by BC Dad
In a previous post (How Many Bureaucrats Does It Take?) I observed that the state and its relationship to individuals ‘can be based on simple principles, on the idea that basic rights are inherent to the condition of being born human.’
Commenter Steve P responded, ‘Nonsense. Rights are the “terms of engagement” between individuals and the rest of society; without society there are no rights.’
In other words, if a man was attacked by a pack of predators (human or otherwise), he would be free to defend himself only if there existed a society which had also given him the right to do so. In the absence of such ‘permission,’ or in the absence of any organized society at all, no such right would exist.
Therein lies one of the issues with social contract theory, variations of which have been espoused by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and others. (They in turn were pre-dated by many, including Aristotle (indirectly) and Plato, who proffered their own visions of the state. A modernized version of the social contract concept has been developed by Rawls. Interested readers are urged to investigate further and form their own conclusions.)
Social contract theory can easily lead, intellectually, to some rather unreasonable conclusions, dependent upon inherent assumptions. For example, Hobbes essentially proposed ‘alienable’ rights (and a necessarily authoritarian state), although Locke preferred the more considered concept of ‘inalienable’ rights, an idea which helped form the foundation of the U.S. Constitution.
The prime supposition (which Hume called ‘a convenient fiction’) of the social contract is that at some historical point, individuals consented to terms of engagement between themselves, and with a created entity which we call government or the state; there is endless debate concerning the original purposes and functions of the state, or indeed whether the social contract ever existed.
By contrast, other theoreticians have proposed that given the lack of evidence for any proposed originating state of affairs, the state in fact arose by other means, primarily through conquest.
Frank Chodorov’s 1959 book The Rise and Fall of Society (available here) offers an interesting discussion of the origins of the state, and provides considerable insight into the human dilemma.
The social contract is of course rife with improbabilities and glaring omissions. Who created and signed this contract? Why have you and I been bound to a contract we did not consent to? Why is the state free to alter the terms while we are not? Is it a voluntary contract? If so, where is the opt-out? If not, if it is based on non-consent and force, is it not then unethical, immoral and unworkable in the long run?
It’s important to note that philosophers and political theorists have wrestled mightily attempting to postulate answers to these questions, but the answers themselves rely on assumptions concerning the fundamental nature of human beings, in itself an arena ripe with prospects for discord.
As an alternative to the social contract, conquest theory itself is directly based on force: no matter whether the state was created to combat predation or to engage in it, the necessity of violence is both explicit and implied.
It is impossible to avoid concluding that regardless of its origins, the state is utterly dependent upon violence. It can only exist through the use of force. Is a mafiosi who extorts protection payment through threats any different than a state which extorts payment through threats? Even if we accept the canard that the state is benevolent, omnisciently expert and solely concerned with the well-being of all citizens, there is no functional distinction to be made between the two mechanisms. Regardless of ends, the means are identical.
If one contemplates the multitude of ways in which the state intervenes in the daily lives of individuals (exclusive of such horrors as war, holocaust and genocide), the true extent of state violence begins to reveal itself. There are few if any human endeavors, from procreation to death and everything in between, where the state is absent both in efforts to control (by threats of force) and to extort (also by threats of force). This is true regardless of the foundational principles of a given state – the relevant political or social ideology is immaterial, except as a matter of degree. It is also true even when the actual outcome is universally considered ‘good.’
A glance at the world’s headlines on any given day also makes this clear. Stories there are aplenty concerning acts of individual coercion or outright violence, but the sum total harm of those individual acts pales in comparison, for example, to just one piece of legislation which forces men to shoulder the burdens of women’s choices, or to the human toll from any state-initiated intervention, be it commercial, political or military. At a local level, contemplate the numbers in prison (mostly men) as a result of victimless crimes, or the number of fines levied by the state on a daily basis for millions of illegal acts which harm no one and no thing.
The state by its inescapable nature is the dominant actor in the perpetuation of violence in the world; it has been since the dawn of recorded history, and it will continue to be. This writer is neither unique nor original in pointing this out, but it is a message humanity continually and cyclically loses sight of.
Is there hope? True freedom, with its attendant responsibilities and burdens, cannot be achieved via the state , therefore a society that is as free as possible from the coercion of the state, or of any other institution of power which might be predisposed to replace it, must be the vision for the future. But asking the state to pursue its own devolution is the stuff of libertarian dreamscapes. A new path is required, and it is one that by and large only men can envision and achieve.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
Required reading for anyone who discusses rights should be Dworkin – not Andrea the Hutt, but Ronald, specifically his book Taking Rights Seriously.
Absent of society, a man indeed does not have the ‘right’ to defend himself against predators, yet he is entirely free to do so.
That is because a ‘right’ is always a legal term. It is unfortunate that people use it in a moral sense (“you had no right to do that!” when it was not at all a violation of the law) but this is where the confusion comes from.
A man may be right, or ‘in the right,’ to defend himself from predators, but absent a legal system, of course he doesn’t have any rights.
Exactly Bc.DAD, Thank you.
There is a finite limit to how much the State can do for madam feminism. Beyond that point onwards people have always relied and depended on each other, their pretend conceit not withstanding.
Femaleists, so long groomed to masturbate over more and more of the State are quickly learning of this very fact. The hard way.
An appropriating, usurping, annexing, confiscating, stealing, lying and freely taking State functioning on behalf of women soon has all men fully adapted to its malevolence.
And then where does the lady turn ?
“Is there hope? True freedom, with its attendant responsibilities and burdens, cannot be achieved via the state , therefore a society that is as free as possible from the coercion of the state, or of any other institution of power which might be predisposed to replace it, must be the vision for the future.”
Achieving true freedom will invariably require excessive but not gratuitous violence. There really is no other way.
Off Topic-
Today my daughter made me aware of a bill introduced in the state legislature of FL by state Sen Audrey Gibson, requiring anger management classes for all those who buy ammo.
Also one of my doctors asked me why we give The Muslim Brotherhood F-16s while not giving our citizens hunting rifles.
This is a problems that gives rise to its own solution, or sows its own destruction, depending on your point of view. Once a state entity has achieved a sufficient amount of power, it begins to control to a greater degree the actions of its subjects, which necessarily leads to a loss of efficiency and liberty which causes hardship to varying degrees.
At this point three options exist: submission to the wishes of the state, revolution against the wishes of the state, or invasion and destruction of the state. Submission is at best a temporary solution, and leads further down the path to revolution or invasion, which inevitably occur. Then the cycle returns to the beginning, and from the chaos a new state is created.
The more morally fit and civilized a particular people, the longer the cycle can be made to last before becomming terminal. As they intrinsically behave in a moral and civil manner, the state has no need to exercise vast power to control the deletrious impuses of the uncivil members. Exercise of power is viewed as unneeded, so is minimized.
I believe this means that whatever is done, the unleashed negative impulses of the masses will tear this country apart no matter what is done, and the only hope for civilization to continue is for those moral individuals left to congregate together for mutual protection. The old social order is irreparably damaged, and will not support us much longer.
“Is a mafiosi who extorts protection payment through threats any different than a state which extorts payment through threats?”
Yes, very different. Wishing to protect its income stream the mafia really will protect you. The state will not. Sam Francis summed it up pretty well:
http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f54/anarcho-tyranny-gonna-getcha-has-gotten-you-456405/
@ CerberusAlpha
At the end of the day that’s exactly what a ‘right’ truly is. Not something that is guaranteed somehow.. but instead something that is merely reasonable for someone to pursue.
Thank fuck the no state project & voluntareeism comes to the manosphere
Look up Marc Stevens who helped popularise the movement
A corrupt government backed up by guns, is a dictatorship & illegal, not to mention the GROSS human rights violations, like taking your house under the guise of feminist laws
AND stripping you of your children
AND allowing women to kill your children before theyre born
Genocide, infanticide & marriage outlawed & families destroyed under the GUISE of feminism
THIS is what a corrupt government looks like, this is what a government backed by guns looks like
A government backed by people, not guns THAT is the future
A government held accountable & no judges protected by illegal immunity backed guns & fake lawyers
Instead of the corporate clusterfuck we have today, that is all a court is today a corporate clusterfuck
@cerberus alpha
That’s because ALL societies are a form of enslavement
Men are supposed to exist as tribes, only mass forms of enslavement have legal systems
REAL commerce is pretty simple, barter
ONLY enslavement requires a legal system
Enslavement requires an ever increasing set of laws, to ensure the enslaved remain enslavement
The only difference between the government and the Mafia is the illusion of legitimacy.
I found this semi-relevent:
http://dissention.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/why-gun-control-is-a-non-starter-in-the-usa/
——————————————————————————-
Eliminating private gun ownership in the USA has been a perpetual wet-dream of leftist totalitarians for some time now. These scumbags try to use every gun-related incident, however minor or not so minor, to push that dream. Why has it not worked?
The short answer to that question is- for all their faults, most gun-owning americans recognize that gun-control is not about reducing deaths by guns. It is about pulling off a peculiar type of power grab which any sane person would rightfully resent and resist.
So what do I mean by ‘gun control is not about reducing death by guns’?
Let me explain.. You might have heard or read apologists and stooges for the ‘gun control’ movement use any and every media forum to push their ’cause’ under the guise of reducing ‘harm’ by guns. While I am a strong supporter of reducing harm in many other areas, from legalizing drugs and prostitution, the case for reducing ‘harm’ by banning guns strikes me as rather irrational.
Firstly- banning or restricting anything does not reduce the ‘harm’ from it.
If that were not so, banning alcohol production should have reduced the harm caused by it- however the failed experiment with alcohol prohibition during the 1920s suggests otherwise. Prohibition merely destroyed a thriving industrial sector and funneled its revenues into sub-standard and expensive stuff which supported the biggest expansion of organised crime in the history of the USA. I would go so far as to say that the Mafia and (largely corrupt) cops of that era were the principal beneficiary of alcohol prohibition. It did not reduce crime nor the total number of deaths from alcohol consumption. It also made ‘law-breakers’ out of a significant percentage of the american population thereby reducing their respect for other laws passed and enforced by the system. The ‘war on drugs’ has also been a similar failure, though some older white people still support it because it preferentially destroyed the lives of black men. Today it is easier to buy a joint, a few lines of cocaine or vicodin pills than it is to buy a bottle of vodka- especially if you are “underage”. Moreover, much of the early criminality associated with drug trafficking has burnt out to the point that it is a pretty mature and established industry in the USA.
Secondly- people will pay for something that they need.
While advertising can help sell useless crap for some time, the long-term demand for any product is largely determined by real needs. While ‘beanie babies’ were at once highly collectible items, they are no longer so. However people still fill up their cars with about the same amount of gasoline they used to in the mid-1990s. While guns are not as essential as gasoline for cars, they are certainly far more useful than stuffed toys. Furthermore they require a minimal amount of maintenance and usage unlike many other products. Guns that were made many decades ago are still functional, and will be so for decades more. The technology to make decent quality guns is also available all over the world and is hard to separate from normal everyday usage of such technology. It therefore goes without saying that any legal ban or restriction on guns in the USA might not actually affect the ability to acquire guns by those who need it and don’t care about being a law-abiding slave.. I mean “citizen”.
Thirdly- ‘gun control’ does not address the real issues behind gun violence in the USA.
The scam of ‘gun control’ does not address the real and rather unpleasant reasons behind the uniquely high rates of gun-related homicide in america. These disingenuous fucktards pushing for ‘gun control’ don’t seem to care about what makes people in the USA so willing to kill other people. While bad and failed policies such as continuing the failed ‘war on drugs’ and excessive rates of incarceration and dehumanization of non-whites is part of the problem- the root goes much deeper. It concerns how Americans see and treat each others, regardless of race or class.
The USA combines the worst elements of two different types of dytopias. On one hand, it has levels of socio-economic inequality and a general disregard for the lives of other people that approaches (or exceeds) that seen in third-world banana republics. On the other hand, it has levels of social atomization similar to scandinavian countries. It is this combination of dysfunctions that creates a uniquely toxic mix.
The average poor and battered person in your typical high-inequality country (Brazil, Mexico, India or China) can expect a lot of assistance and support from their family and friends. The family and peer support available in such systems in those countries often mitigates the suffering inflicted by the larger system and prevents most people from going off track or becoming highly misanthropic. Atomized societies such as your typical west-european country handle the same basic problem through generous social welfare programs, excellent subsidized healthcare, excellent public infrastructure, subsidized education and housing etc.
Both types of societies try to stop people from reaching a point where they lose all hope in, and connections, to the society at large.
The american system is unique in that has very high levels of inequality without any mechanisms (social or state funded) to protect vulnerable people. Americans, especially whites, take great pleasure in the sufferings of even poorer and vulnerable people. Being a ‘winner’ in american society is largely determined by who you are born to rather than your actual capabilities or willingness to work hard, play by the rules etc.
But if that is the case- why didn’t things go to hell a hundred, or even fifty, years ago?
Here is why.. The long and almost continuous economic expansion of the USA since its beginning prevented the buildup of excessive socio-economic pressure for almost two centuries. While the overall system was grossly unfair, the economic expansion created enough new opportunities to occupy and even reward the disgruntled. People started to believe that a brighter future was around the corner- if they only waited a bit longer. This safety valve also allowed the USA to ignore the needs of its most vulnerable citizens in a manner that the UK, Germany or Russia could not get away with.
The american economic expansion slowed in the 1970s and stopped by the mid-1980s. Most economic growth since then has been largely appropriated by the top 1% of american society leaving the rest to fend for themselves. While it was initially possible to keep people somewhat happy and content by blowing ever larger economic bubbles, that option appears to have reached its end. Then there is the issue of people having fewer or no kids and a concurrent fall in the numbers of those who move to the USA. A substantial reduction in the number and percentages of new suckers combined with the acceleration of income concentration at the top end of society without the safety valve of a new frontier (real or imagined) has unmasked the underlying problems with the american way of doing things.
The screwing of average americans was once restricted to blacks, visible minorities and a few poor whites. Beginning in the 1980s, blue-collar whites joined that list and that is why workplace shootings started in that decade. Initially White-collared morons thought they were insulated from these changes because of their ‘education’ and for a while it appeared to be the case. However that illusion has been slowly eroded over the course of the last 10-12 years. It is therefore no surprise that the younger members of the white-collared group are increasingly taking out their frustrations and disenchantment in the easiest way they can. We should also not forget that prostitution in the USA is too expensive and subject to a lot of arbritrary law enforcement- unlike almost every other developed country.
A lot of young, smart and capable men have realized that they no trustworthy and dependable relationships or friendships, no pleasurable physical contact (even paid), no reciprocal social contract and no ‘better’ future to look forward to in the current setup. Most stop playing the old game, usually after a series of bad experiences, and slowly disengage from an increasingly ubalanced and unstable society. Some adopt alternate life trajectories (the rise of ‘game’, MGTOW etc) rather than go down an obviously fruitless path. A minority decide to kill a few other people before killing themselves.
Guns are just the most easily available means to kill other people in the USA. Banning or restricting them will just make those who want to kill use other methods- some of which might cause a far higher body count per incident than semi-auto guns.
There’s a clear distinction between the ability of a man to choose to defend himself in a free environment, and the so-called right to do so. Freedom versus rights – they do not automatically equate.
One depends on the self only, and is what some label a ‘natural right,’ while the other is a matter dependent on the terms of society and state.
Can society free itself from dependence on the state? Can people develop, morally, ethically and otherwise, to the point where the state becomes irrelevant? The state prevents this possibility, because the state is itself immoral.
Woodrow Wilson and the end of women’s suffrage ushered in a more socialist/interventionist US government. FDR built dependence on it and LBJ added to it further. Obama is attempting to close the deal for good, until we run out of other people’s money.
I find looking at the actual rise of governments/rulers to be more informative.
Looking at the nomadic life of the first civilizations, most were lacking a ruler, relying on patriarchs as the heads of a huge collection of families. When opposing families went to war, the winner either killed all or made them slaves. If someone in the family decided they didn’t like the Patriarch, they left and created their own nomadic tribe with their family.
In this sense, there was more at stake for the patriarch to rule fairly – this is his family who will carry on his legacy. Not some collection of unknowable faces with their own traditions, philosophies, and religions. For someone who disagreed with his ideas, it was best for them to be cut out and sent on their own so that he wouldn’t corrupt the ideas of the rest of his tribe.
So the social contract was born – one in which people who disagreed with the de-facto leader (the father) were free to leave and form their own family tribe.
True freedom, with its attendant responsibilities and burdens, cannot be achieved via the state , therefore a society that is as free as possible from the coercion of the state, or of any other institution of power which might be predisposed to replace it, must be the vision for the future.
True freedom will never be achieved. People do desire governance. They yearn for it, cry out for it, demand it. The weak, the followers – they will always look for someone stronger to lead them and protect them. And they will almost always trade freedom for life. It is in our nature.
The Walking Dead is actually not to bad a commentary on the ideas of social contracts and desire for governance.
In the face of a complete and total social and government breakdown, people still chose leaders, governments, and social contracts in place of complete freedom.
One wonders if Rick were to adopt an initiation ritual of circumcision if he’d be more willing to let more people into his tribe…
Inalienable rights given to you by God and, with emphasis, not the state and therefore not other people! This is key and something that everyone should understand even atheists. Importantly, one can be atheist and still believe in this and should. Your individual rights should have a divine connotation to it; look what it did for kings and emperors of old. Its the function that should be embraced, specifically, if we create a culture around this who can argue against it? In terms of atheists, even better that God can’t be either proved or un-proved, because so long as your rights come from God, an abstract thing, who can argue with him? Again for atheists, can you argue with something that doesn’t exists, no – that’s the point ergo you can’t argue with your inalienable rights (which includes your belief to not believe). For instance, you want me to see women as victims and superior, give up my guns or pay for female supremacy via taxation etc…Noooooo barry the potus, I won’t, I have rights. The beehive collectivist replies – you have rights from the state. I say “Nope I have rights from God…kindly direct all questions to him here forward, now get the f*9k out of here and take your opinions and oppression with you!” Believe me enough people believe in this and just this, not organized religion or anything like that, and you’d be amazed at how effective it is. It doesn’t say you believe in God or religion, it just says you don’t believe in people being gods over you. Amazingly, this is how the country used to be.
@BC
I’m not sure I agree with this: “The state prevents this possibility, because the state is itself immoral.”
You eloquently go over the Social Contract way of doing business.
However, I think it goes deeper than this on both the individual level, and mass of people like say a group; or namely government which itself is a group.
I think the real denominator is the self-centered nature of human beings themselves. This is hard to argue against, not that I am saying impossible, but pretty close. Mainly because we see the signs of our less noble humanity all around us. Wars, death for no reason (not natural death), greed, feminism, socialist ideology of all stripes; just to name a few.
Yet the state, as a collective body, represents the best and worst of our own innate nature. We know people desire to harm us, because we are innately aware of their desire ourselves. We harbor these desires, wanting to satisfy whatever they are, if we can. Usually, regardless of the cost; as long as we can sacrifice some worthless and inept excuse to our own self-conscious.
Some desires are natural; others not so much. Yet no one can “seem” to agree. We know of the potential, and most likely occurrence, of government malfeasance; but why do we put up with it?
Because we know we are incapable ourselves, so we use its (government) collective nature, and rely on the self preservation of others and the group as a whole to understand that nobility to others is key to self preservation. Then we go about our lives hoping everyone will honor the contract.
We see the possibility of humanity to shred and discard old skin, like a snake, of times and brutality past; and have faith in a new day where unicorns will dance in a meadow with lions. We want peace; but not for others! For ourselves.
Why does a woman choose to enter in to a relationship with a man, have kids; and then scar them all so completely through divorce and state induced theft of others peace she knows she should care for?
Why did others do that to her; even if she deserved it?
Why does a man, knowing it is better for him to live peacefully, and stay with one mate; rather than string numerous women along leaving a trail of broken hearts for other men, and their kids to deal with? Also, why does he fight with so many others?
Why do senators, state and federal level, steal from their charges they took an oath to lead fairly and honestly for stolen profit? Giving the keys to everything to other large groups who he/she knows will do the wrong thing?
Why do feminists lie and cheat to get what they want?
Honestly, most would say it is money, or the material gain to live a life of comfort and pleasure; it was nothing personal. Just business.
Laziness, Greed, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Wrath, and Pride were and are labeled the seven deadly sins. Most would have an opinion about all of these. Yet I would charge that most would only think in the context of others committing these against themselves; not the other way around.
Not to get into a theological debate; but these Cardinal Sins so to speak all result from one place-Human Self Centeredness.
We want what we don’t have, no matter if we need it; but we want it. That is what matters.
It is not the state that is the problem really; because the state is made up of, and led by the very problems themselves.
My whole point is that you can never make a perfect government, with such imperfect creatures running it. There has to be a point where someone realizes their finite ability.
Money, other people, and the state are merely scapegoats. The institutions, and people we charge with things to stand guard for when bad things go bump in the night. We recognize these traits of theirs are capable of bumping back; which is the sole reason we tolerate them. Because we can’t do anything about it; or about ourselves.
All things noble, and good, are pleasant little trifles we come to expect as gifts we should receive. Yet, we fail to realize, most of us anyways, that we don’t reciprocate. Why do our greatest minds go into med school or wall street; rather than taking a job at the local homeless shelter? Money?
That is part of it, but it is a symptom, not the source. They take these jobs because they get paid for doing good, or just get paid really well. Then buy stuff.
I admit, this list is not comprehensive, and does not cover those who work in self-sacrifice. They are truly a minute portion of us. The rest, well, we deal with things as we are able.
You have all, and only the rights that you, personally can physically enforce. Everything else is wishful thinking, bullshit and luck.
“Law” and “rights” are fictions created by the Class of Assholes In Charge who happen to have forces of violent men to back up what is convenient to the AIC.
That’s all there is folks. Bullshit covering up Might is Right.
It comes down to what kind of Anthropology you believe in. People like Locke believed that individuals in the primitive state chose to associate in order to improve their lives. But in fact, no individuals ever lived by themselves – Man is born a social creature and generally stays one. As the Ancient Greeks said, a man outside society is either a beast or a god. Certainly there are a few godlike men, but one cannot make policies based on exceptions. Thus Libertarianism is a chimaera; like Communism, or certain elements – it only exists theoretically but never in reality, at least not in our experienced reality.
The idea of inalienable or God given rights does protect us. If they try and take the 2nd Ammendment, there is no America anymore. You can’t repeal the Bill of Rights and real Americans realize that. In any case, the Commentator is correct: the Tree of Liberty is very thirsty now, thirsty for the blood of Tyrants and Patriots. When was the last time it was watered?
Since we are talking about tribe. Ray Mears has a good video of tribe living in Siberia and raising dear for meat. Notice how the governance is really slack.
Marriage is for the benefit of women only. Probably something that will died as the world move into a another state because of the collapse. Change moves forward not backward.
Conservatives and traditionalist are losers that are afraid of change. They like to operate within a structure because they are afraid of the chaotic nature of life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88QosNCLbBA
“conservatives and tradionalists are losers”…
Come here from avfm did we? Since you evoked the left-right paradigm, its very obvious to many people here that feminism (the primary reason why we have an MRA) is because of the left or the opposite of conservatives. Are you aware of this? K, big government = big feminism, its that simple. That tribe in Siberia probably has a lot of things different from the rest of us, maybe, its their strict diet of just deer or being nomadic? Anywho, doesn’t seem that relevant here. Now, apparently conservatives and traditionalists (what the heck is that anyway?) are afraid of change…like a phobia right? Funny, wonder how many phobia’s you might have. If I told you that you would be erased from the human race, would you be a little phobic of that eventuality? What if I told you who planned on erasing you? You see, feminism wants change too, but they want to change men so much so that many of them call for the erasing of all men. Now, I’m not phobic of anyone. But, I take things like this seriously. Do I “fear” change? If I did I’d be under a rock, but, I’m here as an MRA trying to do something about this. “Change” can be anything, good or bad. If you’re and MRA than you should be aware of some of these very destructive changes that feminism is creating. Keep the obama-esque sound-bites to yourself.
@Christina
“So the social contract was born – one in which people who disagreed with the de-facto leader (the father) were free to leave and form their own family tribe.”
This aspect has long been absent from the social contract – is there a way to restore it? Can reducing the state to a minimal set of disconnected functions at the community level resurrect some degree of individual freedom?
That is my wish for the future, though I am at a loss as to how it might be achieved.
I am certain that if citizens who demanded intrusive laws and expensive rights were solely obligated to pay for and enforce them, we would see a rapid shrinkage in state and social control.
This aspect has long been absent from the social contract – is there a way to restore it? Can reducing the state to a minimal set of disconnected functions at the community level resurrect some degree of individual freedom?
I don’t really know. I don’t know what your belief system is, 1 Samuel has a pretty interesting statement on governance outside of tribal units. Disgruntled at the use of judges to maintain peace among the Israeli tribes and wanting to be like all the other people, the Israelites asked God for a king. He told them what it would mean, but they said give us a king anyway.
How true these words really are… (1 Samuel 8:11 – 18)
“This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
“Commenter Steve P responded, ‘Nonsense. Rights are the “terms of engagement” between individuals and the rest of society; without society there are no rights.’
In other words, if a man was attacked by a pack of predators (human or otherwise), he would be free to defend himself only if there existed a society which had also given him the right to do so. In the absence of such ‘permission,’ or in the absence of any organized society at all, no such right would exist.”
That’s the point of view most left/liberals take– rights are a “social construct” and not unalienably granted by God as out our founding fathers posited. Of course, left/libtards thesis turns into the Melian Dialogue:
MELIANS (the people) And how could it be just as good for us to be the slaves as for you to be the masters?
ATHENIANS (the State) You, by giving in, would save yourselves from disaster; we, by not destroying you, would be able to profit from you.
actually, I am about as far right as you can get, and I agree that no ‘rights’ exist as granted by gods of any sort.
‘rights’ are essentially a restriction on the freedom of a state or society to restrict your essential self-determination. state, by it’s very nature is in an eternal conflict with self-determination, because self-determination by it’s very nature denies the needs of group determination.
The problem is that all forms of power, in the end, flow from violence. Violence of action, violence in speech, and social violence. Violence is at the very heart of all human interaction. State can only exist by violence… violence against it’s own citizen’s self-determination, and violence against outside society’s self-determination.
Freedom must be occasionally paid for by the blood of patriots. This is essentially true, because the state, in the end, has a greater capacity for violence than an individual does. Thus, when a state makes too many strides against the principle of self-determination, only violence can truly bring it back to heel. State may be run by individuals, but in the end it is a ‘conglomerate organism’ that cares for nothing except it’s own survival and growth.
State, on the whole, is a GOOD thing. but, like every good thing, it must eventually die or it starts to rot. most of our problems are the ultimate symptom of a rotten culture. The constitution was successful in temporarily staving off the rot, but it is a mere bandage on the arm of an old man ready to die.
Our only hope lies in rebuilding a new, vibrant, culture-state before, as has happened so often in the past, we are destroyed by a younger, more vibrant, more violent culture. Or we can simply give in to the inevitable and learn Arabic, spanish, and get a gun and a year’s supply of food.