So, do rights exist?
>>294355
God created the earth, he did not create rights.
>>294364
>>294370
kek, 2 theists in their natural habitat. Can't even agree on some bullshit theology.
>hurrr government is the problem
>hurrr vote for me ill be different than all the rest i promise! xD
>>294374
Regardless of whatever you think about Ron Paul(i'm not a supporter of him, and have never been), taxation really is theft.
>>294376
Property is also theft so it kinda works out.
>>294390
Depends on how that property is come about, but yes, in some cases it can be, I agree.
Sounds pretty spooky tbqh
>>294355
only if you're able to enforce them.
If you think they do, they do.
If not, then no.
>>294355
Jesus Christ, Ron Paul really is a faggot.
>>294376
No it's not.
You are free to leave the country whenever you wish and live on your own in the middle of nowhere. Build your own roads, defend your own land, purify your own water, educate your own children.
If you're not doing that then you are accepting the benefits of living in a society gaining the benefits but at a cost. You have to pay taxes to get these things done. So does everybody else that wishes to remain in that society.
That's not theft.
>>294355
ofc they do :
imo the ontological and dialectical movements prove the existence of constantly moving rights.
For example take the fondamental humans rights and the universal declaration of human rights :
the equality between men and women comes from the fact that we all that the same fondamental understanding of existence.
Liberty is therefore also a fundamental right of existence. By denying someone's liberty you're in a way denying him his existence.
This works also for the right of security.
Then other rights are more maleable and come from a temporal view at a precise moment of the ideology of a society :
The right of propriety or resistence to oppression, etc.
>>295512
>You are free to leave the country whenever you wish and live on your own in the middle of nowhere.
No, not really. If you work and make money in any way without paying taxes within a state's territory they will use violence against you.
>You have to pay taxes to get these things done. So does everybody else that wishes to remain in that society.
I don't have to be forced to pay for shoes or a McDonald's meal so why should it be any different for the state? If the State's "benefits" are so amazing and only an idiot would never agree to paying them, why is the violent threat necessary?
>>295559
Coz people are idiots?
>>295559
Because folks are often shortsighted, and can't see the big picture.
>>295512
In most cases it is not the state providing any of those things, it just chooses, in a process that is influenced by bribery and political favors, which private company will hold monopoly over a certain area and pays it with the money from the taxerpayers, it only serves in a administative role which there is no reason to believe that it couldn't be done by voluntary association, moreover this is only done in order to legitimize the state in the eyes of the populace so it will also accept its less beneficial aspects.
>>295586
>>295590
That might be true, but what is the real difference between a mafia gang that extorts money from a shop owner in exchange for protection, and the state?
There really isn't any difference, and while I do indeed pay taxes, and live in this society, I'm not going to have any illusions about it's nature.
>>295688
There aren't any benefits to the shop owner being extorted besides "protection" really only from the group doing the extorting.
Taxes at least pay for public services.
>>295742
Yes, but that's an issue of the scope and scale.
A mafia gang who extorted millions of people could be capable of doing the same things if they were themselves millions of people instead of a few hundred.
>>295742
>only from the group doing the extorting.
Criminal organizations do protect their areas against any regular criminals and even will help some business against competition.
>>294355
YES, THEY LEGALLY EXIST.
>>295796
>LEGALLY
Do they really exist just because the state enforces perceived injustices?
>>295594
And this voluntary association is free from the bribery and favor of the companies that would then try to buy their way to a monopoly all the same?
6 in one hand, half dozen in another.
Citizens vote in the politicians who then go on to secure the services of whomever they need. Its hardly a difference.
>>295754
When a mafia gang starts building schools, roads, creating a safety net, funding the military, etc. then you're really not speaking about a mafia gang anymore. There's also the inherent problem of this mafia not being elected to represent the people.
>>295780
That's done to protect their own profits more than any actual interest in defending people.
>>295804
1. HOW ELSE WOULD "RIGHTS" EXIST IF NOT EXCLUSIVELY LEGALLY?
"RIGHTS" ARE NOTHING MORE THAN LEGAL CONSTRUCTS.
2. "RIGHTS" DO NOT ONLY COMPRISE "PERCEIVED INJUSTICES" BY THE STATE.
>>295810
>then you're really not speaking about a mafia gang anymore.
No, you would be talking about a state. But the actions and effects are still the same thing, even if you change a word. They are still a specific group of people extorting people's property, regardless of what they are called.
>>295549
This guy's got it right
>>295828
Once again there's a difference between an elected official doing the job they were elected to do and a criminal organization forcing somebody to pay them against their will with no benefit other than being protected from implied violence.
Extortion is done for the profit of the extortionist.
Taxation is done for the good of the state and its citizens.
Look I'm not saying governments arent corrupt as fuck. But there are inherent differences between taxation and theft/extortion.
>>295688
The perceived legitimacy of the government
>>295855
99% of government officials are NOT elected. Only the people on the absolute top of the chain are elected, IRS agents and police, i.e the people who do the enforcing, are clearly not elected, and are completely independent to the "elected" part of government.
>But there are inherent differences between taxation and theft/extortion.
Yes but the "inherent differences" are minor, because most tax money doesn't even go towards "the good of the state and it's citizens".
I mean, how much money doesn't America use on military chauvinism, that COULD be used on infrastructure and a bunch of other things that are are much more beneficial to it's citizens?
The State does whatever it wants with the money m8. They just use a sufficient enough amount on it's own people so that people don't whine and revolt.
>>294390
Proudhon pls go
>>295688
Because more often than not, money taken by organized gangs for "protection" is for protection from the extortioner, not a third party.
>>295872
America spends 4.5% of its GPD on defense, make of that what you will.
>>295872
But the enforcers do not make the laws being enforced, those are made by the elected officials.
>>295885
America also spent 1.3 trillion dollars on the Afghan/Iraq Wars.
>>295872
In that case you're not speaking of the problems of taxation but rather the corruption and incompetence of the government itself.
That isn't a problem with taxes. That's a problem with the people allocating them.
>>295897
>That's a problem with the people allocating them.
That's literally like saying you are pissed at the mafioso for spending the money for himself. And you're right. I am. But I'm also pissed he's taking my money in the first place.
>>295893
That's still just a marginal increase. And don't forget the US has to spend a minimum of 2%, as mandated by NATO.
>>295910
Spending 1.3 trillion on a war is not a "marginal increase". It's literally 10% of your GDP.
And for absolutely nothing. In fact, one could argue that the place you spent that money on is worse off now than it was before.
>>295810
it doesn't have the same power and perceived legitimacy of the State to maintain a monopoly through force.
>>295902
You're having two arguments at the same time mate. The original implication was that there was no difference between theft/extortion and taxation.
That's not true. It's already been recognized there are differences between the two.
Be mad at the mafioso for spending the money on himself. That's what hes doing it for. That's the point of extortion.
Taxation is meant to be used for the service of the citizens who pay the taxes. Which it generally is. Social Security, Medicare, Infrastructure, Defense. Etc.
Now you could argue that not enough money is being used on one rather than the other. I agree that wasting so much money on the military is retarded. It would be better spent on infrastructure and education. That's not a problem with the taxes themselves but with those spending the taxes.
Being angry because you don't feel like your taxes are being used properly isn't the same as saying you're being robbed at gunpoint.
>>294370
Humans created God plz
>>295940
There is a consequentialist moral difference between taxation and extortion yes. I don't deny that. Taxation gives you "something" back, extortion more often than not, never gives anything back.
But the point is that the act is literally the same. You are threatening people with either putting them in a cage, or just killing them if you don't supply them with your own earned resources.
So the question is, would extortion be morally neutral if the extortionist gave you something in return? I would argue it is not, because the act of extorting something from people is unethical.
>>294355
Does etiquette exist? Do numbers?
Rights don't exist in the way that you or I or an apple do. But if you accept that etiquette and numbers exist, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that rights don't.
>>295956
Out of curiosity, would you have the same issue with a feudal system of mutual obligation and all the "you sort of own the land but you sort of don't" that comes with it?
This sort of theorizing, where property belongs to the state and is lent out to individuals with the expectation that they produce value, could be argued as the origin of taxation.
>>295982
Yes, but etiquette and numbers do not demand anything prescriptive towards other humans.
If you claim you have rights to something, you are telling other humans that they have to relate to you in a certain way, because of what justification? There is no justification, which is my point.
Rights might exist as a social construct, but social constructs don't really relate to anything that is *actually* real.
>>295995
>This sort of theorizing, where property belongs to the state and is lent out to individuals with the expectation that they produce value, could be argued as the origin of taxation.
It probably is the origin of taxation, given that the state de facto "owns" the property in which it's monopoly extends, i.e the whole country.
But that doesn't make the action of extortion intrinsically ethical.
It is really an argument about virtue ethics to be honest; the idea that an action is morally or immoral depending who does it. You see it everywhere today, people frown when ISIS throw a fag from a building to his death, but they more or less say "You made your own bed" when the government executes people for alleged crimes.
>>296004
Etiquette fucking does, are you feeling okay?
>>296004
The expectation that people respect boundaries that you or others set (rights) and the expectation that others follow a codified system of behaviors accepted as normal by the group (etiquette) are both real, even if they have no basis in fact or enforcement. They are elements of our culture and behavior.
Asking whether they would continue to exist or look the same without the same context we share (for example arguing from some imagined state of nature or something) is kind of a bogus question. It either fails to understand what rights and etiquette are, or seeks to bypass the question of whether our systems of behavior (or the cultural context we've built around them) are valuable in an attempt to portray them as illegitimate.
In fairness, you could probably construct an argument that includes the question without those ulterior motives. They're just the typical outcomes of this line of thought and discussion.
>>296045
I agree somewhat, but rights are not just "respecting boundaries that you or others set".
Rights can include everything from "the right to not suffer bodily harm without reason" to "I have a right to your property because I want a free education".
Both of those are simply our opinions on how we personally want other people to behave towards us, it's not like there is a Realm of the Forms where there exists a metaphysical truth called "rights".
>>296031
There's an inelastic demand for land, all of which is theoretically owned by states. People can choose to pay taxes or live nowhere.
There's an inelastic demand for currency concentrated in a small class of people. Everyone else can choose to work for this small class of people or starve.
There's an inelastic demand for medicine, with patents providing monopolies on many. You can pay the price the providers name or die.
If the actions of the state are extortion, does it follow that the other two are as well?
>>295512
>You are free to leave the country whenever you wish
Not really, immigration is a tricky process. But aside from that I agree with your point. You're basically leasing land from the government and giving them money to make sure hordes of barbarians don't come by and fuck your shit up.
>>296077
Some sociologists argue that they are two-sides of the same coin, i.e in the concept of structural violence, but I'm not so convinced.
I think there is a difference between not having the material ability to do something, and actually being shot in the head by police for failing to obey their command to pay taxes.
>>296069
>realm of forms
Yeah, agree on that front.
>the right not to suffer bodily harm without reason
Eh. You can build that right into your belief system, but it would be remarkably difficult to make happen or hopelessly vague. Either stubbing your toe is a violation of your rights, or you accept that stubbing your toe had "a reason" and the right is inviolable by being vague.
>a right to your property
Also eh. You could build a more directly redistributive system into your system of rights, but this usually goes through the intermediary of the state in practice and the rhetoric acknowledges that. Beyond that, it starts with an internal contradiction. The very phrase "your property" starts with the notion that you have a right to property, and the property in question in particular. Then it negates that previously acknowledged right. As here: >>295995 redistribution usually starts with the property belonging to the king instead of the noble, or the noble instead of the tenant, or the state instead of the individual. Something along those lines. The rhetoric is that no one is taking anything; they're just re-allocating something that they previously lent to you.
>>294355
For a right to exist there must first exist the capacity to enforce it
Rights exists but are limited and contingent to time and space.
Rights exist in some places sometimes.
"Human rights" for example do not exist (taken as what they mean to refer to)
>>296119
Starvation or death by illness are no less death than death by violence. For the individual making the decision in these contexts, they're pretty similar. Whether the doctor is to blame for a patient's inability to afford to live (especially since the doctor will suffer the same inelastic demand for currency if he charges too little), you've got to admit that the doctor has a similar coercive power at least.
>>296077
Yes!
>>296120
>The rhetoric is that no one is taking anything; they're just re-allocating something that they previously lent to you.
So in other words it's just a convoluted way of defending the concept of "might is right".
>>295559
This. There should be something like a check box on tax forms for services the state provide. Want more education? Check that box and have your taxes spike. Don't want police as security because you have guns and you are a fully capable and healthy person? Take off the police force for that then. Obviously this won't work for some things like military spending and public transportation, but it would work for most things that go to you specifically (Health care, education, ect.) and those that are sent (Police, ambulances if your ballsy, postal services, ect.)
>>296145
>Starvation or death by illness are no less death than death by violence.
In the context of a society, there is a vast difference between if 80000 people die a year from old age, and if 80000 people die of violent crime, and I hope I don't have to tell you why.
Of course, for the person in question who is dying or being killed, it matters little if he dies from starvation or murder, but I would much rather live in a society where I was in danger of becoming poor and starve, than in a society where I was in danger of being randomly murdered by the police for no reason.
>>296150
Rights are what the society defines them to be, in a manner similar to manners. They are social mores that are enforced or violated by social, economic, and sometimes violent measures.
If you have ever rented an apartment, you have probably accepted a similarly convoluted arrangement in terms of property rights. You did not own the apartment. You used it in exchange for rent. Then your lease expired for whatever reason (possibly when you could no longer afford an increase in rent) and "your" home was reassigned to someone else.
>>296154
>Obviously this won't work for some things like military spending and public transportation,
Costs of public transportation are usually defrayed by still charging money to those who use public transit, in the same way that gas taxes are ostensibly meant to pay for road maintenance (ostensibly because political pressure has prevented gas tax from really keeping up with inflation).
Sales taxes or charged services can be used to make sure that the users are the ones who pay to some extent. Unfortunately they're also regressive, charging a higher percent of your income the less you make. So we're likely to keep using a mixed system mediated by political argument.
>>296179
Indeed, I understand what you are trying to say. But in my opinion the concept of at least legal rights is just a fiction that people have invented in order to further their own self-interest, i.e using state power to redistribute tax money to yourself, exampled by a college professor who knows very well that he might lose his tenure if he votes anything else other than the party which supplies universities with a lot of money in subsidies.(And this is then rephrased as a rhetorical device "I have a right to your property, because what about all those poor college students who can't afford going to college on their own?")
>>294376
>taxation really is theft.
You are at the very least partially reliant on the state and society whether or not you want to admit it. So if you don't want to participate, leave. Otherwise you can keep complaining like an adolescent, but nothing's going to change, and rightly so.
>>296201
There is no reason to be asspained m8. I'm talking about actions and their ethical underpinnings.
I work and pay taxes just like everyone else, but that doesn't change the fact that things are what they are.
If a person is starving in the street, is it immoral to not feed him? Is it morally right to force someone else to feed him?
>>296402
It cannot be immoral to do nothing. Moral and immoral are qualifiers applied to action, not inaction.
It is immoral to apply force in such a way that it infringes on someone's freedom. You might as well just force them to feed themselves.
>>294355
Rights are a social construct
BUT they're enforced by governments, which are usually enforced by military and police force. So rights do exist inasmuch as you can expect retribution if you violate someone else's rights.
>>297271
Most people in the world agree that negligence is immoral with regards to children or the operation of heavy machinery
>>297305
>negligence is inaction
If you are actively operating heavy machinery or caring for children whilst purposefully neglecting the issues involved, that's immoral.
But you don't have a moral obligation to interfere with a natural process. Otherwise you would be obligated to risk your life to save someone operating heavy machines unsafely or to care for another person's child in lieu of their own efforts.
This is not the case.
>>294355
>Do rights "exist"?
No.
>Are there rights?
Sure, depending on where you are.
>Are rights necessary?
No.
