Politics is an immoral dead-end

[MaineShark]

Just listening to freedomainradio.com podcast 7. Argument from morality.  His first point is that there is no state, only people.

This is exactly the point I and others (srqrebel, anthonyjpugh, Faber, etc.) have been arguing.  The State has no existence beyond that of the individuals who comprise it.  Molyneux calls the State, Society, etc., "conceptual frameworks": they are shorthand terms for groups of individuals, nothing more.

The State has no existence.  Period.

Joe

[Eli]

Russell.  You say 'strike the root' a lot.  What is your particular strategy for this.  What would you suggest (have suggested, I'll gladly read another thread) for this.  Voting doesn't do.  But what would, how would it work.  Your path from here (RW) to ther (ideal world) seems so....faith based.

I get the phrase from Civil Disobedience. I get some of my ideas of what steps to take from that essay also. I have a reading list on my wiki page, if you want to know why I am doing things and why I think they will work.
I have faith that proper steps will lead me down the right path. It is not a "leap of faith" with no concrete reasons behind it. My faith is in real things and that certain things are the right ones to do and others would be wrong.

I'll peak at the wiki.  Thanks Russell.

[Vitruvian]

The State has no existence.  Period.

Gee, when he puts it that way...

MaineShark is still stuck on the definition of State he has used from the beginning of this tangent conversation.  He does not seem to realize that words can have definitions different from his own.  I am using a different definition of the State (one which does not involve shooting ourselves in the foot by defining away our adversary):

"the organization of the political means" (Franz Oppenheimer)
"a territorial monopolist of compulsion, an agency which may engage in continual, institutionalized property rights violations and the exploitation of private property owners through expropriation, taxation, and regulation" (Hans-Hermann Hoppe)
"a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area" (Wikipedia)
"a jurisdictional claim to territorial sovereignty that persist{s} through time" (Tibor Machan)

There are surely others who have defined the State in similar terms.

[MaineShark]

The State has no existence.  Period.

Gee, when he puts it that way...

MaineShark is still stuck on the definition of State he has used from the beginning of this tangent conversation.  He does not seem to realize that words can have definitions different from his own.  I am using a different definition of the State (one which does not involve ourselves in the foot by defining away our adversary):

If the State is an actual entity, it has every right to defend itself against attack.

As I've stated, believing in the actual existence of the State makes one a Statist.  If you believe in the State as an entity, then it must have all the rights of any other entity, including a right to exist.  You cannot claim to believe the State exists as a real entity, and not be claiming that it has every right to exist.

Joe

[anthonybpugh]

If the State is an actual entity, it has every right to defend itself against attack.

As I've stated, believing in the actual existence of the State makes one a Statist.  If you believe in the State as an entity, then it must have all the rights of any other entity, including a right to exist.  You cannot claim to believe the State exists as a real entity, and not be claiming that it has every right to exist.

Joe

This is just gibberish.  Are you a product of the public school systems cause this kind of reasoning is atrocious.  I would personally be embarrassed if I stated something like this. 

[buzzard]

A punch puts an end to any rational discussion. Force puts an end to reason.

How deliciously ironic that I got smited within a minute of posting this. 

Not to worry . . . I just gave you a tickle to combat that smiter~! The presentation was just short of phenominal. The only wish I had from that video was that the speaker slowed down his speach on where his website is located. Did anyone catch the link?

[Faber]

www.freedomainradio.com

[buzzard]

Thanks, I was on page 48 or 49. I shoulda kept reading because a few others didn't make out the URL either. Thanks again . . . now back to our regularly unregulated/unscheduled shows . . .

[Faber]

 

[MaineShark]

If the State is an actual entity, it has every right to defend itself against attack.

As I've stated, believing in the actual existence of the State makes one a Statist.  If you believe in the State as an entity, then it must have all the rights of any other entity, including a right to exist.  You cannot claim to believe the State exists as a real entity, and not be claiming that it has every right to exist.

This is just gibberish.  Are you a product of the public school systems cause this kind of reasoning is atrocious.  I would personally be embarrassed if I stated something like this.

Given your level of "reasoning," I'll take that as a compliment...

Joe

[anthonybpugh]

I will be glad to compliment you more if you wish. 

[shyfrog]

Lets try it another way and see if their wiring doesn't fizzle fry (hope you don't mind me paraphrasing you MaineShark)

As I've stated, believing in the actual existence of God makes one a believer.  If you believe in God as an entity, then it must have all the ability of any other entity, including the ability to exist.  You cannot claim to believe that God exists as a real entity, and not be claiming that it has every ability to exist.

[anthonybpugh]

I understand exactly what he said.  His argument simply contains logical errors as does your rephrasing of his argument.   

first of all, he didn't say the ability but the right.

"If you believe in God as an entity, then it must have all the ability of any other entity"

This suggests that simply because one object shares an attribute with another object that it must share all attributes.  This is not the case.   Here is a simple logical argument which can demonstrate what I'm saying

All dogs are mammals.  Shyfrog is a mammal.  Shyfrog is a dog.  Is this true?  No.  It is not true for a simple reason.  Not all entities share the same attributes. 

He also presupposes that I must believe in one thing if I also believe in another.  I believe that there exists entities called cockroaches.  Do I believe that those entities called cockroaches also have rights?  No.  It is because I believe that only a specific kind of entity called human being possesses this attribute. 

Like I said, his logic is faulty. 

[shyfrog]

I understand exactly what he said.  His argument simply contains logical errors as does your rephrasing of his argument.   

first of all, he didn't say the ability but the right.

"If you believe in God as an entity, then it must have all the ability of any other entity"

This suggests that simply because one object shares an attribute with another object that it must share all attributes.  This is not the case.

It's not about ability or right, but about existence.

Here is a simple logical argument which can demonstrate what I'm saying

All dogs are mammals.  Shyfrog is a mammal.  Shyfrog is a dog.  Is this true?  No.  It is not true for a simple reason.  Not all entities share the same attributes. 

Try it this way:
Shyfrog is warm blooded. Shyfrog is a vertebrate. Shyfrog is a mammal. Which is true and makes sense.

It takes on a completely different aspect when attempting to explain something that doesn't exist:
God has believers. God has abilities according to His believers. God must therefore exist as an entity.
or this way...
The State is defined by an authority. The State has power according to this definition and authority. The State must therefore exist as an entity.

This is a collectivist approach to logic (creation of the non-entity).

I too, however, believe that only human beings have rights.

[Russell Kanning]

... are you ready for this? .... I don't even think people have rights