you make much of the ‘dog eat dog’ nature of nature. I think this overstates the case somewhat.

Have you ever considered how rare it is to see members of any particular species killing one another? Its not unknown, granted, but it is not very common. Even the testosterone-fuelled violent aggression between males competing for dominance (or access to females in heat) is invariably settled non-lethally, and such contests are usually very ritualistic, even if a little bit of blood is sometimes spilt before the social signals of submission on the part of the loser are transmitted. Then its over, the genetic fitness of th evictor to breed with said females having been proven.

By far most of the ‘red in tooth and claw’ violence in Nature is the ordinary business of some sorts of organism eating other sorts of organism. But that level of violence is no more relevant than hamburger-eating is to the question of human rights.

I tend to agree that there are no universal, absolute standards of right, wrong, good, or evil. Nature is indifferent, and these concepts have no meaning outside the human social context. (We do not know if any other kinds of organism have analogous mental constructs, but it is I suppose possible for at least a handful of other kinds of social animal, but I digress)

But it does not follow that there is no good and evil. These ARE valid i- they emn so far as they emerge from human interaction with one another.

The right to the maximum freedom of choice, to do whatever one likes withut impediment or molestation, to the maximum extent consistent with the same right for others, is the only standard of right and wrong that can possibly exist ‘universally’. Given the inherent subjectivity of value, and given the social nature of man, no other formulation of right and wrong is possible without inconsistencies, hence coercion, arising.

Might is not right.

“But in dismissing all rights as illegitimate, you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”

I never said that they were illegitimate, I only said that they were fantasy.

Rights exist in the dreamworld. If the guy in front of you is 10 times stronger than you and threatens to beat you up if you don’t obey his commands, how can you claim you have a “right” ?

If you want to be free from this guys tyranny, you will need to pack heat in order to let this guy know you will not be his slave.

Just like a car needs fuel to advance, rights need might to exist.

In theory, society has organized might in the form of police and military to protect those rights. But in practice those some police and military are used to trample on your rights, loot your earnings and threaten your life.

So if individuals want rights, they must first seek might.

By giving a central authority the power to enforce rights, you also give it the power to take away your rights.

I’d rather have a disorganized and spread bunch of thugs fearing my heat than having an organized tyranny deciding for my rights.

The government is infinitely efficient at killing and looting, this it does perfectly and much better than private enterprises.

My point is stop depending on society to subsidize your rights and defend your rights by yourselves and at your own risks. Be proud, be free, be independent, be strong, be mighty and therefore be within your rights.

1. Do what you please, but
2. Mind your own business, and
3. Keep your hands to yourself.

I totally agree with you !!!

Civilization only needs the common law which is basically the 3 points you resumed.

We don’t need the government with it’s millions of laws, regulations and taxes.

What I find strange is that the vast majority of people think that civilization and society would not be possible without the government.

However, giving that the government is a monstruous killing and looting enterprise, I don’t see how the government contributes to civilization.

The government is a barbarous construct which hinders civilization.

I find it strange that the vast majority of people would want murderers and looters as the leaders of civilization.

Being forced to pay high taxes and being constantly threatened by deadly force if you don’t pay your taxes and don’t comply with the millions of complicated laws and regulations, I don’t see how this contributes to civilization.

It’s tearing my reason and my heart appart. On one hand you are not allow to loot your neighbor because it’s against civilization.

On the other hand, you are not allowed to keep the fruits of your labor, because the government says it is against civilization.

How can one form of robbery be justified but not another ? In my mind robbery is robbery no matter what the form or intent.

I just hate all those double standards, it’s a crazy making experience. I can no longer swallow all this hypocrisy.

I am a Libertarian and I respect your private property and life.

Just because nature is a scumbag and gives all to the biggest asshole doesn’t mean I have to be the biggest asshole myself.

Yes in nature might is right, there is no wrong and civilization didn’t change that.

This doesn’t mean I have to copy nature and become a scumbag myself.

My previous post was more of a complaint against all of this.

However, I know that we live in REALITY and therefore I have no “rights”. I know that I cannot rely on the constitution or the law to protect my private property and my life.

For this, I need might. That’s what I meant by might is right.

If you want to protect your private property and your life, you will need to pack lots of heat.

Don’t assume you have rights, you only have mights.

I regard the welter of synthetic ‘rights’ as endorsed by the UN, as illegitimate, much as you appear to do. But in dismissing all rights as illegitimate, you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

you declare that you will defend your property with all your MIGHT. Quite. And your person too. THAT is your (only) right, and it is a natural right too. Other animals enjoy it just as much as you do, as anyone who has pulled a cat’s tail will attest. Even an otherwise gentle quadrupedal herbivore will kick or bite to avoid harm.

You are silent on your intention as regards using your might to take another person’s property, or even his life, but the rest of your commentary leads me to infer that you regard it this as no less legitimate than just defending your own property. Are you saying then that if someone overcomes your defence of your property because he has bigger guns and overcomes your defence, its OK?

The right to defence of person and property is fundamental to the social nature of the human animal, as each stands to gain benefit from co-operative trade and shared effort to mutual goals. A completely solitary human being completely estranged from other human interaction might as well be dead. The indiscriminate use of force to take from others cannot be sustained without alienating the aggressor and making him ever-more vulnerable to organised counter-attack, or at least exclusion from the benefits of shared co-operative effort and voluntary trade. This co-operation requires that each recognises the limitation in the use of might in defence of property and person, and not in aggression, to harm another or take his property.

Most self-described atheists of my acquaintance (with some notable exceptions in history) tend to have a deeply-considered understanding of the ethical basis of human interaction (I suspect because because they have come to their non-belief through careful consideration, deep thought , rather than the blindfolded avoidance of intractable philosophical questions). As contrasted with many non-atheists, who regard any questioning of doctrine off-limits, and (again, with some notable exceptions, not least in this Institute), will seldom hesitate to impose their view of morality on other people by means of law and/or violent enforcement if they get the chance.

It surprises me that you, as an atheist, take no account of the social nature of humanity, which is deeply wired into our DNA, and which demands the mutual exchange of forbearance as the foundation of civilisation: each agreeing not to impinge on the other’s will, the quid pro quo required for exch to claim the right to remain similarly unmolested. Or, as PJ O’Rourke put it ( More or less, quoted from memory):

1. Do what you please, but
2. Mind your own business, and
3. Keep your hands to yourself.

And of course, while you are busying yourself pursuing 1, if anybody tramps on your toes in pursuit of his 1 without regard for the limitations of 2 and 3, you are free to stop him by whatever means at your disposal.

That is freedom, and it IS a fundamental right. The problem is that the political invention of synthetic, legislatively dispensed rights (often naievely inspired by religious notions of charity and virtue), inevitably overrides this one, and thats the root of the bulk of modern humanity’s problems.

What the hell does this even mean?

1. It’s not as if the only works of art that exist are located in museums and galleries for all to see. People create (and destroy) art every day. Ms. Munson’s idea would presumably require some designated state employee, charged with deciding which particular works of art must be “protected,” and therefore stripped of private ownership.

This is neither desirable nor realistic nor resourceful.

2. The idea that artists “give works of art to the world” is pure nonsense. Most great works of art were created because some king or noble paid the artist to create them. Professionally-created art only exists because someone is willing to pay for it. The art is being created for the person who buys it.

3. As stated above: there are private solutions to the problem of “essential art” being destroyed. Put together a group that will purchase the property and preserve it.

If you can’t successfully put together the group, this means that there’s no demand for the preservation of the building. In other words, the public doesn’t want it. And if the public doesn’t want it, it’s immoral to force them to buy it for the benefit of one narrow group that does.

I’m pretty much glad I don’t live next to you.

What a narrowminded thing to say. You don’t need to believe in the actual existence of rights in order to understand that it would be unwise to steal and kill. Beyond that, your “argument” assumes that 2nd Amendment holds no values beyond his own immediate pleasure.

Well, let’s see. They would have to be a body of experts, that’s for sure. But who would have this kind of experti…

WAIT, I KNOW! Why we could entrust these decisions to the National Endowment for the Humanities! And we could invest its officials (including of course, its deputy chairman) with enormous powers to override the decisions of property owners!

Crisis averted Ms Munson. And gee, wouldn’t you know it, but the solution is to give coercive powers to people just like you. Amazing!