The Right To Be Wrong

[Guest1]

I'm not sure where it is that I read that freedom is the right to make mistakes. On that same idea, do people have the right to be wrong?

Let me clarify. We have amongst the majority of members on this website relative agreement on many issues. In a society where we have reached most of our goals, do people have the right to be wrong? As in, do they have the right to believe in gods, to believe in a society built on greed, to believe in war, to believe in racism and inequality? I'm not talking about taking action here, I'm talking about them holding that belief and sharing it.

I'd like any responses to include the definition you are using of rights, of right and wrong and of freedom. Oh, and please mention who should decide what is right and what is wrong.

[(*]

For the most part, I think that the individual should govern themselves based on what they feel is right or wrong.

Right & wrong are arguments based on morals, upbringing, personal ethics, etc...

I have problems with taking right/wrong arguments and legislating them because they are so biased

Anyways, my ramblings probably didn't even answer your question

[RyeN]

Rights - the privileges we allow oursleves that dont cause harm to others.
Right - conforming to facts or truth
Wrong - the state of being mistaken or incorrect

Crazy Commie should propably be the one who decides what is right and what is wrong. That was an example of a wrong statement. No one person can decide what is right and wrong for another. There do however need to be set standards that are agreed upon by the majority of prople. These standards are the rights that people have. Like the right to health and well being. This means you should have appropriate food shelter and medical suplies and no one should inflict harm upon you. Im sure thats a standard that the majority of people would hold as Right.

With that right set it does effect others rights. Like the right to inflict harm on someone. Allthough not generaly held as a priority to most, some people want this freedom. So in essance having rights actualy limits freedoms. Freedoms that are destructive and counter productive to society should be limited for the success of the human race. Utimatley what is right is what is best for the survival of our species.

Belifes in gods, war , racism, and inequality are counter productive to our growth and survival, therfore must be be limited to protect the rights of those who want a better life. If these people who hold these values are not acting out on them it is alright, because limiting the mind is counterproductive, But to propogated these destructive thoughts would be counterproductive and therfore infring upon peoples rights.

In conclusion people can think what they want but they cant act out on everything.

[(*]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 02:20 AM


Belifes in gods, war , racism, and equality are counter productive to our growth and survival, therfore must be be limited to protect the rights of those who want a better life. If these people who hold these values are not acting out on them it is alright, because limiting the mind is counterproductive, But to propogated these destructive thoughts would be counterproductive and therfore infring upon peoples rights to health and well being


Belief in God/s doesn't belong in there.

extreme, fundamentalist beliefs. Yes.

[redstar2000]

Belief in God/s doesn't belong in there.


Why not?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

can someone tell me how to create a poll?

[(*]

I don't equate belief in God with with war and racism, unless it is, as I mentioned, a fundamentalist belief.

[RyeN]

God or the Opposing view of people with different gods, breed such things as racism, slaverey, and especialy war. Therefor as a propogator of extreme fundametalists god is on the list, Supposing a god were real.

[Anarchist Freedom]

a fall makes you wiser-confucius


:che:

[(*]

It seems that the aim of the list is to control the individual, what about freedom?


There are a lot of things out there that may lead to war and racism. Communism for one.
It's just a matter of implementation.

[Faceless]

People have the right to believe and act upon their beliefs in private. It is wrong to do otherwise. It is also wrong to try to make people stop believing in God. Equally it's wrong, in my view to influence someone into following a non-scientific philosophy. Religion should be, fundamentally, a matter of freedom and choice. Organised (or associations) religion, no matter how passive, is the enemy, as is organised racism or associations of racists etc. It is wrong, in my opinion, to impose or preach somethign like a religion or faith to (for instance) your child. That does not mean the child should be restricted from accessing "holy" scriptures and forming their own biases.

[apathy maybe]

Everyone should have the right to any belief they wish. They should also have the right to try and convince anyone of that their belief is correct. However, violence is not allowed. Compulsory belief is not allowed. Compulsory/violent conversion from one belief to another is not allowed.

If you don't like someone holding the belief that they have the right to kill you (so long as they don't or try to kill you), then try and convince them otherwise.

If you don't like someone having a belief in a neutral non-interventionist God, then try and educate them. But don't say, they can't believe in a God or that it is unscientific, and then convert them by force or threat of it. Convert them away from their belief by force of argument. But watch out, for they shall be trying to do the same.

If everyone gets a decent education beliefs in such things as astrology should die out. But who cares if they don't, you and I know that its garbage, and someone else having a belief in it is not effecting us or society.

[Faceless]

Everyone should have the right to any belief they wish. They should also have the right to try and convince anyone of that their belief is correct.
No, no, no, no, NO!
This "convincing" starts from an early age. I went to a church of england school and I hate them for what they tried to make me. They make you pray there before you eat your lunch. They make you sing religious hymns and they treat God as being a factual, existing being! They sould not have this right. They started this since I was five years old (and very impressionable). I'm lucky I managed to reject it. Religious texts should be open to the public and it shouldn't be a crime to pray but the line should be drawn at preaching to, shall we say, the under sixteens.

[redstar2000]

If everyone gets a decent education beliefs in such things as astrology should die out. But who cares if they don't, you and I know that it's garbage, and someone else having a belief in it is not affecting us or society.

Wrong.

When people have wrong ideas ("astrology" is "valid", for example), they act upon them as if they were "true", thus making mistakes in the real world. Eventually, the mistakes accumulate and problems arise.

The problems may be trivial and affect only the person; or they may become serious, affecting many people.

Taking the elitist attitude that "we know better" and "they're just ignorant losers" is a very dangerous thing to do.

Do not forget that many well-educated Germans laughed at Hitler's self-evident nonsense. Within less than a decade they were parroting it...to save their asses.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

Taking the elitist attitude that "we know better" and "they're just ignorant losers" is a very dangerous thing to do.

Do not forget that many well-educated Germans laughed at Hitler's self-evident nonsense. Within less than a decade they were parroting it...to save their asses.
But in a well organised or structered society Hitler would not have been able to act on his beliefs.

A person should be able to hold a belief (and you can't really stop them with the current leval of knowadge of the brain), but if its going to adversly affect someone or society, then they should be able to act on that belief.

After all, how does it affect you or society if I talk to the moon in the belief that it understands me and will reply in the fullness of time? (Not that I do).

[redstar2000]

Many foolish "ideas" often strike us as harmless eccentricities..."talking to the moon", for example.

The difficulty arises because we don't know what causes a "harmless eccentricity" to turn into a deadly poison.

Suppose your brain suffered from temporal lobe problems that cause people to hear voices...and one bright moon-lit night the moon spoke back to you...telling you to "kill the Jews" for example.

People would laugh or turn away from you in disgust...except that some might not. Some might think your "Moon Prophesy" made "sense".

Of course, in a communist society totally dominated by rational views, you'd probably remain harmless...a hapless nutball and object of pity. But in any society where classes still exist, the outcome could be very different...and very bad.

We've seen it happen.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What is wrong in socialism is what acts against the democratic rule by the people. Only people with the interests of an opposing class would have such opinions, like racism, nationalism, religion, etc. They nor the people have anything to gain from these fundamentaly undemocratic notions.

Enemies of the people are a threat to the revolution and will be immediately silenced.

[Lardlad95]

The right to be wrong or to fail is a cappie arguement.

Basically they believe they have a right to fail financially

[sc4r]

As Ryen implied 'rights' are what we are given by society in order to limit what that society sees as counter -productive freedoms. Soemtimes these can be expressed as positive rights (when the implied assumption is that a whole body of related freedoms are not granted); and sometimes as negative ones (where the fotbidden freedoms are implictly spelt out - as in 'I have the right to walk the street unmolested').

As such if society chooses to allow you to be wrong without penalty it can. Usually is selects in what specific ways this will and wont be allowed. For example you wont be allowed to wrongly interpret the law against murder without penalty.

Since very often (in fact almost always) it is a subjective judgement about whether something is right or wrong it would be very silly to say that someone was not allowed to be wrong. But equally it would be a very unhealthy society that allowed us unlimited scope in this respect.

'The right to fail' referred to really means that if you do get it wrong and fail Capitalist society would not expect to have to pick up the pieces for you. Rather ironically what we refer to as capitalist Society (which really is not; its a mixture of Capitalism and Liberalism, and democracy, and even Socialism) quite clearlt negates this principle rather strongly for some people as in the forgiveness expressed in Bankruptcy protection laws.

Any sane society will (IMHO) provide a degree of protection for the individual in cases of failure, but equally no sane society will allow just anything an an unlimited degree of protection.

In fact its fair to say that a society is a way of balancing the welfare and freedoms of individuals against the welfare and freedoms of other individuals; and by so doing produce a net actual freedom greater (more valuable) than would otherwise be the case. For example, limiting peoples freedom to commit murder greatly increases my actual freedom of behaviour simply because I dont have to constantly worry about it and take defensive measures. Because of this it is precisely the laws (which effectively define rights) of a society that define it and will ultimately determine how healthy or otherwise it is.

[Guest1]

A government grants you rights. But what is this state that tells you what you can and cannot do? Does it not exist because a collection of individuals who never granted it the right to, allow it to by their ignorance and apathy? Who amongst us explicitly agreed to be ruled? Even those who benefit from this dictatorship have never given their explicit consent to this organization. It is here by force, kept up by tools of oppression such as the military, police, jails, and laws.

Even under Socialism, no matter how democratic, this monolith is in essence a dictatorship. A dictatorship of the majority if we speak of Socialism, but a dictatorship nonetheless. However, for the time being at least, we are forced to accept this situation. We are not, however, forced to accept it as is. It is our duty as citizens to chip at it, bit by bit, removing claws, teeth, balls. Whatever can be used against the people. It is our duty to starve the tiger until it is reduced from an angry animal able and willing to kill, to a decaying one with the intent to kill but the inability to even move. One that is so weak it relies on the kindness and goodwill of the human beings it once threatened in order to live form day to day.

Whatever power this weakened state is left with should be nothing but the essentials for a healthy, Socialist society. The power to give free education and healthcare to all. The ability to fund those by taxation. The ability to punish basic crimes, murder, rape, etc... But the burden of proof should rest on the government to show it needs any power that extends beyond its mission of destroying the corporate state. In other words most laws beyond the basics of violence and theft, should be laws that work towards depriving both state and corporation of power.

In this case the definition of rights would be changed. In my opinion, in a healthy Socialist society, rights are universal, and it is we who give the state the power to limit them when there is a valid reason.

It is my right to be wrong, and to try to convince others I am right, as I am doing here. It is not my right, however, to start a militia to force it upon the people in a Socialist society. It is also not my right to teach children propaganda in school.

[sc4r]

1.1 A Government is an instrument of society. Without fully recognising this you can easily fall into dogmatic arguments which dont really make full sense.

1.2. Society is, however, itself an instrument of individual people. And it certainly does not follow that all individuals will have anything approaching equal power to control that society.

1.3. Which means that ultimately no government confers rights. What Governments do is codify rights that Society grants, which means ultimately those rights that those who have power within society grants.

And of course not all rights actually are codified. There is nothing codified to prevent a paedophile declaring his beliefs in my local pub. But any who sought to exercise the 'right' to do so would swiftly discover that the 'right' did not really exist, because it was not actually granted.

1.4. A feedback is present. The rights granted by those in power influence who it is that actually has power.

All of the above is reality. It states what it IS; not what ought to be. But any normative idea (an ought to be) that does not also conform to reality is just fantasy.

2. You are right that one way of looking at the relationship between individuals and society is to view it as a contract. But for practical reasons every individual cannot separately negotiate such a contract. So a contract is implied. Essentially it says 'simply by residing within the area of influence of this society you agree to the contract'.

3.1 A society has greater influence than any individual ever could. Thats the purpose that society serves. If it is a healthy useful society this influence will be used to further the interests of the individuals who have influence within it.

This does not make it a 'fair' society. 'Fair' is judged normatively, subjectively, according to axioms selected by an individual person, not axioms rooted only in reality. I would not see imperial Rome as a fair society, but it was certainly a healthy one for hundreds of years.

3.2 Which means that those of us who believe axiomatically that all people are worthy of having the same opportunities and status should seek to create a society within which all have equal influence.

3.3 There are those who believe (or say they believe) that individuals (or small groups, or minorities) should (notice this is an 'ought to word' - not neccessarily about reality) never be compelled to accept the wishes of a majority.

4.1 The Society must be capable of perpetuating itself and of delivering benefit to the individuals.

Together this which creates a dynamic.

4.2 The requirement to perpetuate and deliver tangible benefits can be in conflict with the requirement that all have equal influence and is (IMHO) almost always in conflict with the 'ought to' expressed in 3.3 (that minorities are allowed full freedom).

5. All of which together means that when defining a society you have to look for a best balance. IMO far too many people (especially anarchists) are focusing on an ideal of what 'ought to be' without considering whether ANY healthy balance can be struck if this 'ought to be of theirs' is fully implemented.

I'll conclude by saying that I dont believe for a second that a healthy balance can be struck by any of the Anarchist theories of Government or economic structure I've ever seen. These theories seem to me to almost completely neglect several realities simply because they dont fit with the anarchist 'ought to be'. This is sad, but when reality conflicts with what you want ideally, reality always wins.

I have also come to the opinion that few SOCIALIST (or communist) theories of economics seem to me capable of delivering a healthy balance either. I'm not quite as sure of this as I am about Anarchist theories, But I'm sure enough.

But there is a way to incoporporate the core 'ought to's' of Socialism within an overall balance that is healthy. And thats by including market based economic activity without the Capitalist right to own, or trade in, means of production. I still consider this totally Socialist, and even Marxist (since thats the ideology it most closely aligns with).*

There is far more that could be said about the nature and relationship of minorities within a large Society. Simplistic analysis dont cut it because in a large society almost everyone is part of both 'majorities and of 'minorities'. This in itself creates another dynamic connected to influence and how that influence is likely to be exercised. It can also help in itself to ensure that minority interests are not abused.

In essence Marijuana I agree with you. But I dont think that you fully appreciate the nature of the real dynamics you are discussing; and I think (I could be wrong) that this has led you to accept 'ought to' ideas which are not compatible with reality; and probably also leads you to use misleading dogmatic slogans as explanation.

As in - ' A dictatorship of the majority if we speak of Socialism, but a dictatorship nonetheless'. This is an Oxymoron. Sorry but Dictatorship simply does not mean this. As a slogan it is fine, it conveys the essence of what you are complaining about. But as explanation it fails completely because it is actually nonsensical in the truest meaning of the word.

Best wishes.

* rather ironically my attitudes and personal 'ought to be's' are probably more closely aligned in spirit with those of 'Anarchists' than with many 'Socialists' (because so many socialist do adopt a basically Leninist stance). But in practice I would see myself being much more likely to support Leninist Movements because what they actually propose to do is in tune with reality and (IMHO) much more likely to deliver actual progress towards what I see as a healthy well balanced society incorporating as many Anarchist 'ought to be's' as is compatible with reality than Anarchists themselves.

I know that sounds like double dutch. But it is not. Anarchy is a fine wish; but it cant be attained and sustained. Leninist Socialism is an inferior wish perhaps but it could be actually done. Leninism does actually quite explicitly contain a 'wish list' which is fully compatible with an Anarchist end result anyway, though not with the anarchist movement which is focused on an unreal method of attaining anarchy (IMHO).

If anarchists (and straight to communists) could be made to realise this, and Leninists made to appreciate the benefits of market economy we would have a powerful message and movement. Until then we will achieve nothing in the developed world.

[Guest1]

Well, I'm not an Anarchist, let me make taht clear.

But I do use the Anarchist definitions to define the state. I was not arguing it will no longer exist. In a perfect world it wouldn't. But that's exactly it, we're arguing the philosophy here, not the actual theory behind how it would apply, etc... etc...

A philosophy is just the way of looking at the world. In this case, the Anarchist philosophy of looking at the state and societal obligations.

Anarchists believe that society should be built upon the idea of mutual cooperation. this is the social contract they would like to see enstated. It is not something signed, it is also implied here. But in reality, it is much more of a clear understanding of "you live here, you abide by these obligations, rules, etc...". A society built around collectives, without force used to keep them together. Anyone who wants to leave may, and come back as they see fit. Anyone who wants to create one based on Capitalism with his friends may, but they must all be allowed the same right to come and go as they please from that collective. That's a true contract. These collectives, the ones that the society would mostly be based on the voluntary practice of "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs". If you don't wanna bake that awesome bread you have and give it to anyone who needs it, that's ok, it just means I'm not gonna give you my wine, josh ain't gonna give you his weed, Bob won't fix your car, Liz won't give you cd's, etc... etc...

Anyways, my point was really not to support the establishment of this dream. Though it woudl be great, it's really unrealistic. My point was to say, usingt he Anarchist definition of government, government has no right to exist. Thus, why should it be allowed to delegate all our rights. It should be limited as much as possible to the very necessities. It should have no power to legislate against any specific religion, or lack of religion. It should have no power to legislate against political ideas, consentual sexual practices amongst adults, voluntary self-medi-recreation, etc... etc...

That was my point before. Then you had to open up the Anarchist can of worms :) no, I'm kidding, it's really interesting how much I took from the Anarchist works I read, they have some brilliant ideas (the left-wing ones), but I'll stop short of calling for Anarchism.

I only wish it was practical :P

[sc4r]

"it's really interesting how much I took from the Anarchist works I read, they have some brilliant ideas (the left-wing ones), but I'll stop short of calling for Anarchism".

Which ironically is exactly my position. Nothing you said in that last post was unknown to me.

But philosophy is not about ignoring reality; in fact it is all about understanding reality/truth. It may ignore practical exigency because this can help to discover what the underlying reality is. But the two ideas (practicalities and realities) are not synonomous.

My point is that arguing about whether a governemtn (or anything else) has a 'right' to exist is not about reality (and hence not philosophy). It is in fact about:

1. Whether a society (whether practically sustainable or not) can be genuinely concieved which does not incoprporate a government. The answer to this yes I think; and this part is philosophy.

2. Whether people can be convinced to want such a society and whether such a society would be sustainable. This part must include a discusion of practicality, since people wont be convinced otherwise. It is really partly an ethics* question and partly a practical one.

But that was not what I actually was discussing anyway. I picked up that when you were talking of government s granting rights you had not (or did not seem to have) realised that this is not the underlying reality of the situation. A government codifies rights which are granted by people.

It's easy to think that such misanalyses dont matter. but in philosophy they do because philosophical arguments are by their nature not provable empirically. Any loose end is potentially capable of rendering an entire structure of argument invlaid, because philosophy is all about magnifying and elaborating upon the implications of only a few axiomatic asumptions.

Likewise I picked up on your 'dictatorship of the majority'. You can't use this to support any argument at all. Because it is fundamentally not a valid logical statement. Its a slogan. What happens when you do allow such things to creep into philosophical (or theoretical argument) is that people take the implications of the commmon meaning of the word 'Dictatorship' to 'prove' things; but ignore that they only established the word into the argument in the first place by giving it an uncommon meaning.

This is a very very common source of error in philosophical thought (Bishop Berkelys 'Ontological proof of God' is the most dramatic example I can think of). Sometimkes it is just an error; sometimes it is deliberate, but always it is correct to point such errors out. In philosophy massive errors in conclusions can result from very small errors in argument. Because Philosophy really is a form of applied maths.

Some words stand as symbols for quite massive concepts. When such a symbol is placed into an argument one has to be very careful that the concept it relates to really does fit. Where the concept fits only partly (not unusual because big concepts can actually include contradictory implications) one has to take enormous care that only those parts of the concept that do actually fit are ever used to build a justification for something else.

I dont have the time right now. But later today I'm going to elaborate on how Philosophy, ethics, and practicalities interact to define what is and what is not good ideology.

* Ethics being about exploring what people can agree to call 'rights'.

[Guest1]

ok, my "dictatorship of the majority" statement was not one I normally would use, it was citing a writer and social commentator that I assumed you would pick up on.

Henry Thoreau is I believe the right spelling... not too sure. Anyways, he was an Anarchist in the US way back a couple of hundred years ago, who lived as a hermit and refused to pay taxes. He used the right to abstain from the state. And that is a right that we should have. Ethically. But it is not given to us, not because we don't want it given, but because the state, the supposed representative that codifies our the rights we want to give, refuses to give us the right to weaken it. It has and it always will.

The ideal of this system would be if it codified all which rights we consider should be given. But that is not always the case.

My ideal would be if it codified only which rights we consider should be taken

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 21 2003, 08:24 AM
ok, my "dictatorship of the majority" statement was not one I normally would use, it was citing a writer and social commentator that I assumed you would pick up on.

Henry Thoreau is I believe the right spelling... not too sure. Anyways, he was an Anarchist in the US way back a couple of hundred years ago, who lived as a hermit and refused to pay taxes. He used the right to abstain from the state. And that is a right that we should have. Ethically. But it is not given to us, not because we don't want it given, but because the state, the supposed representative that codifies our the rights we want to give, refuses to give us the right to weaken it. It has and it always will.

The ideal of this system would be if it codified all which rights we consider should be given. But that is not always the case.

My ideal would be if it codified only which rights we consider should be taken
AS far as it goes I think you are correct.l

BUT (big But) you seem to be assuming that 'the state' has some sort of independent existence and meaning. Of course it has not. The state is simply the representative of power in Society.

Now it can be that a state is bad according to many of us (if for example power is not vested in all people equally- as it certainly is not in current western society for all sorts of reasons). But 'the state' is only what those with power in society make it. Quite simply create a society in which all have equal power (as all Anarchists and most Socialists say should ultimately be done anyway) and the state loses this oppressive nature.

Now you simply cannot reconcile absolute permission for an individual to codify his agreement with society with a working society. Why? because self evidently what such a codification actually implies is an agreement with every other member of society*. You'll get mutually incompatible codifications (ie no agreement, and you'll get lots of these non-agreements).

But a society only has meaning because all are living under the same basic agreement. If they are not it isn't a society, just a collection of individuals pursuing their own ends.

So somehow or other a comon agreement has to be produced. And quite simply those who cant/wont agree to it have to be excluded from society in some way. They'll moan of course, they'll complain that they 'should' be allowed to have their own way. Because what they really mean is that they want to define the nature of the agreement. Thats kinda tough, they just cannot, because it would mean someone elses 'agreement' was voided.

Everyone does have the ability ('right' is inappropriate in this context) to abstain from the state/ society. What people dont have is the ability to choose for themselves exactly what parts of society they'll exclude themselves from (as in occupying land, gaining benefit from law enfocement, gaining benefit even from a civilised society, but not paying taxes.) If you want to exclude yourself from society you have to move out of the agreement range of that society. If you cannot find any place where no society exists thats kinda tough; but its just a reality that everybody has to adapt to what others want because they form part of the environment. Complaining about it is like complaining that it is colder outside in winter.


P.S. I have no idea what you are getting at with your comments about your usage of 'the dictatorship of the majority. Heres the quote

this monolith is in essence a dictatorship. A dictatorship of the majority if we speak of Socialism, but a dictatorship nonetheless

This isnt someone else saying something. Its you. And its wrong. By definition. I'm fully aware that the phrase is not your invention. So what?

If you want to 'cite a writer' then do so explictly. Then you say what you think of what he wrote. If you just repeat something without comment then you are expressing your own view even though its the same as his. And in this case that view is by definition invalid. What you actually did is to use the statement to back up quite a few consequent ideas so dont try and tell me I should have for some reason ignored it. If you want it ignored then dont write it in the first place.

* Society in other words is a set, not an objective entity and only objective entities can actually have a physical effect on each other (or as in this case make agreements about the nature of allowable pysical effects). Society (or the state) acts as a proxy for individuals it isn't itself real.

It is admittedlty difficult because sometimes (often) in order to facilitate communication we have to talk as if 'society' was a real entity. But it leads to errors and misunderstanding if this is taken as a literal representation of reality. With 'The State' it can be even harder because although this is also not a real entity it is not the same as society. It does include some (but not all) members of society as real entities as well as potentially having links to all of society (both ways: it is limited by what society wants, and also specifies what members of society can do). The 'state' of course also by convention includes entities which are not members of the set 'society', and this adds to the confusion.

[sc4r]

BY the way saying 'thats a right we should have ethically' reveals a bit of confusion in your thought. And because of the nature of the confusion that will also exist in others who dont think about how the statement stacks up it will tedn to make your argument seem much stronger than it really is.

The concept 'ethical' actually incorporates, for most of us, the notion that such a thing must be desirable. Think about why. It is because by definition ethics have been defined by society as those behaviours which are desirable.

So you cannot actually say that something is 'a right we should have ethically'. The word 'ethically' tacked on doesn't actually mean anything in this context, but it will by its mere presence, and the associations it creates, make what you are really saying seem more reasonable (almost inevitable). It will create the idea that you are saying 'we ought to have something because we have already agreed that we ought to'. Obviously this is not true.

To see why note that this means is exactly the same :

'... is a right we should have'.

so does this :

'we should include {Whatever] as a right in our system of ethics'.

I dount I've made this clear. The point is that an 'ought to' statement is just by definition talking about ethics. Try reversing the tag word and you will see how inappropriate the usage is ''thats a right we should have unethically'!!

Like I say, I doubt I've made this clear. To avoid misleading people when talking phiolosophy is quite horribly difficult. But thats what genuinely good philosophy must do.

[Guest1]

we can continue to talk symantics if you want. little of substance will come of it though. I'm trying to make a point, and I already mentioned this to you before, I don't have the time or patience to perfect every post. Sure, there will definitely be phrases that are biased and make me sound more right than I actually am. I'm used to writing like that. That addition of "ethically" was actually in there because I was trying to avoid doing something you'd already spent time telling me not to do. I don't quite remember what made me change it anymore, I had alot of considerations to make because I was trying my hardest to get through symantics and get you to move on.

the dictatorship: sure, it's not absolutely correct to use that word here. but I used it. sure it's an exaggeration, but I used it. our state system is a dictatorship of the majority. there, I did it again. You understand what I mean behind it. It means I don't agree that we should force someone to do something just cause we are the majority. I said it's a phrase that a writer used because I'm trying to tell you it's meant to be not absolutely factual, it's a choice of words meant to show discontent and show the oppression inherent in the system. It's like calling George Bush a Fascist. He's not exactly one, technically, but it's not wrong to use that word to describe him.

the social contract: of course not everyone has the right to negotiate the contract. which is why I said if they don't want to give according to their ability, they don't get according to their need. they have the right not to get service from everyone else, they can still live there if they want, it doesn't matter as long as they don't harm anyone else and don't expect to get anything from anyone else.



Now, I haven't seen you respond to my ideas that I stated before we got into symantics, only to how I stated them. So I'll state them again as they are and ask you to try to understand and respond to the thrust of the statements, even if they're not perfectly worded. I'm sure they're not so unclear that you can't do that.


Anarchists believe that society should be built upon the idea of mutual cooperation. this is the social contract they would like to see enstated. It is not something signed, it is also implied here. But in reality, it is much more of a clear understanding of "you live here, you abide by these obligations, rules, etc...". A society built around collectives, without force used to keep them together. Anyone who wants to leave may, and come back as they see fit. Anyone who wants to create one based on Capitalism with his friends may, but they must all be allowed the same right to come and go as they please from that collective. That's a true contract. These collectives, the ones that the society would mostly be based on the voluntary practice of "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs". If you don't wanna bake that awesome bread you have and give it to anyone who needs it, that's ok, it just means I'm not gonna give you my wine, josh ain't gonna give you his weed, Bob won't fix your car, Liz won't give you cd's, etc... etc...

Anyways, my point was really not to support the establishment of this dream. Though it woudl be great, it's really unrealistic. My point was to say, usingt he Anarchist definition of government, government has no right to exist. Thus, why should it be allowed to delegate all our rights. It should be limited as much as possible to the very necessities. It should have no power to legislate against any specific religion, or lack of religion. It should have no power to legislate against political ideas, consentual sexual practices amongst adults, voluntary self-medi-recreation, etc... etc...

as usual, I understand this post might seem a little hostile, I'm just frustrated and have had a bad day.