The state doesn't grant rights. If Bernie Sanders says everyday you have a right to "free" healthcare it doesn't make it a right. The state CAN protect rights, but he doesn't magically make new rights appear by some word on a piece of paper

I was looking for you when I created this thread: Natural rights don't exist (so it's good we invented them)

Although I suppose if your view that taxation is theft or the state is immoral is grounded in some view of natural rights then we might as well argue about it here instead.

Where do those rights come from again?

There are only 2 logical options if you care about consistency. Either rights don't exist (there's no tangible objective evidence for them) and so everything is might makes right. The state is the mightiest so it is the rightiest. Or all "rights" (including property life and liberty) are given legitimacy by the weight of popular opinion as currently manifested through the democratic process and the state. There is no magical middle ground where property rights exist but other state granted rights don't. It's just not logical.

Maybe they're like the Incel's "right" to sleep with a hot babe and they only exist in the minds of beholder?

Anarchocapitalism is feudalism.

That seems a better structure for the problem, but still seems inadequate. Neither of your cases allow for the protection of minority rights against the will of the majority. Under your articulation either the state or the democratic process/state could establish rules that pretty much everyone would agree are wrong.

I’m willing to accept the existence of natural rights without querying too hard what their exact source is.

I don’t think Hobbes’s state of nature is a more moral condition than the modern conception of a nation-state. If I understand your position correctly, I think you’re actually arguing that modern states generally aggregate to themselves more power at the expense of the individual, and you find that immoral. Is that a fair characterization of your position?

You're from a country that practiced slavery.

I don't think the alternative to natural rights is "might makes right", exactly. I think if you're just trying to be descriptive about what people do you won't arrive at the conclusion that morality (or social norms broadly construed) reduces entirely to some simple exercise of power. Instead you arrive at some form of social constructionism where power matters but there are different forms of power and the social processes which create and maintain social norms are complex. But it doesn't seem like "norm-maintenance by the sheer conscious exercise of power" is the most stable form of society.

I don’t think I understand your point, or perhaps you didn’t understand mine. My conception of natural rights would exclude slavery as a legitimate political choice, precisely because it doesn’t protect the rights of the minority.

What exactly makes Property, Life and Liberty inherent rights? How are we granted these rights as people?

Nothing can guarantee the protection of minority rights. A government built on the principles of freedom has a good chance at it, and the US government has occasionally been forced to do so by motivated people.

What do you get from "natural rights" that you don't from a government?

This thread is ****ing stupid.

Taxation is only theft if it's egregious, draconian, or you're an anarchist shut in who's never seen the sun.

The state is immoral no matter how you form it because it's impossible to not be a hypocrite and/or please 100% of any human population. It's just not possible with scarce resources. Someone will always lose, die, get shafted, etc...

Morality in itself is a social construct anyway. Rights don't exist. Life, liberty, property are not rights, bro. You're alive because you're not dead. You live longer because the state affords you that even if you say **** you I'm not paying taxes. The state exists because society agrees you live longer when there is a state that can provide stability, safety, needs and wants, and a foundation and framework/place to live where you can pursue all which you desire...Provided you follow the rules agreed upon by the people and the system implemented which makes the rules.

It's not that OP is necessarily wrong about the logic or any semblance of truth residing within it and the post, it's that those statements are pointless and serve no purpose, because it's stating the obvious to an extent. Moreover, it's level one (maybe two?) thinking. The immorality of the state is a function of 1) morality decided by people within it and influenced by those outside of it and 2) the powers that be and the moral compass within each individual and the collective. OP implies a desire for anarchy. OK, go move to a place like Somalia or something...Because that's what not having a state (or taxation) looks like.

I’m not talking about defining rights. I’m talking about who determines they exist. Who defines any of that stuff? What if people disagree about what constitutes “property?” Hell, what if I don’t agree that it’s your right to own property?

Why are we having this same discussion from 10 years ago again?

Hey OP here's a news flash for you; if you live in a western democracy you ARE 'the State'.

You wanna change the way taxes work, go change it.

Note: if you don't want to have this discussion because you've had it too many times, the mod-approved way of accomplishing that is to not open the thread, rather than posting in the thread about not wanting to have the thread.

Some limitation on the extent to which government can extend its authority.

Freeing people who've been fortunate in life the obligation of helping those who haven't.


Theft is a legal term. Taxes arent theft by definition. He is by definition wrong. Not complicated.


Some think it's immoral not to help people in desperate situations
Some think it's immoral to obligate people to help in any way whatsoever.

If you think compelling people to make any sacrifice in life that's even marginally contrary to their own self interest is more important than a large reduction in human suffering you're entitled to your own priorities.

Or you can punt the issue by arguing that any form of a social safety net in some way increases suffering by distorting incentives and constraining economic growth. Unlike the previous justification that simply requires a sociopathic moral framework though, this line of argumentation generally requires some level of mental ******ation.

The liberty of people who commit crimes.

Obviously it's justified as an incentive mechanism to discourage anti social behavior and remove people prone to harm others from society but it is what it is. It's an infringement on individual rights. And you do it because of what it accomplishes.

The liberty of children.

Because they're not considered rational decision makers and placing limits on their rights is justified in the name of ensuring they don't do dumb ****. But it still is an infringement on their human rights. This principles carries over to the senile, the mentally ill and a variety of other conditions that limit a persons capacity to make rational choices. There're a lot of laws that govern the rights of normal adults to make certain types of decisions too, like the designation of being an "accredited investor" that allows companies to take investments from an individual where they wouldn't otherwise be able to due to the complexity and high risk of fraud involved in certain types of transactions.

There's a long list of ways that governments limit freedom that exists in every country you'd want to live in and not by coincidence.

There is no guarantee on the rights of a minority, and such a limitation is a fabrication. It's a useful fabrication, but a fabrication nevertheless.

There is such a guarantee in the Constitution. I take your point that such a right means only what nine olds says it does, but the framers felt that the people give rights to the state and not the other way around.

At some level, this debate becomes metaphysical and thus of little use. Not ragging on you with that point.

So the core problem with OP's entire thesis is that it has no basis in reality.

Humans have had 'government' since we were hunter gatherers. Each human group has had leaders who decided what the larger group did and those groups have always had rules and social norms that governed behavior. The concept of 'private property' is newer than the concept of 'government' and is in fact the creation of some government entity at some point in history.

Humans are social creatures full stop. The stuff you 'own' is only yours because other humans have agreed not to bonk you on the head and take it from you. That agreement is brokered through the government, which is a HUGE upgrade from the past when you would have had to make similar agreements with vastly more groups of people than today.

The same people who wrote those words were slave rapers. How did the words of the Constitution help the slaves they raped?

I agree with your comments almost entirely, but I do think we can make some reasonable distinction between the concept of a state (and where you say government I think OP means specifically state government) and other forms of social organization. I think at least some basic concept of property ownership predates state systems of government (but not "government" as you're using it to mean literally any social organization), and it's not clear whether OP's position entails only the rejection of state government or the rejection of any notion of communally defined norms.

You’re apparently not interested in an actual conversation, so I just blocked you.

Strike that. You’re a mod, so I can’t. Fine. I’ll never read or respond to one of your posts again.

Kindly do me the courtesy of never reading or responding to another one of mine.