Anarchism

Priest of Swag: I don't think governments do either. Society as a whole willingly gives up the money.

admin: That's absolute BS. Are you brainwashed or something? Use your head.

Citizens of every nation on earth are forced to give money to the government, or they will face some kind of penalty. In liberal nations they'll take your house and everything you worked for away, and in other nations they might even jail you.

Priest of Swag: Sure, if you choose to exit from or not participate in the society, you have to surrender the advantages of that society, like keeping your private property. Still makes sense to me. Why should the government respect your rights if you don't respect society?

Priest of Swag: ^ In fact, I've seen it a dozen times in my own neighborhood. People were put out on the streets because they couldn't afford their taxes during the recession. A government can't survive if it isn't paid, so a government will do anything to extort funds from the populace. No exceptions.

admin: Sure, if you choose to exit from or not participate in the society, you have to surrender the advantages of that society, like keeping your private property

My private property, not the governments or societies.

Why should the government respect your rights if you don't respect society?

Gah, you may be the stupidest person alive!!!

Priest of Swag: Yours only because a system of rights exists. That's a socially defined function.

It's impossible for justice to exist in anarchism. Without government, evil doers won't be punished.

I don't understand why anybody would want to live under a "system" like that.

Krazy: It's impossible for justice to exist in anarchism

Justice is delivered all the time without government.

Without government, evil doers won't be punished.

Because jail time is the only legitimate punishment?

Punishment isn't even a good way to carry out justice. So what if you don't get your precious retribution? Grow up.

I don't understand why anybody would want to live under a "system" like that.

Besides what you said being totally untrue, anarchy isn't a "system." No form of official government exists, giving in theory absolute freedom to each individual. This includes the freedom to act and the freedom to respond.

admin: Honestly the things you are saying are really stupid. Never once have you done anything to justify how governments legitimize conceptual rights. You are using conjecture to back up conjecture (the governments claim of rights is just conjecture)

The only truth, is the one steeped in reality. Come back to earth.

Priest of Swag: Governments are made up of collections of people. If people have rights and they cede them to a government, then clearly governments have rights. Personal attacks do not improve the quality of your arguments.

admin: First off, people don't have actual rights or entitlements. That's what I keep saying. Rights are nothing more than a concept in political philosophy, not anything actually substantive.

Beyond that, I would of actually had to have ceded them to the government, which I didn't. My only crime was being born within a set of lines drawn by the government, but I don't need to recognize those lines, do I?

If a gang with 3000 members said that you had to pay them excess dues since it is in their territory, would you recognize their claim? It is the exact same thing, whether you accept it or not.

Priest of Swag: If you don't believe you have rights then you have no grounds to oppose the government doing what they want to you - you have no right to object.

If you don't then you cannot expect the protection of the state either. They are therefore free to treat you as they wish, including depriving you of liberty or property.

It would be my choice to, and I probably would, yes. I'd prefer a gang that was somewhat benevolent and secure, of course. Ideally one where I can have a say in its running. You can call states gangs and they're just as justified.

admin: If you don't believe you have rights then you have no grounds to oppose the government doing what they want to you - you have no right to object.
Correct, I have no [b[right to object, because conceptual "rights" don't actually exist.

I still can object.

Starting to get the difference between fiction and reality?

If you don't then you cannot expect the protection of the state either.

Actually I can, because my state doesn't discriminate.

I'd call that exploiting the state.

Either way, I prefer the state didn't protect me.

They are therefore free to treat you as they wish, including depriving you of liberty or property.
That's the problem with government though. They exercise control over people, which is why the state must be opposed on a matter of principle.

It would be my choice to, and I probably would, yes.
At least you recognize individual choice now.

While you could pay the gang, such a thing is pathetic, and a sign of how much of a waste today's generation is.

Today's youth don't really deserve any of the things they feel they are entitled too, but they continue to suck the teet of whomever claims to rule over them. That is cowardice at its finest.

It is hard to change what someone is at heart, and some people are house niggers at heart.

Priest of Swag: No I don't. You just perfectly explained natural rights - things you do because you can do them. Much of property law is based on the notion that people can claim property, which was once believed to be an exclusively human notion (at least around the time natural law was developed).

If the state doesn't protect you, it puts you in jail. And that's fair enough if you commit wrongs against the state's interest.
People exercise control over themselves all the time. Don't see why that's suddenly bad on principle when done through a state actor. If you harm an individual you'd expect that individual to retaliate somehow. If you wrong a state (ie collection of individuals ceding their rights) then you can expect the state to retaliate, and you cannot expect the protection of that state.

I've always recognized individual choice. You are free to choose jail at any point. I've just said that people give up certain choices in order to belong to a state. This is the social contract.

I swear you take pride in insulting somebody in every single post.

Anarchism is also a left-wing ideology, it favors abolition of the state for maximizing social freedom, while advocating the formation of collectives. Private property is replaced.

Bi0Hazard: Certainly that's one type of anarchism, but it isn't the only type. Anyone who wants to abolish government for any reason is nowadays called an anarchist.

admin: Yes, but this is the basic anarchist ideology.

Bi0Hazard: Define "basic". My understanding here would be that the basic type is "abolishing government" since it is common to all, and then the more complex types would be the ones that build on that somehow.

admin: By basic I mean what Anarchism is as a political philosophy. Anarchism is about self governing and collective ownership is part of this. Here is an example from Wikipedia:
Anarchist economics is the set of theories and practices of economic activity within the political philosophy of anarchism. As a rule, anarchists are anti-capitalists.
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_economics
Anarchism is more than just about abolishing government, it is a complete ideology. Anarchists oppose capitalism and private property. The ideology is a left-wing one.

Bi0Hazard: Wait, so you think left and right are economic positions? Because there's a big difference between economic and political philosophy.

In a classical sense many anarchist thinkers have certainly been left-wing, but that is not to say the ideology itself is left wing. Other ideologies that suffer the same issue are fascism and libertarianism.