I was watching several videos on youtube about how most human rights are threats of government violence with the exception of a couple.

The idea being the two basic human rights are basically negetive ones.  You don't have the right to impose violent aggression without reasonable provocation (Things like self defence, protecting against wreckless behavior and so on, not hurting people who insult you."
The other is you don't have the right to break promises.

The argument being that every other right is a threat of violence.

If someone has the right to education, a teacher has to be provided, the teacher has to be paid for, if people refuse to pay taxes for everyone elses education they're eventually threatened with prison, if they resist they're treated with violence.  This violates the principle that you don't impose violent aggression without reasonable provocation in self defence and wreckless behavior.

Any opinions on this at all?

The person making these arguments is Stefan Molyneux a person I've mentioned before.  A free market capitalist/anarchist.

I think his views are pretty fascinating because they're pretty viciously straight down the middle and go against a lot of left wing and right wing ideas.

A lot of his videos are pro left wing in regaurds to religion, treatment of children, homosexuals, being against war. 
They're pro right wing in regaurds to buisiness, freedom, immigration.

The opinions I'd be most interested in are those relating to the two principles of not initiating violent force and not breaking your promises and how that relates to real life practical policies.

Talk about a blunt treatment.  Our goverment -rarely- threatens violence for -any- reason.  If you deny a right, even then, lilly livered peices of shit will try to settle with you.  Violence is threatened in the abrogation of rights, but not by the government, by the people...for whom the government speaks, ostensibly.

"Fuck up, and we'll fuck you up"

The social contract legitimizes the threatened punishments for dodging taxes. Even anarchists benefit from government expenditures; Kazcinski wouldn't have been able to pursue his anarchist aims without using the roads built with taxes.

(December 13, 2016 at 11:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Talk about a blunt treatment.  Our goverment -rarely- threatens violence for -any- reason.  If you deny a right, even then, lilly livered peices of shit will try to settle with you.  Violence is threatened in the abrogation of rights, but not by the government, by the people...for whom the government speaks, ostensibly.

"Fuck up, and we'll fuck you up"

Aren't you American? America is one of the most aggressive, violent, threatening governments in the world.
Didn't Obama even say something along the lines of the nation state is the monopoly of violence.
Ontop of the military bases America has all over the world, the police brutality, so on and so on.

---

(December 13, 2016 at 11:49 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The social contract legitimizes the threatened punishments for dodging taxes. Even anarchists benefit from government expenditures; Kazcinski wouldn't have been able to pursue his anarchist aims without using the roads built with taxes.

I think people who believe in capitalism and anarchy believe in the privatisation of road building.
Not that I'm an anarchist myself. I'm all for good old fashioned government built roads.

I think the claim that most rights are a threat of government violence is overstated. The State provides penalties for the violation of the rights of others and for (as Thump intimated) willful violation of the social contract, but the threat of violence from the state - provided one lives in a liberal democracy - is pretty minimal.

In the case of not paying taxes that support education, the violence isn't for not ponying up, it is for resisting arrest, two monumentally different violations. If you don't pay your taxes, you may be fined, have a lien places against your property or income, and so forth. If you don't pay your taxes, it isn't as if jackbooted thugs come to your home and beat you with clubs until you pay.

Boru

(December 14, 2016 at 4:19 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(December 13, 2016 at 11:49 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The social contract legitimizes the threatened punishments for dodging taxes. Even anarchists benefit from government expenditures; Kazcinski wouldn't have been able to pursue his anarchist aims without using the roads built with taxes.

I think people who believe in capitalism and anarchy believe in the privatisation of road building.
Not that I'm an anarchist myself. I'm all for good old fashioned government built roads.

You're missing my point. No matter what they believe, the fact is, they avail themselves of the very institution they assert they wish to abolish.

(December 14, 2016 at 9:36 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 14, 2016 at 4:19 am)paulpablo Wrote: I think people who believe in capitalism and anarchy believe in the privatisation of road building.
Not that I'm an anarchist myself. I'm all for good old fashioned government built roads.

You're missing my point. No matter what they believe, the fact is, they avail themselves of the very institution they assert they wish to abolish.

Which puts me in mind of the man who drove his car (equipped with government mandated safety features) over public roads to the local government council hall to bitch, 'What has the government ever done for me?'

Boru

(December 14, 2016 at 9:52 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 14, 2016 at 9:36 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You're missing my point. No matter what they believe, the fact is, they avail themselves of the very institution they assert they wish to abolish.

Which puts me in mind of the man who drove his car (equipped with government mandated safety features) over public roads to the local government council hall to bitch, 'What has the government ever done for me?'

Boru

Exactly. I know a guy on another forum who bitterly rails against the taxes he pays on his home annually as being confiscatory. He quite sensibly called the fire department when it caught on fire; yet after that, he continued to rail against the taxation levied upon him.

It seems he thought the fire department was supported by bake-sales and charitable donations?

(December 14, 2016 at 10:16 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: It seems he thought the fire department was supported by bake-sales and charitable donations?

Depends where he lives. Around here, yes, the fire departments are volunteer nonprofit organizations that rely on charitable donations, raffles, bingo, etc.

Anarchists are stupid.

There's not really much more that needs to be said about that.