Why Anarcho-Capitalism Is a Canard and Its Implications for Atheism

[log]

Seems gratuitous to drag atheism into your thesis.  Not really interested in anarchy as a political system.  Thanks anyway.

An implicit point to the OP is there is no alternative to private property given human nature - fear - and apparent scarcity of resources - and that private property forms the basis of every other system out there, with some inclusions from religion, thus all social systems are doomed to fail, some slower, some quite a bit faster.

No alternative, that is, except for the social order predicated upon self-governance by the golden rule and preached by Jesus.

---

Whateverist
Seems gratuitous to drag atheism into your thesis. Not really interested in anarchy as a political system. Thanks anyway.

An implicit point to the OP is there is no alternative to private property given human nature - fear - and apparent scarcity of resources - and that private property forms the basis of every other system out there, with some inclusions from religion, thus all social systems are doomed to fail, some slower, some quite a bit faster, for the same reason: the drive to control both people and the environment necessarily generates conflict.

No alternative, that is, except for the social order predicated upon self-governance by the golden rule and preached by Jesus.

[The Grand Nudger]

Human nature is one of implicit cooperational bias.  I never get tired of having people with the lowest possible view of mankind tell us that they're in possession of the golden rule to rise up out of the muck they live in.

If that were so, in either regard, it would be apparent by now.

[robvalue]

I have no idea what's going on here. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, or a belief that there are no gods. That's it. It does not logically lead to any other position. An atheist is free to take any other position they want, on anything. I can believe that property rights are a matter for goats to decide, if I want.

[Cecelia]

No alternative, that is, except for the social order predicated upon self-governance by the golden rule and preached by Jesus.

If some guy 2000 years ago can make up a golden rule, I don't see what's stopping someone today from doing the same thing.  Especially since we have the internet now.

[robvalue]

The "Jesus" part is irrelevant. He just stole it from earlier religions anyway. It's common sense morality, which most atheists are fully aware of. (It needs fine tuning of course, because morality is far too complicated to be reduced to so few words.)

[chimp3]

The "Jesus" part is irrelevant. He just stole it from earlier religions anyway. It's common sense morality, which most atheists are fully aware of. (It needs fine tuning of course, because morality is far too complicated to be reduced to so few words.)

I prefer Rabbi Hillel"s (Contemporary of Jesus) Golden Rule : "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." This version allows us to tell those do gooders to mind their own business.

[brewer]

How about arguing against rape and theft to control those behaviors. Private property is a valid argument against those behaviors. God should have asked Marys permission before he knocked her up. Jesus should have paid for that donkey before he rode off on it. It is good to teach children that their body belongs to them so they can protect themselves against pedophile priests and preachers.

Even though your proposed solution, private property, must end in totalitarianism - lest anyone do what you think they oughtn't - and war - lest someone prevents you from doing what you wanna?

In this age of nuclear bombs, that can end us all.

---

And this has what to do with property?

You seem to be taking the high road here. Do you own property?

Do you withhold food from your child or your spouse until they pay you for it?  Do you threaten your spouse or your children with violence if they should touch your stuff?  I'm guessing no, because you love them.  That's what love has to do with property.

According to the laws of the land, I own property - the laws of the land threaten force against any who might take my possessions.  That's unavoidable in today's society.

However, as we both know, the argumentum ad hominem tu quoque is a fallacy.  We're talking about the way things are and how they should be on first principles - I don't much care for personal attacks.

OK, got it now. Hello POE.

Edit: Forgot to add hypocrite.

[Whateverist]

Seems gratuitous to drag atheism into your thesis.  Not really interested in anarchy as a political system.  Thanks anyway.

An implicit point to the OP is there is no alternative to private property given human nature - fear - and apparent scarcity of resources - and that private property forms the basis of every other system out there, with some inclusions from religion, thus all social systems are doomed to fail, some slower, some quite a bit faster.

No alternative, that is, except for the social order predicated upon self-governance by the golden rule and preached by Jesus.

This makes no sense. If I don't have the capacity to treat others equitably for reasons reflecting my own understanding then I will be no more able to do so by attempting to apply some external philosophy. For to do so I must interpret each situation and then apply this philosophy, but I can only do so using my own understanding.

[brewer]

Did log climb into my privately owned wood chipper?

That bastard, I'll sue!

[Cephus]

Oh good, a delusional political philosophy from someone with a delusional religious philosophy.