the ability i.e. natural right to speak his mind or pick up a weapon and defend himself.

>>135223048
What does that mean? What's the actual scenario?
If that's as specific as it is, the predictions are utterly meaningless.

>>135223183
But what obligation do I have to respect your ability? If I have no obligation, is it really a right?

>>135222642
I'll trust you on that ammo thing, then, too lazy to go searching. But as for the oath to the Constitution, thats exactly what I meant by stating that the likelihood of the Army turning against the civilians is zero, making a population full of guns unnecessary and a danger to itself.

>>135223075
>I'm sure calling them that will prove extremely useful in the resistance.
I'm sure you know a whole lot about America and Americans

>1 billion
Yes, very close if not more. The 320 million number that gets thrown around is of registered guns in 2007 when they stopped counting. Take into account unregstered guns and 10 years of panic buying (roughly 150,000-300,000 guns a month).

>>135223278
Yes. It is.

>>135223348
>making a population full of guns unnecessary and a danger to itself.
But you're wrong. If you subtract niggers and spics America is Europe tier safe.

>>135223206
A gun confiscation

>>135223808
>yes it is
No it isn't under most definitions of "right". Again, might makes right. If I prevent you from exercising a "right", then that "right" effectively becomes null and void

>>135222647
Again, I can take whatever action I feel like taking. The state can use force to punish me for taking actions it doesn't like, but I am not prevented from taking my own course of action.

File: damnshrub.gif (494KB, 240x174px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 240x174px

>>135221052
>If we lived in anarchy, there'd be no one to protect you from marauders. There'd be no law or equality. There'd be nothing except law of the jungle.
We have in the past. Each citizen was tasked with defending THEMSELVES from marauders. The State would only intercede after hundreds or thousands had been killed in order to reclaim lost territory.

Did the state protect those that died? No, it only protected their interests in controlling the sovereignty of those lands.

You're fooling yourself into considering any given entity as being benevolent, when no individual man is inherently benevolent. And given that governments that make up states are made up of men who are not inherently benevolent, then the state isn't either.

You preach impending chaos should the state cease to exist, but the state not existing wouldn't change the status quo of the society that valued and establish same state. Any given state is just a reflection of the society that cultivated it. Until of course same state ceases to reflect the will of the people that built it and the people it should be serving.

>>135224074
How are you going to stop me?

>>135223487
Americans aren't special.
Did you not have a laugh at my flag last time?

>>135223808
>A gun confiscation
Meaningless, then.

Did Hitler try to gun-grab when he came to power?
He relaxed gun laws.

Human rights and civil society were created by merchants/bourgeois for their own benefit. The universe already has a form of justice - karma.

>>135224261
Have you ever talked to anyone who is or was in the military? None of them seem like the type to gun down their countrymen.

What does Hitler have to do with this?

>>135214886
I wish.

>>135224100
We're saying the same thing, I just don't think that the kind of freedom you're talking about can really be called a "right" simply because you don't have any entitlement to it.

>>135224193
I don't know, how has the state been voiding your natural rights for the past several millennia?

>>135223808
>If you subtract niggers and spics...
We are talking about reality, not some dream ethnostate, huh?

>>135224549
>How has the state been voiding your natural rights for the past several millennia?
Can you give me a quick rundown?

>>135224616
It's not the fault of guns then is it?

File: 1378481310778.jpg (25KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x400px

Daily reminder that the "state" is made up of individual mortal human beings.

>>135224499
Yes.
Of course they don't seem like the type to do that, because their service is completely shrouded under the patriotic culture.
People forget that soldiers are first-and-foremost trained to follow orders. Secondly to kill, efficiently; which means removing instincts like empathy and compassion which make normal people hesitate or question what they're doing.

>>135216476
>philosophy degree
>writes this shitty post

File: 1500499905302.jpg (440KB, 1195x1600px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1195x1600px

>>135214886
>rights come from the state
No retard. They come from god because you were born free and became a slave because of the state. They even control your tiny brain apparently. Grow a pair and free yourself faggot!

>>135224499
Oh sorry

>What does Hitler have to do with this?
He's the go-to evil tyrannical overthrower of freedom in America.
Communism's more in terms of the ideology, less concrete.

>>135224820
Don't try using this kind of strawman with me, I'm not saying something is good or bad, or, even worse, atributing responsabilities to inanimate objects. I'm just saying that America would be doing better with an unnarmed population nowadays.

>>135225015
They're not robots you fucking idiot.
>Trained to follow orders
Orders like get down, enemy on that roof, and give me cover

Not, disobey everything you've ever been taught and kill someone who is just like you for a cause that you detest.

>>135214886
No. It comes from a coalition of men, who desire freedom and inpose it by the end of a cannon. A démocratie yes. A state? No. The state can become tyranic, but the men always can revolt.

>>135214886
daily reminder OP is a faggot

>>135225324
>America would be doing better with an unnarmed population nowadays.
I'm saying you have no factual basis for that and it is an impossible proposition anyway.

>Strawman
It's not. If there weren't guns there would be knives and so on.

>>135225204
>evil
Nice try, shlomo

>>135225344
>Orders like get down, enemy on that roof, and give me cover
And launch that missile, fire that mortar, your friend is dead don't go back for him

>disobey everything you've ever been taught
Aren't you assuming a little too much to say the things they've been taught mean they'll be on your side?

>for a cause that you detest.
Again, assuming too much?

File: heretic.jpg (204KB, 704x899px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 704x899px

>>135221037
might makes right faggot

>>135226154
objectively false

>>135225900
>Nice try, shlomo
You either have the reading comprehension of a ten year old or you're arguing like a kike.

>>135226255
That's right, the free market makes right, doesn't it.

>>135226458
so having more power makes something right even if its wrong?

>>135224882
>babies
>teach themselves language, culture, and history
got news 4u, the collective is prior to the individual

When men entered into a State they yielded a part of their absolute rights, or natural liberty, for political or civil liberty, which is no other than natural liberty restrained by human laws, so far as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public.
The rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, and, in general, of attaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury to another, are the rights of a citizen; and all men by nature have them.
Douglass, Adm'r., v. Stephens, Delaware Chancery, Vol. 1, Page 470 (1821)

>>135225568
> I'm saying you have no factual basis for that and it is an impossible proposition anyway.
First, you were the one who made a real impossible proposition by thinking of an America free of blacks, etc (mine isn't, as I'm discussing a fucking hypothesis); then, please explain the total lack of basis in believing denying people deadly weapons decreases the chance of murders and general violence.
> It's not. If there weren't guns there would be knives and so on.
Not again this stupid comparison... Knives, cars, etc have many other utilities and cannot kill a bunch of people in any way as fast and as precise as a gun. Firearms are also much deadlier and prone to being used by criminal activities than knives.
Also, give police officers guns and criminals knives and compare this to nowadays world. If you don't find it better, I can't keep discussing with ya.

>>135226661
>make something right even if its wrong
wat

>>135226727
Our caveman ancestors could be compared to babies looking at our modern knowledge and power. Yet they built our culture generation by generation.

>>135226458
no, rights exist with or without individuals and with or without gov't

>>135226108
Military personnel isn't composed by robots ffs Anyway, robots can be programated to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. If they are robots, they're automatically bound to this document, your argument is invalid.

>>135226899
Exactly, some things are wrong even if a more powerful person introduces it. Would you be saying might makes right if the people who betrayed you said your whole family had to die?

File: siege-tank-rush.jpg (86KB, 600x496px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x496px

>>135226255
< Q.E.D.

the law of equal freedom - the Right to Ignore the State
Herbert Spencer concludes from his principle of equal freedom that individuals have the Right to Ignore the State (1851)
§ 1. As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry.
If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state - to relinquish its protection and to refuse paying toward its support.
It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others, for his position is a passive one, and while passive he cannot become an aggressor.
It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation without a breach of the moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking away of a man's property against his will is an infringement of his rights. Government being simply an agent employed in common by a number of individuals to secure to them certain advantages, the very nature of the connection implies that it is for each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not.
If anyone of them determines to ignore this mutual-safety confederation, nothing can be said except that he loses all claim to its good offices and exposes himself to the danger of maltreatment - a thing he is quite at liberty to do if he likes.

>>135216476
Philosophy majors shouldn't receive any government funding or loans for their classes.

>>135227083
>but so does the free market
Heh, I get'cha.
You're sly for an ancap.

>>135227267
>muh soldiers aren't robots.
This isn't an argument.
>they're automatically bound to this document
This is false.

>>135227288
What do you mean exactly lol.
If you're asking "Would you be saying" in that scenario you're deliberately ignoring the entire premise of might makes right.

File: siege-tank-rush.jpg (84KB, 600x496px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x496px

>>135227413
oc fail

Republicus Docilus

Against the grain press.com
James Montgomery and Big Al

... the colonies were plantations of the King.
They were never freed by the revolution as the Kings armies still remained in America up to 1813.
All the colonies were corporate subdivisions of the Crown with a new name "State."

A Republic is nothing wonderful because the root name for Republic is corporation just as in the China Republics and the United Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) the myth that a "Republic" is some mystical thing is a myth brought about by people who conjured something up in their minds and passed it on down to us.

Yes they are trusts set up by the Crown and the 4 lawyers that belonged to the Crown that represented the United States in The Treaty of Peace and that drafted the corporate charter giving the United States a name for the Crown's trust. We, meaning the common people, had nothing to do with that. They were still slaves as we are today.

The proper parties are the Vatican and the Crown and the private Bank of England.
The trust is set up for the Vatican as the beneficiary with the Crown as the grantor and the trustees being the US government.
It is that simple.

In Plato's The Republic, drama, music and fashion, are the three essentials in controlling behavior of a society.

Hobbes' ideas are unamerican and therefore wrong. All hail America.

>>135227809
> This is false.

> This isn't an argument.

When you reply to yourself in one comment

The Prussian Model of Obedience

The German philosopher Johann Gottieb Fichte was a key contributor to the formation of the German school system. It was Fichte who said that the schools:

The schools must fashion the person, and fashion him in such a way, that he simply can not wll otherwise than what you wish him to will.

Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise then as their school masters would have wished...

...When this technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.

File: 1496731553664.jpg (57KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1024x1024px

>>135228351
Nobody said they were robots, so it's not an argument.
Their oaths mean jack shit when it comes down to it, so claiming they're bound to the constitution is false.
Anymore confusion, monkey?

>>135229208
> Nobody said they were robots, so it's not an argument.
Typical "I don't know what to say" nitpicking. You were literally claiming military people don't had feels or accepted any ex nihilo tyrannical order from anywhere. You seem to forget every authority there's over the armed forces comes from the constitution and only from it.
> Their oaths mean jack shit when it comes down to it
USA is not a banana republic
> Anymore confusion, monkey?
pls

>>135224074
>Again, might makes right


You're confusing rights with ability to enforce them.

They are not the same thing.

>>135230104
>You were literally claiming
But I wasn't, and that's your "I don't know what to say so I'll invent something to argue against" kikery.

>every authority over the armed forces comes from the constitution and only from it.
The abstract is still abstract regardless of how much retarded glitter you throw on it. Physical, concrete reality takes precedence over abstract.

>USA is not a banana republic
It's also not the magical fairytale filled with knights and honor that apparently you got conned into thinking it is. We are not special in any way. Sorry to shit all over your fantasy.

>>135230831
> But I wasn't, and that's your "I don't know what to say so I'll invent something to argue against" kikery.
Good that you simply deny what you just did. Typical nazi.
As in >>135226108
>your friend is dead don't go back for him
> Physical, concrete reality takes precedence over abstract.
The things written in the constitution are not abstract. Neither is the martial court jailing any traitor for life :)
> It's also not the magical fairytale filled with knights and honor that apparently you got conned into thinking it is.
You got it wrong. I'm just looking at the most stable republic of the world, but yeah, believe whatever you want. NRA will be happy if you waste all your economies preparing against government's tyranny!

>>135231762
>the subhuman can't differentiate between feels and acting on feels
I hope I wasn't supposed to be surprised.

>The things written in the constitution are not abstract.
Yes, they are.
>Neither is the martial court
That one isn't. But it doesn't jail traitors to the country, dunce, it jails traitors to the military. Things like defection, insubordination, etc.

And if you think the US is the most stable republic in the world, you're living in blissful ignorance and I'm not really inclined to pull you out of it.
Just be happy most of the nukes will be flying north of the equator.

>>135227809
My point is: A person having power does not justify their actions. If you acknowledge this, then I was mistaken. Is that the case?

>>135226154
Would you hold this opinion if a nigger overpowered you and started raping you?

>>135214886
>>135219679
>>135219097
>>135221108
I actually yawned reading this. And I thought ancaps were the worst autists on this board.

>>135232710
Justification is subjective.

>>135226154
>>135221108
>>135224074
>>135226154
>le might = right meme
Nope. That argument was presented in "Blood Meridian" far better than anything you could write in your lifetime, and really it just comes down to this:
>>135230763

You'll grow up and stop being edgy manchildren one day.

>>135233103
>something based on the definite physical laws of the universe is subjective

>>135232722
>>135232908
Nary an argument in sight.

>>135233313
>it's based on physical law
>b-but I can't demonstrate those laws, so you'll just have to take my word for it ;')

Rights absent of any enforcement are just things you come up with in your head to motivate taking action against an authority.
Don't be a fag, have the balls to call yourself a rebel.

Question: Why is the state highest? Individuals or even nations are not tied to states. Nations and peoples outlast states. Sometimes even individuals outlast states.
I get this is probably a basic bitch question but I've never asked or seen an answer to the same question.

File: clint.jpg (172KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 500x333px

>>135232722
>"You just shot an unarmed man!"
>"He should have armed himself"
btw every legal system by necessity begins with an act of illegality, philosophers are merely sycophants of the powers that be of the current year

>>135233971
Highest in what regard?

>>135214886
The only real right we have is the right to starve

File: hegel.jpg (75KB, 485x584px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 485x584px

>>135233971
A state is a manifestation of a spirit of a people, that is, what you're willing to live for, fight for, and die for, that is, what you're willing to risk and what you're not willing to risk. An America without whites, for example, isn't going to the stars.

>>135232664
> But it doesn't jail traitors to the country, dunce, it jails traitors to the military. Things like defection, insubordination, etc.
If you think that helping rebelious movements doesn't count as defection, then you must check that putrid mass you have in your head , that you maybe call a """""brain"""""

The rest of your post is a senseless lacking-in-substance bluster I won't bother to answer.

>>135217501

Actually, no, they don't.

>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Government exists only by the consent of the governed. The governed grant it a monopoly on violence for so long as it fulfills its obligations without becoming obnoxious to the general public. Get fucked, Hobbit.

>>135234561
>helping rebellious movements
It would be considered betrayal, so yeah they would be dealt with by their courts. How exactly does that help your side of the argument? lmao

>>135233703
So, if I understand correctly, you mean to say that no one can actually enforce rights without the individual asserting their rights with their own force. if that is the case, then I agree with you. Justification is not subjective though. Some things are right, others are wrong. A bad person can say he is good because he has the force, and if he forces people to obey him, and in this case might does make right, in the eyes of whoever holds power, but not in any other sense of morality.

>>135216476
>According to him it's because life in the "the state of nature" (the time before civil society) was total shit
You needed a philosopher to tell you that?

File: giambattistavico.jpg (242KB, 1100x640px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1100x640px

>>135216476

>Thomas Hobbes is, in my opinion, the best political philosopher of all time.

Nah.

>>135216476
Of course there is objective goodness. If I agree to be part of a violent gang, that does not make me right.

>>135234349
General importance I suppose, like why the authority of the state trumps the rights of the individual. Or, something which points back to Hobbes' argument, why his idea of the natural state of humanity is correct. If it were certainly true, then I can follow the reasoning that the state provides rights and protection, etc., therefore people are supposed to be ruled over by it.

File: us1.webm (3MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x404px

>>135234752
Interesting theories.
Can you prove them?

>>135234722
Actually, yes, they do.
The civilian gun owners who are armed according to the second amendment and its definitively outlined purpose (to protect the State from tyranny) far outnumber all the anarchist sovereign-citizen fags

>>135235173
>think okay, everyone in the victorian era knew this to be true
>he was writing this around 1700
Where do I start with Vico

File: 1499546430978.jpg (8KB, 269x211px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 269x211px

>>135214886
Hobbes can go fuck himself in the face

>>135234394
Right, but see >>135235323. Why is state authority > individual rights?

File: edmund-burke.jpg (9KB, 180x232px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 180x232px

>>135233262
There is no principled distinction between a government and a gang of thugs, only a prudential distinction. You sound like you flunked out of Rightwing Shitlordism 101.

>>135234797
Betrayal only if the goy is stupid enough to let it clear he helped any insurgent. More probably defection.

Anyway, seeing that you finally conceded, this make you auto-agree with me that laws (specially the Constitution) are not useless pieces of paper with which no one cares. In conclusion, there's no chance America will become a caudillo's shithole /thread

>>135235481
Authority exists, and rights are merely ways of speaking about authority. Do rights exist in themselves? Which elementary particle has the property of "right?" Can I develop a scientific apparatus that can detect rights? Maybe 10.7 units of rights over right, 3.4 units of rights over there? Nonsense! Like justice, rights have a conventional existence only.

>>135235349
>Interesting theories.
>Can you prove them?
Yeah, French rev, etc
The people obviously are the real depositories of power, gov't operates only with their consent or, what amounts to the same, their indifference to it. No gov't exists without the consent of at least some huge portion of the populace.

>>135235793
Which elementary particle has the property of authority? Bad argument. Rights evolved to be conceived by humans and they exist in the conscience of everyone.

>>135236195
Rights are properties, are they not? Ok, what are they properties of? Our immortal soul? Not in a scientific universe.

In a scientific universe, obedience can still be compelled. Therefore, authority is more fundamental than right.

>>135235620
>stupid enough to let it clear he helped any insurgent.
i.e. the one fighting to protect your idea of freedom
And the soldier who's tried to help him just got court-martialed
So all your freedom fighters are left with is their gap-toothed compadres waving around their shotguns
lol

You realize our constitution's been amended twenty-seven times, I hope. And we already had one civil war, which the freedom fighters lost.
But if you want to keep your fantasy feel free.

>>135214886
>rights come from the state
And the state comes from the people. Ergo, if you're not speaking for the people and their rights, you're not really the state. Checkmate atheists

>>135236195
Also, the appeal to conscience is circular. You're saying the sense of morality resides in the sense of morality. That obviously won't suffice to metaphysically ground your sense of morality, that is, right.

>>135235933
How does the French revolution negate the millennia of governments that came beforehand, with no consent? And the centuries that came after, up to this very day?

>No gov't exists without the consent of at least some huge portion of the populace.
That would be the portion employed by the State in its army.

File: die hippie faggots.jpg (72KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 640x426px

>>135236838
Army plus law enforcement, these days

>>135235323
That boils down to collectivism vs individualism then.
The fascist perspective is that the collective interest is more crucial to society than individuals. So naturally the state, being the body designed to administrate the collective, is raised highest.

File: fat-bastard.jpg (21KB, 375x450px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 375x450px

>>135236838
Consent is a liberal shibboleth; making everything a (((contract))) leads to absurdities such as affirmative consent. "Hello m'lady, may you please sign this piece of paper so I may touch your boob?" Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions.

>>135236838
>millennia of governments that came beforehand, with no consent
De facto consent, or allowance
>implying there weren't peasant revolts

>That would be the portion employed by the State in its army.
And a large enough portion to fund the state. And even so, no army until very recently good handle an entire populace

>>135236776
Fair point. I am not totally anti-authority, but certainly value liberty higher than obedience to the state. As >>135237258 says, it comes down to collectivism vs individualism truly. This is where I now find myself struggling. Sometimes being pro-collective seems to be going against my heart and with my brain, but sometimes it's the other way around.

>>135217107
lolbertarians and """"""sovereign citizens"""""" btfo

>>135237548
>implying the peasant revolts which weren't crushed aren't still a demonstration of might making right

>fund the state
What are taxes?

The army doesn't need to handle the entire populace. The sate's administrating does that. The army's there for when the state's administrating fails and a rebellion sparks up.