The indignity of no work

You're doing a pretty good job at sophistry, but since you happened to use the word "right", I'd point out that decisions don't affect rights.

Compare these two ideas:

    1) No one wants to be killed, and therefore, we can
       reasonably consider killing someone forbidden.
    2) The nine of us want to eat shit, and therefore,
       we can reasonably conclude that you must eat shit
       too, regardless of whether you want to or not.

Consider for example:

    1) Do you have the right to walk 10 meters forward?
    2) Do you have the right to walk 10 meters forward,
       even though there's someone right in front of you,
       and you'd have to trample over him to move forward?

What's the rationale for this claim?

Furthermore, is it moral for your average Sicilian neighbourhood mafia to extort people? -If not, why is it alright for governments to extort people? Does the end justify the means? -What if the Sicilian mafia wants to feed a few poor people with the money they extort from you? -Would that make their extortion alright?

What if the mafia say they need your money to maintain peace in the neighbourhood? You see, without the mafia's protection services, people would be killing each other left and right, and we just can't have that, can we? -Extorting you is necessary for the common good then, wouldn't you agree?

Why?

You're stating this as an axiom. Indeed, you're taking the very concept of human rights itself as an axiom, and that's why everything follows so cleanly for you.

But step out of the box. There is no reason for everyone to believe that. Most people through history did not believe in it. Many of them would have equally rational arguments to the contrary. Your very concept of "rights" as something fundamental is a deeply held Western social norm and "collective agreement." Because 9/10 people collectively agree that we have rights, our rights are protected and enforced.

If they did not agree, your idea of rights would be regarded as a fine bit of eccentricity and people would kill you as a sacrifice to the god Asdkjhf and feel that it was not only right and just but necessary. In other words, your rights would be completely meaningless. They are not an objective construct you can hold up as a shield against all wrongs.

Morality is an entirely different argument. But within the commonly held philosophical framework, a (democratic) government cannot be compared to a mafia because the government represents the will of the people while the mafia does not. But this argument can never convince you, because you have taken the axiom of individual rights to the extreme while not taking other axioms.

Without axioms, we can't figure anything out. You say "human rights", but I'd say "natural rights". To me, the former is a state-centric concept - governments supposedly "protect" our "human rights", but somehow no one seems to figure out that governments are the biggest threat to "human rights" too - history is full of genocides committed by governments/rulers etc.

Rights are an idea meant to draw boundaries for acceptable behaviour, and natural rights is a version based on reasoning, starting from the axiomatic observation that we own our bodies - it's clear they're completely under our control, after all.

Ultimately, it's all about making sense of things, through reason and evidence. That's the only way to figure things out, and to reach logical, sound conclusions about societal issues.

> Because 9/10 people collectively agree that we have rights, our rights are protected and enforced.

This doesn't make sense to me. What does it mean that our rights are "protected and enforced"? -By whom? -The government? And what does a "collective agreement" have to do with whether our rights are protected and enforced?

If you think the government protects and enforces our rights, you're way off the mark. For starters, there's nothing the government does that prevents a random stranger from hurting you, and second, contrary to what they'd have you believe, governments are the single biggest threat to you and your rights anyway.

> If they did not agree, your idea of rights would be regarded as a fine bit of eccentricity and people would kill you as a sacrifice to the god Asdkjhf and feel that it was not only right and just but necessary

Yeah. Rights are an idea. Luckily it's an idea that the vast majority of people automatically adheres to, without ever even thinking about it. Everyone knows you "can't" just go around hurting people or taking their property, but what no one knows is that there's no reason why this shouldn't apply to governments too.

> They are not an objective construct you can hold up as a shield against all wrongs.

I'm not saying that the idea of rights protects me in any way, shape or form. But I would like to clear up the idea, so that people would stop conflating it (along with everything else) with what governments supposedly do to benefit us when in reality they're only harmful.

> But within the commonly held philosophical framework, a (democratic) government cannot be compared to a mafia because the government represents the will of the people while the mafia does not. But this argument can never convince you, because you have taken the axiom of individual rights to the extreme while not taking other axioms.

That argument can never convince me, because it makes no sense when you get to the bottom of it. It's not about cherry-picking axioms to accept. Either something is axiomatic, or it's not, and two separate statements can't be contradictory and axiomatic at the same time.

First, taxation really is extortion, there's simply no way around that. Can you consent to something that happens against your will? (Hint: "No."). There goes your fake axiom about the will of the people. Even if you're willing to pay taxes now (mostly because you're in denial about the extortion), it changes nothing about the nature of taxation. We all know you can't stop paying them.

Second, we're all brainwashed to believe governments are beneficial and necessary. Don't believe me? -Well, does it seem a bit strange that people are arguing for their own extortion? Or that without governments, we wouldn't have roads, or hospitals or education? As if those services can only be provided with money that's been forcefully confiscated from people.

Thinking that people who have been brainwashed into not seeing extortion for what it is actually want it to happen is comparable to thinking that a comatose person wants you to stick a fork in his eye. There goes "the will of the people" again.

And the point you're trying to make about immigrant or periodic labor is precisely the problem that applies to serfs: they lack the means (or legal ability) to make their own discretionary housing arrangements.

For higher-skilled workers, who have other employment options, this typically isn't the case. Also where employees who operate under union or similar collective bargaining arrangements.

If all you do is make the request, and there is no (explicit or implicit) threat that you'll take it by force or involve police or anything else, then yes it is not extortion for an additional reason. Would you really advocate that people simply let it go? If so, we're having a different conversation than I thought we were. It was a straightforward attempt at a simple existence proof - you had said "things which meet these criteria are extortion", I provided something that met those criteria that was not extortion. Couldn't be simpler; an entirely relevant application of reason to the problem.

"Cool. Read up on Murray Rothbard for example. If that's too heavy (I can relate), how about starting with an educational video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RILDjo4EXV8 ? -Watch the videos on that channel, and you'll start understanding that governments are only harmful to economies too."

I'm familiar with the literature, including Rothbard. Many of the ideas are certainly fascinating, but I reject Austrian school economics because they reject empiricism. There is an infinitude of internally consistent axiomatic systems, the only way to tell whether yours actually has any relation to the real world is to measure and compare (other stuff you've written here leads me to think you sympathetic to this viewpoint, so I don't know why you're so accepting of that stuff).

Nonetheless, as I say later (though you didn't quote it) "I think that it's clear from history that respecting certain rights is very important for medium- and long-term well-being of individuals in society."

'> If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do.

Well that sure is fucked up.'

Wow, that is some powerful REASON right there.

I would say that clinging to the things you've arbitrarily blessed as rights when better outcomes are attainable is fucked up. Rights are not what I value first order. I value people living long and healthy lives and preferably happy lives, where they can find meaning in whatever ways they derive it.

That said, I'm speaking of principles here. In practice, I'm not eager to trade away most of the things various people have called "rights" - it would have to meet a high burden of proof that it's genuinely a good idea in the medium to long term. To my mind, asserting our rights helps provide security against government; collectively demanding that the rights of everyone be respected is how we keep government in check. But we collectively decide what those rights must be, and should pick them so as to most prevent excess consolidation of power (in government or elsewhere) where that power might be used to inappropriately (... which is pretty much anywhere), but also so as to maximize the benefits government can provide where that does not cost us too much in the other respect.

'Yep, the world is complex, and so is the vast mountain of bullshit layered on top of Reason & Evidence to make governments look necessary/legitimate/beneficial. Yeah, I don't have the time or energy to try and prove that either. You'll have to go through the process of reaching enlightenment (ie. "waking up") on your own anyway.'

I have to laugh a bit here at how stereotypical the above reads of fundamentalist whack-job or conspiracy nut. "I have a privileged viewpoint! Ignore the lies and listen to the prophets and you too can be enlightened!"

I don't see enough actual content there for a real response.

'If 100% of the fruits of your labour are forcefully taken by someone else, you're a slave. If 50% are forcefully taken, you're a "50% slave". Even 50% enslavement is enslavement, and so, we're all slaves. The degree of enslavement doesn't matter, just like it's irrelevant whether you raped a woman for 10 minutes or three hours - it's still rape.

Yeah, that still leaves you the wiggle-room of pointing out that we get to choose what we do to earn money. But that's more like an implementation detail, and doesn't mean it's unreasonable to call it enslavement. How about "indirect enslavement"? -That seems apt too. We get to choose what to do because the most productive slave is the one who thinks he's free.'

I think there are a huge number of aspects of slavery that are missing in our relationship with government. You can choose not to work (or earn less than the standard deduction) and not have to pay any taxes. You can, as you say, choose where you work. You can also choose to leave the country, if another country will give you citizenship, give up your US citizenship, and pay taxes to the other country - slaves cannot choose their master. You're also not likely to be sold away from your family.

Having some aspects in common with slavery doesn't make it 50% slavery.

'Care to elaborate? What's "recourse to the state" in this case, and how is it denied?'

Harry Brown covered this quite approachably in "Why Government Doesn't Work".

If I'm selling peaches, and someone comes along and says "this neighborhood is my peach selling turf; stop selling peaches or I'll shoot you", I can report it to the police. If I'm selling cocaine and someone says the same, and I tell the police, I don't get assistance. Likewise, if someone steals my peaches versus if someone steals my cocaine. Making individuals responsible for enforcing their own property rights against one another leads to violence between individuals (and, ultimately, gangs). You don't see Jim Beam doing drive-bys of Seagrams distributors - but you did during prohibition.

"The problem is that it's impossible to keep governments in check. They're not responsible to anyone for their actions, after all. You'd think that Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet and countless other mass-murderers would have kind of driven this point home already, but um.. no."

Any technology can be misused, and government is no different. A pile of disasters, from which we've learned some (though, I agree, not enough), by no means demonstrates impossibility of avoiding them. We've seen plenty of times the violence that can come about from too little government as well, and it can easily compete (in terms of percentage of the population) with the travesties you cite.

"Feel free to make a clear claim about violence or private courts, and maybe I'll address it."

I'm not sure what you're demanding of me, here.